Baron, all of that is quite interesting and thought provoking. But I have no idea why you quoted my question at the begining of it because it doesn't even partially address my question. It's just a more eloquent description of your view of the problem.
I agree with a lot of what you said. But I still would like to know what good is any copyright, even one with a limited lifespan, if you can't keep people from copying and giving away the work that you sell to make a living? How does someone like Aaron make a living writing software games if anyone can simply download a copy for free off the internet or get it from a friend without even an threat of legal repurcussions?
I don't think most people are like you Baron. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the majority of people who copy software or music have not put as much thought into whether it is right or wrong as you have. They simply figure they can't really get caught and so they don't care if it's wrong. And I believe most people that don't copy software and music don't refrain out of an sense that it is inherantly wrong to do so without compensating the author. They don't do it simply because they believe that there might be a way they
could get caught. Or they believe it is against the law to copy and obey the law. Excepting those that simply don't listen to music or play games of course.
So removing the threat of legal penalties, however impotent it may be, removes what little recourse the authors do have to control the use of their production, does it not?
Or are you saying that the current system of enforcment and penalties is acceptable as long as the term of the copyright is limited and not transferable? If that is what you are saying I suppose your post does sort of respond to my question. It was just a bit subtle and it took me a couple readings to see it.
Geoschmo
[ July 16, 2003, 13:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]