Richard... You are forgiven for feeling a bit 'miffed' this morning..:-) but, I think that we should leave this one alone as I think that you are just about to open a can of 'bad feeling'...
I agree with you, but only to a very limited extent, that intellectual property should be protected... however, I disagree strongly with your view that not maintaining the protection of intellectual property would remove the motivation for creation... but I am going to stop right here as I would begin to 'rant' ...:-) Dixie > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:29:59 -0800 > From: ambassa...@fourthworld.com > To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Subject: Re: Shoutout to Colin > > Robert Sneidar wrote: > > > There ought to be some kind of clause in copyrights where if a > > producer who is not the author or developer of something sits > > on it and does not produce a product from it within a certain > > time frame, say 5 years, the author has the right to reproduce > > it themselves. > > While I can appreciate the sentiment, I have to say I would disagree > with this in practice. > > The most important element of intellectual property is the international > respect for the act of creation, the recognition that the creator of a > work has complete say over how it's distributed from the very moment of > creation through a period of at least several decades afterward. > > This is essential to maintain the motivation for creation. After all, > if there's no motivation to create, there's nothing to argue about > distribution over, since the work would never have existed to begin with. > > For this reason I would tread with great caution into any area of > copyright law which might in any way inhibit the rights of creators. > > Any creator can choose any terms they like for anything they create, no > matter how unreasonable they may seem. If I write a trivial software > product and demand $500,000 for it, that's fully my right - and yours to > ignore and just go build your own. > > And if I write a novel and choose to cease publication after a certain > number of years, or to never publish it at all, that's also my right. > And you still always retain the right to write your own novel as an > alternative to my seeming unreasonableness. > > The remedy for what we might see as abuses is up to us as consumers. If > a company like Adobe puts out great products like GoLive and LiveMotion, > and later abandons them and locks them away, we've come to learn what > sort of company they are and can make different choices going forward. > > No matter what else we might consider, the rights of a creator are > paramount, since without them we risk having no creations at all. > > > Forgive me if I sound pedantic this morning, but I've been reading some > arguments in the FOSS world and there's just a bit too much "gimme gimme > gimme!" going on in some circles for my temperament, too much emphasis > on what some users feel they should be able to demand from creators but > not enough about reciprocal considerations. > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World > LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com > Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
