|
tubemonkey: If I understand you correctly, you see property rights as a good thing in itself. To you, anything that restricts property rights is automatically a bad thing. Is that correct?
To me, property rights is a tool in the toolbox of civilization. I will look at a specific instance of property rights, consider whether the result of that specific instance is good or bad for society as a whole, and be willing to ditch it if it's more bad than good. The stance that any restriction of property rights is theft makes even less sense to me than the classical "property is theft". To me, eminent domain is a good thing, just like copyright limits.
This means I hit a dead end when I try to argue about copyright with you. I can argue that eternal copyright will have more negative than positive effects on society. But if you see those effects as secondary, and see a restriction -- any restriction -- on property rights as an evil in itself, then the discussion can't go anywhere.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood you!
leebase: Unlike tubemonkey, you seem to argue for eternal copyright because you think it will have good effects on culture and creativity, not because you think it's a good thing in itself. In other words, if you concluded that eternal copyright would be negative for culture and creativity, you would change your stance about eternal copyright. Is that correct?
|