| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: kebera_-at-_Cyblings.ON.CA
Date: 3 Feb 1999 20:41:40 -0500
fowarded by request -keb ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: kebera@Cyblings.ON.CA Date sent: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 00:31:57 -0500 Some rough thoughts on the RMS discussion... Alan DeKok wrote: > Taken to the logical conclusion, then, ALL graduates of public > institutions should give away ALL of their work. Their knowledge was > based on free and public information, so their work should be free and > public, too... right? Right, sort of. They should give away *intellectual work products*. Their *time* must be paid for (along with the (negligible on the Net) cost of distribution). > No. My work is mine to do with as I please. If I use someone > else's work, then I reference it or pay I a royalty. But RMS doesn't > want references, and he doesn't want royalties. The above paragraph is an example of your work. I don't see any sources referenced - did you pay anyone? Wow you must be a genius to have come up with all that yourself. Sarcasm not to be taken personally - i'm making a point: I submit that everything written or said is derived from the public pool of knowledge. You wouldn't be able to say anything at all intelligible if you hadn't learned language from your parents and school. Particular circumstances may trigger in one person a new or better way of saying something, of rediscovering reality through different eyes. In other words, every idea is obvious and every expression of it a natural consequence under the right circumstances. We are indebted to our history and culture and life experiences. The test-and-branch instruction seems obvious now - but what if someone had patented it? Once you read an idea, it's in your head and you *will* use it elsewhere - you can't help doing so. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression (should) guarantee that you *may* use it. Copyright and patent are therefore infringements of basic human rights. Are they justified? The right to livelihood is cited as justification. However, if people are paid based on the *time* they spend, that argument does not apply. Indeed, there are people out of work because of monopolies. As Russell noted, the usefulness of intellectual property is an economic discussion. Cheers, Krishna -- Krishna E. Bera, "Programmer on the loose" PGP key at http://www.achilles.net/%7ekebera/
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|