[LINK] Does copyright have a future? [WAS: iinet wins!!]

[Frank O'Connor]

At 9:24 AM +1100 9/2/10, David Boxall wrote:
>On 7/02/2010 5:14 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>>  ...
>>  Enforceability of copyright probably isn't the issue ... that's a
>>  simple problem of evidence and process ...
>If truly simple, wouldn't enforcement be common? Copyright privileges
>are often infringed. If enforcement is simple, why isn't it practised?

Usually because of cost-benefit analysis. The evidence and process 
costs time and money to initiate so the copyright holder wants to get 
best value for money so to speak.

Any idiot can draft a summons/writ and issue it through a court ... 
hey, that's why we have lawyers.

>
>I reckon it's time that 18th century child of 16th century censorship
>was replaced with something that's viable in the 21st century.
>

Ditto, present copyright and patent law is a serious infringement on, 
and disincentive to, creativity, enterprise, science and art on this 
planet. It is used as an excuse by (amongst others) profit gouging 
drug companies, film studios, publishers and private industry to 
ensure they make their money for time immemorial on the right they 
have licensed rather than the short initial period copyright/patent 
holders were originally rewarded with. It is bought up by the venal 
from the creative, and now serves little or no purpose in encouraging 
the creative to create ... it simply encourages the venal to be more 
venal.

It's stultifying effects on science and research are even more tragic 
when you consider that copyright and patents are also considered a 
license to hide research and inventions away from prying eyes, rather 
than reveal them for validation, verification and testing to their 
peers. What this means is that much of science and experimentation 
now involves 'reinventing the wheel' so-to-speak, and then abandoning 
same when you discover someone else has copyrighted/patented the 
research but not used it for anything.

				Regards,