Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (969)	1/17/2003 8:52:30 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 7936

OK but I'm not talking about pirates, I'm talking about hastleing the people who buy your software. Not letting them make back up copies and controling how they use the software. Thats what the movie studios are trying to do with their ouput. And it won't stop serious pirates who will be able to crack it, it will just annoy legitmate users. We agree about this.

To: TimF who wrote (969)	1/17/2003 10:44:34 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Of course,the straight libertarian position is that property is property, and it is heritable, and therefore that copyrights and patents should exist in perpetuity, although, in practice, they are not fully enforceable, as when Xeroxes are made without permission. Limitation of copyright is based on a calculation of social, or common, good. The case is especially strong with patents, or copyrights of software. Invention can be impeded if there is not an eventual introduction of such material into the public domain, so that codes and design features could stimulate development. But even with literature, the idea that no one can put a stranglehold on the use of a book, or make one run through discouraging hoops, as my wife once had to do to get permission to copy T S Eliot's "Notes Towards a Definition of Culture" from his widow, for use in a seminar, so that knowledge and opinion may freely circulate, is invigorating. (Mrs. Eliot insisted upon personal approval, not merely a licensing fee, and therefore held up the process nearly to the date of the intended seminar). A reasonable calculation would be to consider when the value of the copyright is so diluted that the probable disadvantage to any heirs would be modest compared to the public benefit. In such a case, conserving the copyright beyond the first generation of heirs is unwise. With patents, the question becomes, in addition, how long can one permit a monopoly without deleterious consequences. There might, of course, be a transitional solution, requiring licensing of an innovation to competitors after a certain term, with eventual devolution to the public domain. It is unlikely that society can afford to preserve the patent for the heirs, in most cases. Anyway, I find it interesting to see a clear cut instance where the idea of the common good plays a useful normative role, and counters the absolute assertion of property rights......