[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:12:09 -0000

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "It will be unprofitable
> No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must
> be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.

Uh stupid Hyman...

See also:

"What I mean is that the purpose of copyright is (as Yglesias says) to
encourage creation of works -- by (as Bunch says) "protect[ing] the
intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their
efforts." But what's important isn't what I think; what really matters
is what Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme
Court, said in footnote 18 of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
about this very subject:

Justice Stevens’ characterization of reward to the author as “a
secondary consideration” of copyright law, post, at 6, n. 4 (internal
quotation marks omitted), understates the relationship between such
rewards and the “Progress of Science.” As we have explained, “[t]he
economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause … is the conviction
that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way
to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.”
Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). Accordingly, “copyright law
celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit
from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit
by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge…. The profit motive is
the engine that ensures the progress of science.” American Geophysical
Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (SDNY 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913
(CA2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and “promot[ing]
… Progress” are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in
copyright “[t]he public good fully coincides … with the claims of
individuals.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
Justice Breyer’s assertion that “copyright statutes must serve public,
not private, ends” post, at 6, similarly misses the mark. The two ends
are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves public ends by
providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones.  "


P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]