Quote:
Originally Posted by CamTata
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.
|
Open source creates wealth for people too
red hat did a billion dollars in sales.
copyright control is not necessary to create wealth
That like saying that because i believe that the sun is not up in the air at night i therefore believe the sun doesn't exist at all
Quote:
|
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.
|
you would need a separate law then,
Copyright is granting of special rights that violate the normal property rights of the buyer with licencing right
The reason being to create an incentive to innovation that will ultimately benefit the public when the term of copyright expires
Quote:
|
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.
|
was not talking about patent vs copyright
i was talking about property rights vs copyright
If your too stupid to understand the difference here is a clear example
i can buy toilet paper and use it to for it intended purpose
but if i want to cut it up and reuse it in another way like say
i don't have to ask P&G for permission to do so
That property rights once i aquire the property it mine to do with
copyright is different as you acknowledged in your twisted example.
Quote:
|
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.
|
the content is on the disk, i buy the disk to have the content. If you gave me just the disk with no content on it i would not buy it from you for the inflated price i can buy blank disks for 25 cents.
I am buying the content but i don't own the content i am buying
That the point normal property rights would give me ownership and the right to do what ever i want to with that purchased i"property"
copyright creates a secondary "licience" condition
i basically need to buy a "licience" to view it , another to copy it and so on and so on.
Quote:
|
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 grants a right to the creator not to the owner of the property.
That the point property rights grant a right to the owner, you transfer property rights
1 way by selling the property to the new owner period.
Copyright creates all kinds of additional options by selling licences
licences are not property transfers (as you so clearly pointed out with your twisted example)
Quote:
|
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
|
nope it the way you limit the normal property rights of the buyer
I don't have a problem with copyright as long as you respect fair use
you agreed to give away all rights to prevent anyone from doing anything that is fair use in exchange for the control when it is not.
That exactly what the subject to clause means.