Text 1040, 79 rader
Skriven 2004-10-23 13:38:56 av Don Hills (1:379/45)
    Kommentar till text 979 av Gary Wiltshire (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Article on WIPO & the public good
=============================================
From: dmhills@attglobal.net (Don Hills)

In article <opsf57txsceipai0@news.barkto.com>, "Gary Wiltshire" <gaw@sover.net>
wrote:
>Fuck yes, I own what I create.  The moment what I create is not protected
>I will not create.

No problem there. You can create something - a machine, a "work of art" such as
a painting or sculpture, a software program. So long as you keep it to
yourself, it is yours.

As soon as you sell the machine, you no longer own it - it is "public"
property. Even if you only exhibit or lease the machine, other people can
produce a derivative. Your protection against others duplicating it and making
money from doing so is the patent system. You have the duration of the patent
in which to profit from your work (usually by selling copies of, or the rights
to copy the patented parts of) the machine.

As soon as you sell the "work of art", you no longer own it - it is "public"
property. Even if you only exhibit or lease it, other people can produce a
derivative. Your protection aginst others duplicating it and making money from
doing so is the copyright system. You have the duration of the copyright in
which to profit from your work (usually by selling copies of, pr the rights to
copy) the work.

As soon as you sell the software program, you no longer own it - it is "public"
property. Even if you only exhibit or lease it, other people can produce a
derivative. Your protection aginst others duplicating it and making money from
doing so is both the patent and copyright systems. You have the duration of the
patents and copyright in which to profit from your work (usually by selling
copies of, or the rights to copy) the work.

Actually, there's an interesting difference between patents and copyright: A
patent doesn't bar you from making a copy of the patented item. It prevents you
from distributing or selling the copy. You can make a copy of a patented lock
and mount it on your front door, for example. The system works because the cost
of duplicating the item is usually non-trivial and beyond the skills and
resources of most people.

A similar situation applies to art, witness the number of amateur copies of
copyrighted works of art hanging on the copy creators' living room walls. The
system works because the "art world" values the original much more highly than
the copy and it is (usually) easy to tell the difference.

Software programs are a more complex area. There is no culture of valuing the
original (or authorised copy) more than the original. Creators try to patent
aspects of the software. Those aspects can be duplicated by anyone for their
own use, whereas if they are copyrighted they cannot (in most cases). For
example, an alorithm used in a spreadsheet program may be patented. I can use
the algorithm in a software program that I write for my own private use, but I
cannot use an (unauthorised) copy of the spreadsheet program or the section of
it embodying the algorithm.


I feel that the problem with the patent and copyright systems is that they are
not perceived as fair and equitable. All other things being equal, if you
create something in 5 minutes you'll expect be paid (or expect to buy it for) a
small amount of money. If it takes you 5 years to produce, you'll expect to be
paid (or expect to buy it for) a large amount of money. Problem is, there is no
practical way of fairly determining the amount of time and effort put into a
given creation and thus fairly determining the appropriate amount of
compensation.

I realise the above may seem a socialist attitude, so let's see it in  a
capitalist light: Whatever you create, you can sell for whatever the market
determines it is worth. Your creativity is compensated by being granted the
exclusive right to sell copies (or the right to copy) that work.

Either way, your creative effort was finite and so should be your right to be
compensated for it. Copyrights, like patents, should have a definite (and
fairly short in human lifespan terms) time limit.

--
Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics are governed by
people who are not as smart.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)