Submission for rec-music-gaffa

[Dan Kozak <dbk@mimsy.umd.edu>]

Path: mimsy!dbk
From: dbk@mimsy.UUCP (Dan Kozak)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: More Ethical Shit Hits the Fan
Date: 23 Jun 89 22:57:48 GMT
References: <CMM.0.88.614358203.relph@PRESTO.IG.COM> <4064.8906210606@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: dbk@mimsy.umd.edu.UUCP (Dan Kozak)
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 40

>Really-From: Richard Caley <rjc%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK>

>The issue is not depriving KT of money, it is theft of intelectual
>property. It must say something about Americans that the first thing
>they start worrying about is the money :-)

>>All these copyright laws are well intentioned: they are
>>(theoretically) designed to make sure the artist continues to derive
>>revenue from her or his hard work.

>Nope they are designed to ensure that people who make something retain
>control of it. Revenue has nothing to do with it.

Strike two.  Allow me to quote from a recent message on gnu.gcc.  The
issue there was look and feel copyright law, but if you substitue
"recording artist" for inventor below, it makes just as much sense in
this disscussion.

The Constitution deals with intellectual property not in the Bill of
Rights, but in Section 8 of Article I, which enumerates the powers of
Congress.  The eighth of these is "to promote the progress of science
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
inventions."  It is quite clear this is a power of Congress, not a
right of the inventor.  Congress is given a clear quideline as to why
this power is given.  It is *not* to profit the inventor but to
"promote the progress of science and useful arts".  This of course
means money for the author or inventor, but that is only a side
effect.  Any privilege granted creates a lobby for its extension and
perpetuation, regardless of the original purpose of the privilege.
And in justifying extensions of intellectual property before Congress,
its claimants always pretend that they are being deprived of a right,
and treat the public benefit, which is the sole proper purpose, as a
secondary issue, or even an irrelevant one.

Any questions? :-)
-- 
#dan

Clever:         dbk@mimsy.umd.edu | "For I was rolled in water,
Not-so-clever:  uunet!mimsy!dbk   |  I was rolled out past the pier" - MoB