[Upd-discuss] Copyright has no purpose

[Lavallée Marc]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> She went on to say that copyright was a tool 
> that people could use for various purposes.

Like creating a derivative called copyleft?
Copyleft as a copyright hack?

Michael S. Hart wrote:
 > The entire PURPOSE of copyright has been to DEFEAT these technologies!
 >
 > 1.  The Gutenberg Press
 > 2.  Steam and electric presses.
 > 3.  The Xerox machine.
 > 4.  The Internet.


We know that you and Mr. Stallman are facilitating access to these 
technologies.

My comprehension of copyright is to regulate, in legal terms, what is 
possible to do with a creation. The problem is that copyright is mostly 
a restrictive tool for the exclusive profit of owners. But basically, 
copyleft is using a similar mechanism than copyright to achieve a 
different goal. Copyleft, as a concept, must be compared to copyright. 
Copyleft is a necessary word to oppose to copyright. Public domain is 
usually defined as the last stage of the usage of copyright. So maybe 
Ms. Jones has a point, copyright could be used for various purposes, but 
it is simply not the right word to use for those other purposes...

Since copyright seems to be a very bad word, very politically incorrect, 
maybe we need to use a neutral word, simply to express the idea of 
"access regulation", from "non-free" to "free". I don't know which word 
(I'm french speaking), and it probably exist . I'd prefer to use 
concepts that are strong enough to avoid refering to copyright all the 
time. Copyright, as a word, should be rendered obsolete...

--
Marc