Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 03:36:48 -0500
Subject: Re: The rearview mirror stage


Technology is making CD copyrights obsolete.  Copyrights and
patents encourage the creation of something unique.  The intent was to help
artist or inventor recover costs and make a reasonable profit.

The intent was not to copyright a CD of Windows and let Bill Gates sell 100
million copies of that CD for  several hundred dollars each,  and make
copyrighted modifcations every two or three years so he could become the the
wealthiest man on Earth

In spite of copyrights, technology and competition are reducing the value of
Windows.  It has become enormously complex with many features most users
don't need.

Big pharmaceutical corporations are patenting genes, which is
another way to prey on the public in the same way they market
prescription drugs.  Now Congress is expected to use public funds to help
pensioners pay for them.  This will encourage the drug companies companies
to raise the absurd (but protected) price of new drugs to new heights.  .

Regards,
Hugh


>      I completely disagree with your analysis. If Napster is required to
> compensate the recording industry for the unlicensed distribution of
> copyrighted material, is this such a bad thing? After all,  there are
> provisions in the Constitution to protect copyrights, as well as a body of
> statutes which are clearly intended to exclusively protect the creator of
the
> copyrighted material. Directly on point, the 1976 Copyright Act has
> provisions for the exclusive commercial appropriation of the copyright for
> the life of the author plus 70 years, entailing the exclusive control of
the
> distribution, public performance and reproduction of the material. In my
> view, as well as the court's view, Napster did not substantially comply
with
> the spirit of the relevant statutes (especially the distribution component
of
> the statute).
>       Napster profited from copyright infringement. They profited from a
> parasitical relationship to the recorded music, from the ingenuity and
> creativity of the rightful copyright owners. Their ethical stance is no
> different than a distributor of stolen watches or stereos.  Napster simply
> facilitated the unlawful distribution of copyrighted materials, which is a
> prima facie violation of criminal statutes.
>       Why should someone invest time and money in the production,
> manufacturing, marketing and distribution of music, if they are not going
to
> be compensated for their efforts?  Why should a pharmaceutical company,
for
> example, invest millions of dollars in R&D, marketing, manufacturing and
> distribution if the patent is not going to be enforced?
>        Implicitly, you are questioning the wisdom of the intellectual
> property statutes. Their repeal would be unfair to creators of
intellectual
> property, as well as injecting disorder into the market economy.
>                             TRV
>