Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The_Reader_David

BULLCRAP! Communist collective ‘for the common good’ concept.

How many songs have you stolen from free websites that violate copyright law? Godly? NO, talent comes from God and is meant to be used to make a living.

Those who can’t do teach instead of creating. And I was a teacher. Copyright law is necessary or CHAOS would ensue... since no one would have any idea of who said what, or who painted what, or who wrote what song...etc and so on.

Put your violin where the sun don’t shine.


63 posted on 11/20/2014 10:48:34 AM PST by Kackikat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: Kackikat
You seem to be arguing with someone not present -- an advocate of the total abolition of copyright.

If you were astute, you would have noticed I held up the British copyright law the Founders surely had in mind when they drafted the Constitution, the Law of Queen Anne (which claim I think I can easily validate since the first copyright law passed under the Constitution was an imitation of it), as a model of a good copyright law -- 14 years, extendible by another 14 at the request of the author, not the author's estate (which didn't create anything), not the author's publisher, just the author -- a return to those terms hardly results in CHAOS. There wasn't cultural CHAOS in the colonial times when the Law of Queen Anne was the copyright law governing what became these United States, nor through the Federal era when American copyright law had like terms.

I'm mystified by your claim that being able to trace the provenance of art is somehow dependent upon copyright. We know who painted the Mona Lisa, who wrote The Canterbury Tales, who composed "The Lady Russell's Pavan", who wrote the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos, even though da Vinci, Chaucer, Dowland and St. Romanos the Melodist painted, wrote, composed, and wrote, respectively, before there were any statutes analogous to copyright. Albrecht Durer made a very good living selling prints which he had no way of copyrighting, since there was no such thing (and we know which are his prints, the absence of copyright law in the times and places where he worked notwithstanding). He even provides an example of defending his brand in the absence of copyright law, because he successfully sued a copyist for fraud for passing off his prints as being by Durer.

Do reply to what's actually being said.

66 posted on 11/20/2014 3:08:50 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson