🚀 go-pugleaf

>Jason Clifford  <jason@dlsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>>copyright time limit). Surely a much better model would be to grant say
>>>a 3 year monopoly, with say a further 3 years if the source code were
>>>published. That way at least society would get something out of the
>>>deal. 
>>And what gives 'society' the right to restrict my ownership of a product
>>that *I* and *I alone* have developed?

It is society which is granting you the right to control how other
people copy your work or use your work. They are not taking it away from
you -- you have teh right to do with it whatever you want. But so can
anyone else. It is a legal device to restrict what others can do with
something of which you still retain a copy.
Theft was defined as a crime precisely because it removed the item from
the one person and thus removed his ability to use/enjoy it. But if I
make a copy I in no way remove the original from you or change your
ability to use it. To grant a copying monopoly makes as much sense as
granting any other monopoly such as serving coffee. If I open a coffee
shop, does that give me the right to prevent anyone else from opening
one? Should everyone in town be forced to drink only my coffee at my
coffee shop? some societies have decided that this makes sense. Ours
does not. However ours has decided that the equivalent monopoly for say
software does make sense. Why?