Klarinet Archive - Posting 000111.txt from 2010/07

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:50:56 -0400

At 03:57 AM 7/7/2010, you wrote:
>On 07/07/2010 05:38 AM, Bill Hausmann wrote:
> > I'll wager it is NOT "perfectly legal." If it is, anyone who pays
> > for it is a fool, and Red Hat Enterprise would be wise to get out of
> > the losing business.
>
>Then you'd lose your bet -- it is perfectly legal. :-)
>
>Red Hat has even ensured that it is technically _easy_ for CentOS to do
>this. Neither they nor their customers are fools, the business is
>highly profitable (revenues of almost $750 million so far this year, net
>income of $87M) and it has been showing ongoing growth despite the
>current financial downturn.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat

OK, they have a business model where they make their money by
charging for something OTHER THAN the program, such as support
services. Composers do not realistically have such an option. They
MAY have other sources of income, and MAY chose to compose anyway and
give the music away, but, again, it is THIER option and THEIRS alone.

> > The main problem with drug patents is that the FDA approval process
> > takes so long, the patents are nearly expired by the time the drugs
> > gets to market, reducing the opportunity to recoup development
> > costs. The "public good" is only served by encouraging the
> > development, and reducing the profit opportunity DECREASES the incentive.
>
>On the contrary, a clear point of concern is that "the profit
>opportunity" is providing the wrong incentives to drug companies -- the
>speed of the approval process doesn't come into it.
>
> >From the link I cited:
>
> "The report concludes that intellectual property (IP) is
> irrelevant in stimulating innovation for many of the diseases
> affecting people in developing countries, where patients have
> limited purchasing power. Furthermore, the report draws attention
> to the fact that patents can actually hamper innovation, by
> blocking follow-on research or access to research tools."
>
>Bear in mind that actually much of the major development costs are paid
>out of public money in any case. The marketing budget of major pharma
>companies dwarfs their R&D spend.

Frankly, your link is filled with flatulence and cannot be taken
seriously. And, although the marketing budgets are surely
substantial, I doubt they even approach the research budgets. And
the necessity to advertise prescription drugs is largely driven by
the short window of opportunity provided by current patent law.

>There's a common assumption that only by transforming the fruits of
>innovation into private property can we fully realize their benefits --
>an assumption fuelled by catchy concepts like "The Tragedy of the
>Commons" and so on. What's little realized is how ideological and
>divorced from actual empirical fact so much of that reasoning is.
>
> > "Net public welfare" is irrelevant. A person trying to reconcile
> > copying with a "moral" point of view really MUST consider the fact
> > that it against the law as something of a deal-breaker, whether or
> > not they happen to AGREE with the law.
>
>As I said, I'm not advocating breaking the law -- I'm advocating
>changing the law.
>
>"Net public welfare" is a repeated core concern in formulating copyright
>law, and has been the determining factor in many, many cases. See also
>the US Constitution. :-)

Which clearly protects the right of private property. "Promote the
general welfare" does not mean giving people everything for
free. That would be communism.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com