I’ve had a quick scan through the covers of a few of my books and haven’t been able to ascertain what precisely it is to which you are referring, yet. Could you please provide guidance?

I’m also struggling to see the relevance of the distinction to the analysis.

Michael further wrote:
“Also consider that technology can lower the cost of production of creative works to the point where the satisfaction of creativity may be value enough to encourage the production of such works.”

I may be wrong, but I’m not entirely convinced that you considered the opportunity cost of engaging in creative acts when you stated the above. Do you believe that technology will eventually grant us significant amounts of free time?

I introduce this because from personal experience I choose at this stage of my life not to satisfy a lot of my creative urges (primarily music) because of the opportunity cost to me of the time required.

I can thus imagine a situation where the opportunity to make a greater economic reward (assuming I was better than I am now!), over and above the reward for engaging in an act of creativity, would allow me to further pursue my desires with a clearer conscience (being able to provide the kids with a good education and all that).

You are arguing legal points, when I am making economic points.

Your second comment is also valid, but again doesn’t address my analysis. Again, I specifically state that the disincentives to production would be be for commercial considerations only. A great deal of the most fantastic art works we have were not created necessarily for commercial reasons. I don’t think that lowered costs of production from technology is even core to this argument.

We all know that a tremendous amount of creative works (artistic and software) have been produced for the joy and challenge of creation and “academic peer review and recognition”. This is interesting but in no way detracts from the argument I put forward above.

It is quite typical in discussions around electronic media for people to have knee-jerk reactions, discarding any analysis based on irrelevant thoughts from a particular idealogical viewpoint. My “not understanding the subject matter” is not the same as my “analysis not agreeing with your idealogical viewpoint”. The reality is that these sorts of comments do not further constructive debate around the role of patents, licences and copyright in society and when it is good and when it is bad. All the same, I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

It would be helpful if you actually understood the subject matter.

Copyright only covers the reproduction or performance of a work. You don’t need a license to use or dispose of the physical media (your property) as you see fit.

In fact to speak of a book being sold under a license at all is meaningless because no such license exists books actually have a printed disclaimer that tells you that they are no such license.