Thanks for the link!
On the internets, it's very common for content producers and consumers to flame each other over copyright. It's unnecessary; most producers are really just saying that they want to be compensated somehow, even if they think narrowly in terms of copyright.
It's important for consumers not to come across as freeloaders; the system doesn't work if they don't support producers. Plus it's rude. And producers should admit the absurdities of a system where you could have all the world's texts, art and software at your fingertips, if those making this a reality weren't attacked by men with sticks.
(It's not like the present copyright regime really is all that great for producers. $6000 for the book Wall Street? Book authors often just expect to somehow leverage money indirectly from the exposure their books give them, like consulting jobs.)
All the best,
Tj
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> Dean Baker has figured out how to eliminate the inefficiency underlying
> copyrights (and patents).
>
> http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Charles Turner <vze26m98 at optonline.net>wrote:
>
>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 9:50 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> > But, unless, memory fails me, you did give away "Wall St"...
>>
>> With IBM giving away Linux on their on their RS/6000s, what choice did he
>> have?