On 28/03/2011 12:43, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
b.com...
On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser


My view, FWIW, is that without copyright few people, however much
they might
want to, could afford to produce the sort of "works" that copyright
currently protects. In the particular case of film making the sheer
cost of
the process would, IMO, mean the end of the film industry as we know it.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise
of the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't
eat' if there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant)
minority. In much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a
result of bankers' excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't
make it right. Also, distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair -
this notion that the sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is
fanciful. And perhaps 'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off
the back of copyright revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the
problems we have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off
for free but,

Yes, I have a problem with that. But *I* think I do more or less the
right thing overall.

at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of
society should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when
most of us are not?

Yes. Its the equivalent of job for life if you hit lucky.

Rob