On 2006-08-19, Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Scott Nudds <Nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> I'd personally like to see culture owned by "the people", of course,
>>> but I think that the networks have a long way to go before we get cost
>>> effective designs in place which can support streaming, messages and
>>> file transfer economically.
>>
>> But that's pure communism.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about the means of producing economic goods and who owns
> those means, I'm talking about culture. I'm not talking about common
> ownership of property, I'm talking about culture.
>
There is an important distinction to make here. Communism in
practice does not give "the people" access to the means of production,
capitalism does. This is an important element of communism versus
capitalism as it exists in practice that cannot be glossed over.
Captitalism is what gives ME, the wannabe entrepeneur or just
artisan the means to produce. Communism doesn't do this. It's simply
totalitarianism with some lip service.
The "worker" in communism doesn't own his factory. The state
does. Communism represents central ownership not distributed ownership.
Similarly, an author in Soviet Russia did not get the copyright
on his work. The state did and the state still does hold copyright on
those Soviet works.
The public domain merely gives individuals freedom to build and
create in an environment as free as possible from various bullshit that
would tend to interfere with the creative process. THIS is what has
created the American economy. Attempts to alter this is what will
ultimately destroy the American economy.
The current copyright regime is simply bad for business. It
interferes with the next generation of "entrepenuers" in the same
way that more conventional monopolies and graft do.
Copyright as it exists now is just bad business.
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
|
|
