fisher26 Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 This is sort of an odd question to post on a FF board, but what the heck. Does anyone know concrete arguments for abolishing copyright? Regards, Fisher Quote
headscan Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/13656.html Quote
Flytyer Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Nasty can worms that will open if it happens...I personally can see some cases where it may be good but others that it will be down right deterimental eg writers and photographers artists will be left out to dry in this case Quote
dryfly Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 INHO big business will never allow it .. nor will the "arts" community. As for banning copyright for writers and photographers, Flytyer is correct. It is bad enough now, but artists simply will never let their stuff go if it is not protected. That is contrary to the basic tenet of the professors. i.e. it will stifle creation. Eliminating copyright would mean that literature and art are not protected. We could all steal any creation of another. We could photograph original works of art (say, paintings) and sell reproductions. We could steal great works of literary art. That would stifle creation which is contrary to what the professors were claiming. They seemed to be more concerned with protection of technological advances. They mention high cost of drugs. Fine, but when it takes many (many) millions and many years to create a new medicine a company deserves protection. Not offering that protection would mean new medicines are not created contrary to what the profs say. The only way around that is to "nationalize" drug production and let the government handle it all like in extreme socialist or communists states. Humm ... not happening. They make a good case on one point, "The authors argue that license fees, regulations and patents are now so misused that they drive up the cost of creation and slow down the rate of diffusion of new ideas." Most of us could never afford to patent anything. Just too damn many regs and lawyers involved. Let's put the article in perspective. These guys are economists that have scant connection with the real world. If all the economists in the world were lined up end to end up in a row ... that would a good thing. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.