Many of us derive our (high) salaries from building software that isn't open-sourced. Copyright is one important layer to prevent the SW from being used for free by everyone.
Even Google does this - it never open-sourced its core search infrastructure or google docs/mail/maps/etc products, and it monetizes them. And its open source products like chrome and android are really about creating more "attach" to its proprietary products.
Do those who hold the "pro-copying" view believe it's somehow bad that our work (software IP) results in proprietary source code that we are paid for?
Or is SW somehow different from someone who spends a lot to create a movie, book or song? I'm honestly curious!
(Personally, I'm against SOPA, and skeptical of SW patents, but don't have a problem with copyright).
What we do is different because our work is automagically protected from everything that threatens other forms of IP. And yet it's not at all hypocritical to play fast and easy with everyone else's IP!
Even Google does this - it never open-sourced its core search infrastructure or google docs/mail/maps/etc products, and it monetizes them. And its open source products like chrome and android are really about creating more "attach" to its proprietary products.
Do those who hold the "pro-copying" view believe it's somehow bad that our work (software IP) results in proprietary source code that we are paid for?
Or is SW somehow different from someone who spends a lot to create a movie, book or song? I'm honestly curious!
(Personally, I'm against SOPA, and skeptical of SW patents, but don't have a problem with copyright).