[free-sklyarov] reasons for restriction of competition

[Chris Savage]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: DeBug [mailto:debug at centras.lt]
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 12:04 PM
>To: Chris Savage
>Subject: Re[4]: [free-sklyarov] reasons for restriction of competition
>
>>>You talk about what mass production together with efficiency
>>>can bring. What would happen if all people could have access
>>>to mass production lines. Just imagine automobile factory at
>>>your home.

>>Good question.  I don't know what would happen.

>All people would move from producing goods to creating and
>inventing new ones.

No, they wouldn't.  Creating is hard, and hard to get paid for.  Not
everyone likes it and not everyone is good at it.

>2)
>>>If new product creators were paid IN ADVANCE this would not happen.

>>Fair enough, but you are just moving the problem back one 
>>evel.  Who will pay in advance?

>Government should force people. Yeah, instead of trying to 
>enforce copyrights on people government should collect a tax for
>advancing "useful arts" etc.

I've lived in Washington, D.C. too long, I suppose, but my immediate
reaction is that government would screw that up.  How would the government
know which folks to suppor and which folks to blow off?

>>>(3) Therefore, unless we restrict copying, etc., there
>>>will be insufficient incentive for creative people to
>>>actually create and distribute their stuff.

>>Well, I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm "lying" by 
>>stating the normal rationale for copyright.

>Your rationale for copyright is right and i do agree with it.
>I do agree with the rationale but i do not agree with copyright
>Copyright is not a right way to advance "useful arts" etc.

OK.  What's the alternative?  One possibility is "none," i.e., the whole
thing is a mistake from the beginning and we don't need it at all.  But if
not that, what?

>It maybe working (and it really works) under certain conditions but
>in general it will fail unless conditions are artificially kept the
>same. Sklyarov case is a good example.

I disagree with you here.  I think the Sklyarov case reflects the DMCA,
which is the result of pro-copyright interests getting too aggressive in
their demands, both in getting the law passed and now in pushing for its
enforcement.  Copyright is supposed to be a balance.  The DMCA upsets that
balance.

<snip>

>>>there is a need to force them to create goods.
>
>>Where did "force" come from here?  People can produce or 
>>not.  It's up to them.

>This is what we started from. Copyrights are for forcing people
>to create "useful arts" etc. (sorry for my bad english - forcing
>is not a right word here , i meant stimulating)
>So i do certainly agree with you- not forcing but stimulating

OK, sorry I did't get right away that english was not your best language.
You were mostly good enough that I didn't make add any correction factor...

<snip>

>Government sais people they must pay for creating new activities, new
>businesses, new art works etc. In other words people must invest.
>If you do not invest - you pay for it. It is up for you to decide
>where you are going to invest or spend, but if you
>keep saving money - government immediatly takes the money away 
>from you.
>
>Don't you think people would invest into Smash Mouth or even
>garage bands if they new their money will be spent in any way

I understsand the sentiment, but I have a hard time figuring out how to make
it work in practice.

Chris S.


*************************************************************************** 
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or 
privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the 
message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission 
and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. 
***************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20010820/816ceece/attachment.html