[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , Don Y
wrote:

Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
certain time has passed?


Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
(name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
dropped significantly in that same period.

Seems like a case of demand determining price.


It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my
permission. You probably feel the same way.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com