View Single Post
Old 12-28-2007, 12:31 PM   #72
rlauzon
Wizard
rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.
 
rlauzon's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan View Post
The concept of copyright, a way to compensate people for intellectual works, is the highest morality.
And I'll ask again (since you failed to address it):
How does one compensate someone who is dead?

And I'll ask some more:
How do you, an author, compensate every other author you've stolen ideas from?
How do you compensate the public for the ideas you've taken from the public domain?

Copyright, as it stands today, is immoral. It permits a few to take but not give back.

IHMO: any author that releases any work under a standard copyright (as opposed to something like Creative Commons) intends to defraud the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan View Post
My expectations that the public should respect copyright is common sense.
It's common sense to respect the disrespectful?

You need to reevaluate your expectations.
rlauzon is offline   Reply With Quote