"Again Lisa, sorry, but that would only happen in a fantasy world. Almost everyone without exception would flip out if the idea they gave away was taken by someone else and turned into a multi million dollar enterprise."
Why do you keep assuming that since some people flip out over that everyone would flip out? Fallacy much?
"I think your "believe restricting commercial use is immoral" probably applies to a very, very, very small number of people. I think they are called either socialists or communists in most place."
After reading some of their blogs it seems that the issue is more about the belief that ownership should be in individual copies and not the idea itself. Nothing socialist about that.
And you keep forgetting that copyright itself is based in socialistic principles. It's about talking ownership away from individuals to serve the common good.
"Claiming to change copyright to benefit them is meaningless."
Attribution law would not be the same thing as copyright law.
"However, it is safe to say that many of the freeniks you talk about would also scream to high hell and get a lawyer if their work product was turned into a multi million dollar business."
Most agree they'd be delighted that someone would find their work useful. And getting a lawyer would be pointless since they chose a license that explicitly allows commercial use. In fact, a good deal of them chose said licenses because they believe restricting commercial use is immoral.
1. Emulate pure public domain for an individual work, requiring all derivatives to allow free use/sharing/remixing
Nothing more needs to be said on this
2. prevent plagiarism
Which copyright does not completely prevent as claiming authorship is the same as claiming copyright. What help copyright gives in combating such false claims could be had with an anti plagiarism law.
3. make the source code available
Given this is the reasoning by the free software movement(anti copyright group) and the open source movement(open is the only right way to do software) there isn't much loss of incentive for creation here. Although there would be occasional cursing about poorly maintained documentation and the like.
"They are still copyright, and they permit you certain types of redistribution. I would say that you might find yourself in trouble if you tried to resell them, example, or to claim them as your own."
I never claimed they weren't copyrighted. None of the licenses restrict resale, and only a few require attribution. Thanks for ignoring my actual point though, real nice.
"As for copyright images, consider this: Been to a news site recently? Visited CNN? Checked out Perez Hilton or TMZ? Perhaps checked out sports news or the latest speech from a techie guru? Guess what? All of the images you saw are copyright, potentially released under share licensing, but still licensed and copyright."
Again, techdirt is the only (possibly)non-shareable content I view on the net. Are you implying people who release only under freely redistributable licenses would stop doing so if all works were freely redistributable?
"you are using a copyright browser, on a copyright operating system"
But the ones I'm using are released under terms that allow me to redistribute and modify them, the exact things that copyright is meant to restrict.
"to look at a page with copyright images, text"
The sites I usually go to generally release their works under free licenses, or have the freely redistributable content that I came for. Techdirt is the exception to this rule as I don't see any information on copyrights anywhere.
I'm rarely interested in what the entertainment industry churns out as they ironically just wind up copying each other most of the time.
I'd also like to point out patents can hinder innovation as well, by making an implementation forbidden for anyone else to use you limit the improvements that might be made. This is particularly true with software patents because any number of them can(and given the broad nature of sw patents probably will) apply to your project. You'll just research the patents that might apply to your software and work around them you say? I hope you enjoy your day in court when you miss a relevant patent.
"You are only going back to the early days of free software. But you forget all the things like routers, higher speed internet connections, developments of fibre optics, underlying network equipment, each of which was built on copyright code, methods, and patented designs. Those things didn't happen out of art, they happened out of desire for commercial redemption."
I didn't forget, those are exactly the kinds of things IP is NOT needed for.
There is plenty of incentive for everything you just mentioned without IP. How can you sell internet service if the technology isn't mature enough? And hiring OS coders still would make sense because it opens up a new revenue stream. (Using software to sell your hardware)
Artist who are passionate abut art would create whatever they damn well please, probably something like you would find in jamendo's attribution and attribution share-alike sections.
Would we fall back to the 14th and 15th centuries when "art" was most often paid for and kept hidden by a small wealthy elite?
You have to remember that p2p didn't exist back then, so there was more of a cost in distributing works. Now the cost is so low that either the wealthy elite or the artist would be more likely to make works available to all.
"And without copyright in the 21st century all human expression will cease to be. No one will create anything. Why would they? Need to get paid. Money is the most important human invention ever created."
Wow, this statement is either the most ignorant I've ever read or the most dishonest. Everything on my hard drive(including my os) is under a license that allows both redistribution and derivatives. (You can get paid to write free software, but most of what's on my computer was created just for the sake of creating it)
"This paper is clearly wrong, because the One True Purpose of Copyright is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Shouldn't, then, any copyright reform be geared toward more effectively securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries?"
The problem is that the copyright industry lobbies to increase terms whenever they're about to expire, effectively granting unlimited terms. Any reform should be geared toward making sure those limited times are actually limited.
"Just wait till the fcc diversity czar, fairness doctrine, and net neutrality go into effect,"
Net neutrality means ISPs can't censor speech. Besides, the internet originally had net neutrally due to common carrier rules that were set in place to regulate the phone companies. Guess what? Free speech didn't die.
"In mike m's world no one has the right to protect anything they create. He feels that the entire world is entitled to our work for free. I suspect that his entitlement feelings has something to do with his lack of ability to create anything of value...."
He is creating something of value, articles questioning the current business model of artificial scarcity. And you're being a bit too loose with the term 'protect'.