Are you kidding me? It's recognized by the current system in the US.
No, it isn't.
Copyright is for a limited term, after which time it enters the public domain. Of course, in the US, copyright term is ludicrously long, and will probably be retroactively extended whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, but it's not the only instance of creation. Moreover, even under US copyright law, when you publish something you accept that other people can do certain "fair use" things with it, including parodies. Weird Al is an excellent example: Snoop Dogg specifically
did not grant Weird Al permission to parody
Gangsta's Paradise, yet it was perfectly legal for Weird Al to do so, and sell the parody.
Consider patents. A patent lasts for 20 years, and when that time is up, everyone else can make whatever it is you patented. In fact, the process of filing a patent specifically includes detailing exactly how to make the thing you've patented, so that as soon as 20 years is up, everyone else can get cracking right away.
Both of these are a far cry from the absolute right of ownership you asserted in your original post.
RMS is... well... he's always causing some kind of rukus which SOMETIMES has positive results, but often just makes him look assnine (r.e. Lignux or the old mid 80's emacs vs. vi wars immortalized on usenet)
That being said, the open source model works really well for certain software - and I think we *all* know that the open source model simply does NOT work for games.... Who is going to pay all of those actors for thier voiceovers? or all of those graphics designers for thier artwork, etc... etc... etc...
Can you name one really high quality open source videogame?
Very true. In fact, RMS is so far out there that I felt compelled to note that I don't agree with him.
I could quibble about open source games and the definition of "quality," but I take your point. Whatever I may think of Tuxracer and Nethack, they're clearly not the same product as something like CIV. You're right, for the sort of video game that feeds the bulk of video game consumption, open source is simply not a viable business model.
But there's a lot of ground between "pirates should be shot on sight; they're the scum of the earth" and "all video games should be free, man," and I think that those two positions detract from the very real and important discussions that should be happening about intellectual property in general.
If I were a smarter person, perhaps I could come up with the system that works. Unfortunately, all I am cognitively capable of managing is recognizing that a system demanding everyone pretend that intellectual property is just like real property (to their own detriment) is doomed to failure, just as a system demanding that intellectual property has no monetary value is doomed to failure.
