Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:55:14 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
> > Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
> > over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
> > reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
> > cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
> > who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
> The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
> small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
> creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered
So? If the creators choose to transfer some or all of their rights to
others, that's their right. They are perfectly free to retain all
rights and self-publish. As you note, this is vastly easier today then
it ever has been, due to the internet and the legal climate.
> to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> published. How many others did not make it?
Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
(and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?
> The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to
> publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content
> consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly
> proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and
> distributing it.
Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the value
is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their costs,
they're free not to purchase the works.