Re: Copyrights and Wrongs, from The Netly News

[TruthMonger <tm@dev.null>]

Jon Galt wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Mikhael Frieden wrote:
> >         Perhaps but there is something particularly obnoxious to the rule
> > of law when scum like McVay being able to say to the effect, 'I know I am
> > stealing from you. Sue me.'

> I'll mention something else that is simply not done in civilized
> society:  forcefully preventing someone from peacefully using information
> that they have, simply because someone else supposedly "owns" that
> information.
> 
> I'm not making any comment about the people that were referred to above.
> I'm making a comment about copyright laws.
> 
> You cannot *own* an idea.

Copyright is one of those ideas which seems to have more benefits than
downsides until it actually comes into common use in a wide variety
of areas. As always, the thieves and scum at the top of the food chain
manage to mark the legislative trail so that all roads lead to their
own hungry mouths.

Thanks to copyright, instead of listening to the spritit of the muse,
we end up listening to the canned muzak in the supermarket, and the
shrink-wrapped former musicians on the radio.
Copyright invariably ends up being 'Corporationright.'

The standard argument for Copyright is that it encourages creative
people to produce and share ideas, etc.
Bullshit. It encourages Record Companies to pay songwriters a 
hundred bucks a week to live in a shack at the back of the parking
lot and crank out ten or twenty bullshit tunes a day. It also
encourages the companies to promote dogs that they have heavy
(cocaine up the nose) investments in, and add a lot of flash to 
the packaging so nobody notices their 'artists' are just barking.

The same applies to drug and pharmaceutical copyrights.
All of a sudden, Madam Curie's grandaughter can't experiment 
with titanium, because it sounds like uranium, and the corporate
lawyers are worried. Marcus Polo can't work on a cure for
Polio, because the bean counters have determined that there
is more money in treating Polo injuries, and they get a kickback
from the gypsum companies that provide cast materials.

Copyright, in the end, leads to labor and products being priced,
not according to their usefulness, but according to what level
of restriction there is as to who is 'allowed' to produce or
use the ideas inherent in the labor or product.

Copyright is an excellent example of a legislative construct
which is not dripping with inherent evilness, having no redeeming
value, but is actually a rather innocuous little wart which 
has been legislated into becoming a giant cancer by those who
have positioned themselves to make money off its treatment.

Be wary of legislators who propose legislation which contains
fine print saying, "Except for me and my pals..."

TruthMonger