Shoutout to Colin

[Richard Gaskin]

J. Landman Gay wrote:

 > On 1/3/13 12:29 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >> Robert Sneidar wrote:
 >>
 >>  > There ought to be some kind of clause in copyrights where if a
 >>  > producer who is not the author or developer of something sits
 >>  > on it and does not produce a product from it within a certain
 >>  > time frame, say 5 years, the author has the right to reproduce
 >>  > it themselves.
 >>
 >> While I can appreciate the sentiment, I have to say I would disagree
 >> with this in practice.
 >>
 >> The most important element of intellectual property is the
 >> international respect for the act of creation, the recognition that
 >> the creator of a work has complete say over how it's distributed
 >> from the very moment of creation through a period of at least
 >> several decades afterward.
 >
 > I read Bob's comment as agreeing with that. I thought he was saying
 > that if a producer sits on a product too long, the original author
 > should have a say as to what happens to their own work. I.e., the
 > third party shouldn't be able to control/kill/squat on an author's
 > creation.

Quite happy to be mistaken on my reading of Bob's post, and this much 
further away from my earlier FOSS readings I can now see how very 
clearly he said exactly what you describe.  Seems I was a bit too 
trigger-happy after my earlier reading. :)

With my strong preference for preserving a creator's rights, I would 
support things that limit middleman meddling.  Though in practice, the 
existing remedy is to simply include such a clause at the time the 
contract is written.


Earlier John Dixon wisely wrote:

 > I agree with you, but only to a very limited extent, that
 > intellectual property should be protected... however, I disagree
 > strongly with your view that not maintaining the protection of
 > intellectual property would remove the motivation for creation...
 > but I am going to stop right here as I would begin to 'rant' ...:-)

I respect your judgment on this, but given how I agree with just about 
everything I can recall reading from you, I suspect we have little 
difference here.

Only to clarify, and hopefully not to belabor: I don't believe that 
inhibiting control over distribution will necessarily remove the 
motivation for creation.  It might inhibit it, but it might not, and 
would only rarely completely remove it.

My main point was only that I believe individuals should be granted full 
rights to how they distribute the fruits of their own labors.

They may choose to limit their rights, or to completely give their work 
away for free if they wish, but the choice is theirs alone to make.  IMO 
such a gift should be seen as a generosity, not an obligation.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys