[gtbuba[_2_]]

On May 22, 8:46*pm, 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).

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.

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 *:-/

I don't understand why they didn't do it sooner. Of course it's
impossible to predict what the file sharing was going to do to this
business. I remember in the 1980's and the DAT came out and the
record companies were worried about someone with a Dat could make
perfect copies bootleg cd's. Ended up the Dat never sold in the
consumer market, but we engineers used it to mix to. GT.