I write poetry, and I wouldn't put it in any type of public eyesight without
a copyright, this ensures the security of my work. No other party can claim
it to be theirs, at least not for 70 years or so. This is a measure that
does hold up in court, if someone else tags their name to a work of poetry I
created, a copyright proves it. If this is "arguable because we don't
protect markets in other things", then get on it, don't try to demean what's
authors have, it's a needed tool. It is for my protection, not the
government.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
http://www.nanoindustries.com
> > How is a copyright theft by state grant? I view it as a 'brand"
> > to identify one's property
> > EvMick
>Copyright is different--by claiming a copyright to a piece of
>information, the government is aiding you in enforcing a monopoly
>on /all copies/ of that information produced by anyone--even
>those that can be used by many people without interference. My
>use of a book does not interfere with yours or anyone's. If I
>make copies of it, I do not diminish anyone else's use, but I do
>compete with the author's market. Our government has decided
>that protecting the market for authors and inventors is worth
>granting this monopoly--that is certainly arguable, because we
>do not generally protect markets in other things.
>
>--
>Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <any purpose, without permission,
>attribution, or notification."--LDC