The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Jb]

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.7.1218945114.19733.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:12:37AM +0100, Jb wrote:
>> No-one is trying
>> to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact
>> trying
>> to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where
>> ideas
>> and artist works flourish.
>
> Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
> matters is the results.

Because rights are what lead us to those results. Human rights are what make
society more fair, compasionate, and inclusive. For example.


> If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
> great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
> focused.

That's pretty much where my defense has been focused.


> Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
> law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
> want to set).

It is the law that decides what rights we have. You cannot talk about this
without talking about rights.


> Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
> be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).

I think the mistake you and Yigal are making is assuming that it should all 
be done in the same way. Red Hat does this or that why cant everyone else? 
Well the system should allow people as much freedom as possible to work on 
whichever business model best suits their enterprise.

Which is pretty much what we have today. By allowing authors to control 
distribution they can control the business model. They can give it away if 
they like. They can go for a service model, and honesty box model, or a 
product model.

But if you take away that right the range of options open to them is far 
smaller.

And you would see far less enterprise because of it.