Apparently it's a holiday release for the
loony bins in Australia. That's the only conclusion I can reach after seeing
this
article in the Sidney Morning Herald.
Either that, or apparently anybody can get an op/ed published in Sidney.
The article is basically just a wide-ranging rant against intellectual property and the US. Here are some golden nuggests from the article:
This is what passes for thoughtful analysis from the CopyLeft movement, the Free Culture movement, the IP skeptics, or whatever you want to call them.
It's an embarassment. But here's the truly astounding error the author makes:
No, it isn't. It's possible to create an enormous number of perfect digital copies of the PRODUCT of creation, but you can't make copies of the ARTISTIC TALENT. And I don't think this is simply a brain burp by the author. I really think these CopyLeft folks don't really understand how unique and valuable human creativity is. And part of why those who create have a right to own and control that which they create, is precisely because human creativity is so unique and valuable.
In fact, long ago back in 1992, the second thing I ever had published on a policy topic was on creativity, and I'll link to it here. I guess at the very least it demonstrates that this is a topic that I've always been passionate about, and that I'm not doing work on intellectual property protection because large evil corporations are paying me to do so.
Either that, or apparently anybody can get an op/ed published in Sidney.
The article is basically just a wide-ranging rant against intellectual property and the US. Here are some golden nuggests from the article:
Proponents of IP are "selfish troglodytes."
"Copyright Nazis" have imposed restrictions on the free flow of information in the U.S.
". . . in an ideal world, I would argue that software should be freely available to all. That is what will eventually happen . . . "
"Intellectual property is a very difficult, even an absurd concept."
This is what passes for thoughtful analysis from the CopyLeft movement, the Free Culture movement, the IP skeptics, or whatever you want to call them.
It's an embarassment. But here's the truly astounding error the author makes:
". . . in the digital age it is possible to infinitely replicate the artistic talent that has gone into its creation . . . "
No, it isn't. It's possible to create an enormous number of perfect digital copies of the PRODUCT of creation, but you can't make copies of the ARTISTIC TALENT. And I don't think this is simply a brain burp by the author. I really think these CopyLeft folks don't really understand how unique and valuable human creativity is. And part of why those who create have a right to own and control that which they create, is precisely because human creativity is so unique and valuable.
In fact, long ago back in 1992, the second thing I ever had published on a policy topic was on creativity, and I'll link to it here. I guess at the very least it demonstrates that this is a topic that I've always been passionate about, and that I'm not doing work on intellectual property protection because large evil corporations are paying me to do so.