|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.103.119.140
In Reply to: RE: Here is the original AES paper posted by Tony Lauck on January 20, 2016 at 10:33:32
>This booklet makes the case for why intellectual property is bad.
Tell me what you do for a living and try to explain why you shouldn't do
it for free.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
Kinsella completely ignores the concept of fair use which arose specifically in light of the arguments he makes. IP law has evolved to enforce distribution rights not usage rights.
He uses as an example patenting a drilling technique. I can certainly drill my own land using the patented technique. What I can't do is start a business drilling other people's land using the technique.
He also uses books as an example. I can copy a book limitlessly for my own use as long as I don't distribute the copies.
In case you didn't know it, there are lots of people who have done well developing open source software. The best example is Linus Torvalds. In the music world there are bands that have done well while not using copyright, e.g. The Grateful Dead.
There is nothing unique in MQA to justify special treatment, compared to, say, FLAC, which has always been free and open. But yes, a lot of money may be necessary to pay for advertising and publicity, etc... if one goes the proprietary route.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > Tell me what you do for a living and try to explain why you shouldn't do
> > it for free.
>
> In case you didn't know it, there are lots of people who have done well
> developing open source software. he best example is Linus Torvalds. In
> the music world there are bands that have done well while not using
> copyright, e.g. The Grateful Dead.
So what. Torvalds get royalties from distributors like Red Hat and from
those who embed Linux in their products. The Grateful Dead were the
highest-paid touring band in the US for many years, so their attitude to
copyright was an adjunct to their primary source of income.
So please answer my question. You don't work for nothing; why should
the engineers at MQA?
> There is nothing unique in MQA to justify special treatment, compared
> to, say, FLAC...
You obviously haven't read the papers on MQA. Get back to me when you
have.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
To answer your question, I am retired. Some of the work that I did in the past involved what were volunteer efforts developing and publishing computer network protocols, including the original standardized version of Ethernet. This technology was freely licensed by Digital, Intel and Xerox. After leaving Digital (in 1994) I worked as an consultant/expert in computer networking and helped to educate people on networking technology (and also in some cases to help defend them against unwarranted patent lawsuits).
Josh Coalson was the original developer of FLAC, an open source project. Why do you think he made his CODEC free and open source? Why do you think that Bob Stewart should get more?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: