[free-sklyarov] Another ebook "processor"

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Brooklyn Linux Solutions wrote:
> <<No, it's not.  The intent is not to allow profit, but to allow CONTROL OF
> DISTRIBUTION AND PRESENTATION. >>
> 
> No.  That is not correct.  The original statement is correct.  It's a
> temporary franchise designed to promote the publications of works by
> increasing the possibiliy of profit.

Read Jefferson.  The possibility for monetary gain through the limited
monopoly of copyright (not so limited anymore, but I digress) is a
side-effect of the essential need to preserve the work in the author's
desired form.

> It's never been about absolute control of distribution or
> presentation....in fact, it was never about presentation at all.  It
> was always asumed that control would be lost of distribution and until
> recently, copyright violations were punished according to the
> comercial impact on the copyright franchise.

So how would one go about "punishing" a copyright violation on a freely
distributed pamphlet?

It's completely true that the courts have supported the notion that
copyright is a mechanism for protecting profits, but that argument does
not extend to copyright of not-for-profit works.

We cannot become a nation that recognizes only work for profit as valid.  
There are countless other modes of human interaction.  If the law favors
only the profit motive, then we will all become like the soulless
corporation, those "Frankensteins among us", as one Supreme Court Justice
put it, with no ability to reckon other values against greed.

> I dare you to discover any quotes from any founding father in
> relationship to the addition of the copyright clause which states
> otherwise.

I'd put you to the same challenge.

> In addition, I would add that this is not the same as the government
> guaranteeing that the franchise would be profitable.  It is only an
> attempt to give the copyright holder the shot at a profitable limited
> monopoly.

Well, other state granted monopolies DO receive guaranteed profits.

I disagree with both.  In fact, I think that if the public agrees that it
is appropriate for no competition to exist in a given endeavor, the public
should take that endeavor upon itself.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org