Re: SV: SV: Knight and Public Domain

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

-- On Fri, 5/16/08, Tommy Tyrberg <tommy.tyrberg@norrkoping.mail.telia.com> 
wrote:

> From: Tommy Tyrberg <tommy.tyrberg@norrkoping.mail.telia.com>
> Subject: SV: SV: Knight and Public Domain
> To: d_ohmes@yahoo.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
> Date: Friday, May 16, 2008, 2:35 PM

> > 
> > Now it is not immediately obvious to me that e. g.
> playing
> > a tune is
> > intrinsically a more demanding or worthy pursuit than
> > inventing the
> > aeroplane. 
> 
> Uh, strongly disagree. Unlike Wright's aircraft, there
> is no 'greater
> good' argument to justify ripping off Knight or his
> heirs (for example).
> What, the progress of civilization requires that people be
> able download
> a song for free?
>  
> So Your argument is that because an invention does humanity
> âgreater
> goodâ than for example a song, that is a valid reason for
> rewarding the
> songwriters grandchildren but not the inventors?
> 
> I must say I canât quite follow the logic here

> Tommy Tyrberg

So allowing the songwriters grandchildren to keep what is rightfully theirs is 
"rewarding" them? 

What kind of logic is that? It sounds like your primary assumption is that no 
one has any property rights at all, and that not being ripped off for original 
work is a "reward".

Actually, it is not my logic, although I endorse it enthusiastically; 'greater 
good' is the moral basis for the relative expiration times (patent vs 
copyright) you mentioned. 

Disfranchisement of the songwriter's grandchildren does not serve any greater 
social purpose than make it convenient for a third party to use a song for 
profit; e.g., as a jingle for petfood. Why would a lawful society allow such a 
taking?

The 'greater good' of economical and technological development is the legal 
rationale and justification for the disenfranchisement of the inventor (and 
heirs) w/in a relatively short time frame... 

Don