Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > As you say: "A copyright is an unsigned social contract enforced by law."
> > In essence it is a social agreement to attribute ownership and/or control
> > and/or rights of usage to an intellectual property.
> > Which is exactly what a private use contract between two parties would be.
> > Unlike your assertation above, they are -not- entirely different, in fact
> > they are fundamentally alike in terms of their nature-- they are arbitrary
> > agreements about the rights associated to a particular piece of information
> > or product. They both propose to control your use and rights by recourse to
> > legal means.
> Yes, they both have the same ends--but what I (and oddly, Mike, who's
> usually on the other side of me in these arguments) object to is the
> means, not the ends. We disagree only slightly in the desired ends--
> we both want creative work, but I see more incremental refinement while
> you want more long-term speculative creation. But the means matter.
> If I can acheive by contract what you want to achieve by law, then to
> me, that's reason enough to eliminate the law. Law is force. Law is
> evil. Laws that have good effects are still evil, if we can acheive
> their ends without them. That's fundamental to my argument.
I cut the gordian knot by having every citizen of my perfect society
explicitly sign the social contract/Constitution. Won't sign it? Out you
go. I think this would solve lots of problems....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:49 MDT