On 4/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Or at least compulsory licensing. Copyright is to
encourage authors,
not to allow restraint of trade:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231965&cid=18846177
I really like this one and feel this is an important route to making
useful trouble in the quest to free the content in general.
Seen it suggested before and it works fine until you consider the
small problem of reality, courts, lawyers, and definitions.
So to begin
"access" oh this is a fun one. For a simple definition of this
Microsoft get round the problem by providing versions of XP for the
token price of $1 billion a time. Strangely this is one of the better
work around since it is something anyone can do.
Now some say that it is possible to get round this one by saying
something should be available at a reasonable cost but Microsoft could
just respond by making it available but on on 30mm think platinum
plates with the binary written in 48 point type.
"demand" Is one person a demand? Slightly unreasonable to expect
publishers to be able to produce something from their back catalogue
just because one person wants it.
There are other issues but those are the most direct.
--
geni