Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
an exclusive right to make copies of something is not a property right
Copyright takes away normal property rights that would normally exist for something (content) and replaces them with licences
If i buy a chair i don't have to ask the chair manufacture for permission to use that chair in any way i want.
I could even use it as a model to design a replacement chair.
Copyright takes those normal property rights away and replaces it with a permission based system.
so you are the one who is actually arguing against property rights when you argue for copyright.
|
You want us to believe that there are no individual achievements in this world. Everything is made possible by some nebulous free/fair use society and its self appointed ambassadors. Of course, it is no mystery why. Once your ilk acknowledge that individuals create wealth (hence property, both tangible and intangible) it?s amazingly more difficult to justify seizing and redistributing it for the public good.
If you believe in the concept of private property, which I am sure you do if you actually own anything, then you have to believe in copyright. Copyrights are the legal implementation of all property rights: a person?s right to the product of thei mind. The government does not bestow a grant or copyright, in the sense of a gift; government merely secures the inherent property rights of the creator; certifies, if you will, the origination of the idea and protects the creator?s right of use and disposal.
Obviously you consider patents and copyrights as equivalent; they are not. The difference lies in their legal enforcement. Copyrights have their root in prosecution of the implicit pilfering of intellectual property. If you independently create a dvd similar to mine, I must prove you had access to my work to have my rights upheld. With patent, if you create my chair you are guilty of infringing my rights, ignorance of my existing and current patent, unintentional or not, is not a defense. Merely because you purchase the physical chair design does not imply that you acquire full rights to disassemble, analyze, reengineer and distribute the chair commercially. Your statement is factually and legally incorrect.
The significant difference between real property (the chair) and copyright (dvd) is that the chair is a obviously a tangible object, and is easily understood by our senses. A dvd is the physical object which embodies my intellectual property, it's intangible and more difficult to conceptualize. You may physically own the dvd I sold you and are free to use or dispose of it as you see fit. You do NOT however own the intellectual property encoded on that dvd.
You continue to state copyright is a limitation of ALL property rights. That is bullshit. Without any authority protecting my interests and the interests and livelihoods of all creators, the motivation to develop such a works decreases dramatically. Like ALL property rights, the copyright places limitations on those who do NOT own (or create) intellectual property.
Copyright is the mechanism by which I can exercise MY property rights. The limitation is on you and your ilk who would pilfer my property rights. If this is a limitation on your rights to freely distribute my copyrighted intellectual property encoded on that dvd, I?m ok with that and I think the vast majority of our society is as well.