The whole "scarcity" argument of the Free Software people is unbearably dishonest.
Why is it moral for Donald Trump to inherit real-estate and for an abstraction like Elf-Acquitine to "own" rights to oil in Nigeria,
It is not.
but immoral for an inventor to "own" rights to the product of her labor?
Ah, come on. Like IP is something that benefits inventors and not huge companies. I must have missed that when huge corporations and associations for corporations loobied IPRED2 through the European parliament. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
But if you are against all ownership, you have a rational point of view, just not one with much chance of success. If, on the other hand, you think that investors should be able to earn "interest" on "money", but musicians should not be able to own performances, you have position that Rupert Murdoch would like, but not one that I find reasonable.
In the US, still, some inventors make money from IP just as some musicians do. I am personally in favor of Yo Yo Ma being wealthy and independent thanks to his "ownership" of recordings instead of having to put his hat on the street corner.
If you can make a living on performances you have no problem with or without IP, though you are better of without. Live performances are more popular then ever at the same time as record companies are having troubles. Artists generally get a much greater cut of profits from live performances then records so this benefits artists. People generally has a limited budget for music and other cultural activities and downloading music frees more money for conserts as well as gives opportunities for easier discovery of new bands.
Most inventors work for big companies so the IP rights of their work belong to the big company anyway. But I won´t deny that there are a few musicians and inventors who benefits from the system. Though the big beneficiaries are the huge corporations that keep pushing for more IP rights. It would be to obviously selfserving if they said so so they prefer to hold up the poor musician and lone genius inventor instead.
But since you hold no love for these huge corporations I guess you simply think it is better with a system that benefits a few on the expense of the many? Even if it incidentally benefits these huge corporations the most? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
This is the opinion of the ex-programmers who are politicians, but musicians do not agree.
To me, "free IP" is merely a variation of "free trade" - another scam advertised as idealism.
For example was TRIPS promoted as part of "free trade" and opposed by those opposing "free trade". A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Look at the EU patent directive: not one big business talked against it. Zero.
How's that coherent with your view?
Only SME went to the fight, but commission listen only to big business and not to innovative SME.
Do you think it is immoral to restrict employment to union members?
Yes, and we have no such laws in Sweden. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
I think it is a bad strategy to restrict employment to union members if that is what you are fighting. Then you will create a division among workers. I think it is much better to go for the law and get rid of employment at will. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Their is a scarcity of labour, as there is a limited number of people on this planet. Latvians can move to Sweden to work because they are within the EU. Few do however as most employments demand that you speak fluent swedish.
Employment is scarce if the economic system makes it so.
There is no difference between requiring that employers have a duty to pay salary and requiring that listeners to a recorded performance pay the artist.
Yes there is. In the first case A has to pay B for B to do something, in the second A has to pay B for A to be allowed to do something.
On the other hand:
There is no difference between requiring that readers of a written text pay the writer and requiring that listeners to a recorded performance pay the artist. So in accordance with your reasoning that would be a euro, thank you. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
As for employment, I think you are being evasive. Abolition of employment at will is a legal grant of an "ownership right" to employees.
Do you also think that publishers should be able to make copies of authors books without paying them?
The rights regarding employment are rights, but I do not se it as similar to ownership right, unless you want to make all rights similar. You can of course call the right to free speach an "ownership right" if you like but I fail too see the relevance.
For their own personal use? Yes.
To sell, I think there should be a limited period of revenue-sharing with the author, before they pass into public domain. Just as today, though I also believe that the current time of liftime + 70 years is extremely excessive.
Actually I think that revenue-sharing is the right way to understand a reasonable copyright. And when there is no revenue stream, as in if I email you a song or text, there is no percentage. Back up some time and that was the way copyright was understood.
I note that we are getting quite off the original topic which was patents. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
The intellectual objection I have to the argument you and others make on this subject is inconsistency. If you accept the modern world economy in which one can buy and sell bets on the gradients of price changes of options to purchase shares of companies that exist only to trade similar rights as "property" and where the economic value of such unfair and arbitrary "things" as holding an EU passport or a collective bargaining agreement are as solid as gold coins, then it is inconsistent to find rights to performance or inventions unethical.
The political objection is that your program essentially makes writers, musicians, inventors, and others into wage employees of publishers and distributors. I think that Merck should have to pay royalties to Amazonian indian tribes who discover medical herbs and Siemens should have to pay royalties to Serbian inventors who figure out how to make motors run on alternating current and that Yo Yo Ma should be able to live on royalties instead of following the tradition of begging royalty.
The intellectual objection I have to the argument you and others make on this subject is inconsistency.
This is a strawman but you are probably not aware of it. There is no "the argument you and others make on this subject" against IP as well as there is no "the argument you and others make on this subject" pro IP.
If I am inconsistent with others is of little concern to me. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
If I eat your apple, you don't have any apple left.
If I copy your song or invention, you still have it.
If your read the USA constitution you'll see that IP is clearly defined as optional, IP may be created by congress only under certain condition, that is to say increase progress.
And the KSR ruling is clear on it: if the patent regime does not promote progress, it is unconstitutionnal in the USA period. Same thing for copyright.
