Quote:
Originally Posted by Leyor
I'm sorry, I'll rephrase that to: I've presented some historical facts, that's yet to be disproven.
|
You linked to one article that makes HUGE cause/effect leaps, ignores HUGE relevant "likely causal facts". It's an opinion piece that you agree with. It's not proof of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leyor
Despite that, I feel, being only my individual opinion, that this comparison being based on what we may consider somewhat accurate historical facts, presents a somewhat stronger statement than either presenting an individuals salary or just saying "no author made a living before copyright"
|
Who posited that? Offering up a red herring are we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leyor
By that I mean that I, I being an individual, has established, so far, that the historical claims presented so far has been inaccurate, and until disproven that Copyright, in that representative historical context, has had harmful implications for both authors and consumers. I, not being an authority on this subject, naturally not being able to establish this futher than you hopefully accepting the evidence given as credible and willing to debate it.
|
You are foisting off a red herring -- the notion that those arguing for the value of copyright are therefore arguing in favor of all aspects of copyright from the past unto today.
Not so. As you have correctly pointed out, the origins of the British copyright model were not about economics but about censorship and government control of ideas. Lumping those notions in with copyright as it was instituted in America and how it's used today is spurious to begin with.
Also, your historical facts support what today's copyright supports claim. Without copyright there is vast plagarism. That was true even back then and would be orders of magnitude more relevant today.
Yes, with copyright prices are higher. That's the VIRTUE of copyright, not a problem with copyright. The virtue of copyright allows there to be income from more than just direct labor. Beethoven could make money from teaching piano, of course. But with copyright, he could make money from creating a symphony -- and not just from his own performance of said symphony.
Today we have BOTH copyright AND the free exchange of ideas. Anyone who wants to put their work into the public domain can do so. Thanks to copyright, those who wish to control their creations and be paid for them can do so as well.
Your one link to a paper that tries to put all the differences between Germany and Britain on copyright is full of holes. Self evidently flawed.
Lee