Klarinet Archive - Posting 000112.txt from 2010/07

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Sheet music copyright
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:01:53 -0400

At 04:37 AM 7/7/2010, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
>On 07/06/2010 04:04 AM, Bill Hausmann wrote:
> >> However, when it comes to thinking about _what the law should be_, we
> >> can't simply go by what the current law says. We have to factor the
> >> natural dynamics of information exchange into the process. The quote I
> >> can't remember is illustrative of the latter, not the former.
> >
> > You can't change the law just because it has suddenly become
> > inconvenient. Your references to "natural law" are a cop-out and
> > invalid. Natural law says you own what is yours and can do with it
> > as YOU chose. Of course, that means if you CHOSE to give it away for
> > free, you can do so, and you might do that if you expect a payoff in
> > the long run. But no one else has the right to make that choice for you.
>
>I never used the phrase "natural law". That's your (mis)interpretation
>of what I'm saying.

"Natural dynamics." Whatever.

>Here is a simple, undeniable fact: if you come up with a novel idea,
>then it exists only in your head. You can do many things with it,
>keeping it in your head and not disclosing it to others.
>
>Here is another simple, undeniable fact: the moment you disclose that
>idea to another person, you have lost control of how it is used. The
>only way you can stop that other person doing whatever they want with it
>is by coercion of one form or another.

And this is EXACTLY why copyright law exists. Man discovered that
protecting the originator of the idea and allowing him to profit
therefrom was the best way to insure future innovation. He thus
needed to be protected through the law from others stealing the idea
without remuneration. It works for me.

>Hence the 18th-century quote (which I still can't find again, porca
>miseria) which talks of creations of the mind being property _up until
>their creator chooses to disclose them_: once they're disclosed, they
>don't behave like physical property any more, they have become part of a
>commonly-available resource (and unlike physical "common resources",
>they can be drawn from infinitely many times without denying them to
>others).

Not every word uttered in the 18th century was RIGHT.

>Now, present law has decided that in many cases creations of the mind
>_should_ be treated in a way very similar to physical property, and it
>applies coercion on individuals and organizations to ensure that they
>follow this rule. It's a matter of debate whether this is a good or a
>bad thing. However, it shouldn't be denied that such law is a creation
>of society, one that deliberately constrains the natural dynamics (note:
>dynamics, not law) of information exchange between individuals.

Yes, exactly, and for hundreds of years it has been considered a GOOD
thing, except by those who wish to gain by others' intellectual
products without paying for them.

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