Re: Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)

Mr. Bodi. I think your analysis of "why would someone pay for something they could get for free" henges on unsupported premises?

Your paragraph "Here is where Keith misses the whole point of copyright. The problem is that there is NO QUALITY issue, because copying is EXACT. Hence, nobody is going to PAY for a work if they are legally allowed to get it for free. That goes for graphics images, books, music, etc. Copyright gives the person who did the intellectual labor some ability to control his work, and gain some monetary value for it. Why would somebody hire Linda for her work if they could take it without consequences? "has several assumptions besides the word "nobody" ?

1. premise that no one will pay for something they can get for free! what about the billions that are raised each year by charities and the subscriptions and free internet sites that are supported by user contributions, even though the user can view for free?
2. premise that the intellectual laboror is entitled to control a work after its completion! Here the copyright laws destory the collaborative benefits of interaction, best enabled by the internet. One piece could over the net accumulate to be a work that has the input of millions of editors and contributors, but for the copyright laws. A good example that better products comes from the collorboration of thousands is the product called "linux".
3. premise that intellectual labor is entitled to collect millions (or multiples) of times for a single intellectual effort! Intellectual labor is just like ditch digger labor, and is entitled to be paid one time for each time segment of its work. But for the gift of government monopoly and converted thoughts of the human mind to private property, the intellectual laboror would be paid only once if the work produced enough in value to warrant a payment at all.
4. premise that all intellectual labor is entitled to some payment!
5. premise that the intellectual creations that result from intellectual labor should be the works of but one or a few contributors! It took thousands of people to educate the person(s) who labored with their intellectual shovels to learn how to produce the kinds of things that the public will pay for. The persons who paid for all of that instruction are entitled to a share in the work of each and every intellectual contribution.
6. premise that the intellectual creations are entitled to use the public infrastructures for distribution and demand creation without compensating the public for its use!

And on and on and on.

Patents and copyrights account for a percentage of the American Economy (most of it going to the Aristocrats) and the simultaneous loss of jobs throughout Amercia (most of it detracting from the middle and lower classes). When a few people (human and non human alike) own all of the creations of the human mind they will relocate the means of production that build marketable products from those human mind creations, to places where the labor and other factors of product are the cheapest. This is so because the IP monopoly is worldwide so it does not matter where in the world production occurs.

sterling

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Robert F. Bodi wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Handley" <kehandley89[_at_]alumni.amherst.edu>
> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property"
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 4:55 PM
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)
>
>
> >
> > > and consider them in a context that makes sense to YOUR livelihood.
> Would
> > > you mind if someone went to your employer and offered to do your job for
> > > free? If you own a restaurant, would you mind if the city council and
> the
> > > churches in town decided it would be good for tourism and church coffers
> if
> > > there were a perpetual food festival set up on the sidewalk right
> outside
> > > your establishment? If you are a doctor, would you mind if pharmacists
> claim
> > > the right to write prescriptions for free so patients don't have to
> visit a
> > > doctor for simple prescriptions?
> >
> > You've just described a world (except for the city council part)
> > that I'd love to live in. Sure, I'd be chagrinned when my employer
> > said he was letting me go because someone else was going to undercut
> > me on salary, but I'd ask my employer to consider the quality of work
> > he's getting for free.
>
> Here is where Keith misses the whole point of copyright. The problem is
> that there is NO QUALITY issue, because copying is EXACT. Hence, nobody is
> going to PAY for a work if they are legally allowed to get it for free.
> That goes for graphics images, books, music, etc. Copyright gives the
> person who did the intellectual labor some ability to control his work, and
> gain some monetary value for it. Why would somebody hire Linda for her work
> if they could take it without consequences?
>
> -Bodi
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
Received on Mon Oct 20 2003 - 19:25:24 GMT