The idea of services (or anything other than direct labor) that people charge for offends him.
Actually, no. He is for totally abrogating copyright on works which have "practical use" and for maintaining certain forms of exclusive economic control on entertainment and advocacy.
Essentially, he thinks he should be able to redistribute my software for free, for any purpose whatsoever, but that I should not be able to commercially exploit his speeches or modify them, because that "misrepresents" him.
But let's turn to the next category, works that state the views of certain parties. Now here my answer is different, I don't think modified versions of these works contribute to society, all they do is misrepresent the authors. So I propose a compromised copyright system which says that everybody is free non-commercially to redistribute exact copies. But modifications require permission and commercial use require permission. So this compromised copyright system would provide revenues more or less as the current system does.
Actually, no. He is for totally abrogating copyright on works which have "practical use" and for maintaining certain forms of exclusive economic control on entertainment and advocacy.
Essentially, he thinks he should be able to redistribute my software for free, for any purpose whatsoever, but that I should not be able to commercially exploit his speeches or modify them, because that "misrepresents" him.
See:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_and_Beyond:_Huma...
But let's turn to the next category, works that state the views of certain parties. Now here my answer is different, I don't think modified versions of these works contribute to society, all they do is misrepresent the authors. So I propose a compromised copyright system which says that everybody is free non-commercially to redistribute exact copies. But modifications require permission and commercial use require permission. So this compromised copyright system would provide revenues more or less as the current system does.