On Wed, 31 May 2000, David Hale <dhale[_at_]aggt.com> wrote:
>
> If I create something, it is mine, not yours, and not the public's.
> I do not have to give you access to it; I can take it to my grave
> my secret. If I don't have copyright to back me up, I will either
> not give you access without a contract in which you explicitly
> promise me your first born if you reproduce it, or I will not
> create it in the first place if such a contract is found to be
> not enforceable.
Hello,
I feel the need to jump in here. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like the polemics in this field are not useful. It is important to keep in mind that copyright is an artificial constraint. It seems valuable -- is it really fair for those that work creatively not benefit from that work? On the other hand, to say that creative work will disappear without it, or enforceable contract, is ridiculous. It's not *that* long ago that there was no such thing as copyright, and I don't think any one would say that earlier times were creatively lacking due to lack of copyright. Renaissance anyone?
I don't think that the current copyright system is perfect -- in fact, I'm quite concerned with the trends in copyright legislation towards taking away the ability of libraries and others to share materials they have purchased. Neither do I think that copyright should go away altogether. But I don't think it's helpful to attack people's morals for differences in opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like a modicum of common sense would be helpful. Flames can begin immediately.
Freya Anderson
<libkitty[_at_]hotmail.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:39 GMT