FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:15 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:23:50 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Celejar writes:
> > Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
> > legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the
> > value is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their
> > costs, they're free not to purchase the works.
>
> They don't purchase the works: those are abstractions. They purchase
> copies. Yes, this is nitpicking, but in this context the distinction is
> important.

Yes, my language was imprecise.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120807111542.9b9c5852.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120807111542.9b9c5852.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-07-2012, 03:21 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:34:19 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Celejar writes:
> > ...I lean libertarian...
>
> So do I, which is the basis of my criticism of copyright.
>
> > ...if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign it...
>
> Right. If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to
> make additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they
> agree not to do so.

But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
libertarian thought. I don't need a contract with you to prevent you
from stealing my property, and intellectual property law, IIUC,
stipulates that IP is treated somewhat (although certainly not
entirely) like tangible property.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120807112159.30d9a721.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120807112159.30d9a721.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-07-2012, 04:11 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

I wrote:
> If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make
> additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree
> not to do so.

Celejar writes:

> But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
> libertarian thought.

And copies are property. Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do
so, why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which
are my property? Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation
of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property?

> I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my
> property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is
> treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible
> property.

But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property. It is a bundle of
intangible rights created by the state. If I steal your K&R first
edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured. If I
make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is
deprived of nothing and injured in no way. Nonetheless, they have (and
will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force
me to pay them substantial "damages" should I do so. How is this sort
of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition,
compatible with libertarian values?
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87obmm1y3o.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87obmm1y3o.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-07-2012, 04:48 PM
Ralf Mardorf
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:11 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make
> > additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree
> > not to do so.
>
> Celejar writes:
>
> > But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
> > libertarian thought.
>
> And copies are property.

> Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do
> so

Ohoh! Many contracts in many countries are null and void only.

> , why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which
> are my property? Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation
> of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property?
>
> > I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my
> > property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is
> > treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible
> > property.
>
> But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property. It is a bundle of
> intangible rights created by the state. If I steal your K&R first
> edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured. If I
> make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is
> deprived of nothing and injured in no way. Nonetheless, they have (and
> will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force
> me to pay them substantial "damages" should I do so. How is this sort
> of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition,
> compatible with libertarian values?
> --
> John Hasler

I did not follow this discussion, but read this email.
Similar discussions are from time to time in Linux mailing lists for
artists.

In Germany we e.g. have the so called "Urheberrecht" (copyright) and the
"Vervielfältigungsrecht" (right of reproduction). The "copyright" is
completely untouchable. It's impossible to cede or lose the copyright.
Any idea always will be intellectual property of the creator. The only
thing you can talk about in Germany is the "right of reproduction", IOW
somebody working for a company who has got a good idea for that company,
always will be the copyright owner, but he don't has any charges to use
it private, to make money, or even to talk about the idea, to put it
very simple.
In Germany we e.g. have collecting societies, e.g. the GEMA. A friend
can't understand, he doesn't believe me, that we can't make free radio
and play songs, even if we know the bands and even when they allow us to
play their music. The band is not allowed to give us the permission, if
they chose the GEMA as collecting society. In Germany they sue
kindergartens singing children songs in public and the fines are higher
than high, such a kindergarten will be on the rocks, it's not only a few
hundert Euros, It's much more money.
If you take a look at the creative commons for different countries,
you'll see, that there is not one universal, international creative
commons.

NOTE! Very often a contract with agreements of all parties is
impossible, regarding to the laws of a country, to chosen licenses,
resp. collecting societies.

The best thing is to be an anarchist!
Talking about ethics and law at the same time is irrational . Laws are
inventions to make rich people richer, to protect the power hungry spawn
of fiend. Road traffic regulations are prudential reasons, I'm talking
about laws, such as the right of reproduction.

This isn't the world we are living in:
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/My-Little-Pony-my-little-pony-256751_1280_1024.jpg

Regards,
Ralf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344358119.1256.46.camel@localhost.localdomain
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:24 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Ralf writes:
> The best thing is to be an anarchist!

Anarchy is impossible. Some jerk will always jump up and crown himself
king. Government is not a necessary evil: it is an inevitable one. The
best we can hope for is to minimize it.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87k3xa1up6.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87k3xa1up6.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-07-2012, 05:43 PM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:39:54, Celejar wrote:
>
> > to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> > published. How many others did not make it?
>
> Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
> couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
> (and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
> self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
> who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?

Both, but probably the former is more common.

> > The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to
> > publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content
> > consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly
> > proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and
> > distributing it.
>
> Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
> legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the value
> is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their costs,
> they're free not to purchase the works.

I did not question the legitimacy, but the future-proof-ness of a
business relying on distributing copies.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:06 PM
Ralf Mardorf
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 12:24 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Ralf writes:
> > The best thing is to be an anarchist!
>
> Anarchy is impossible. Some jerk will always jump up and crown himself
> king. Government is not a necessary evil: it is an inevitable one. The
> best we can hope for is to minimize it.

I agree, but being an anarchist still is possible , sometimes we need
to brake laws, so that some years later the laws will be changed by the
politicians. When I was young I had a criminal record for being a
pacifist, 20 years later it's allowed to be a pacifist in Germany,
because many people said "no!", I wasn't the only one.

Regarding to the German "Intelectual Property Laws" we don't need o risk
our necks, we only need to vote the correct democratic party,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party , but it ships also with some
drawbacks to vote a party of children, OTOH ll parties are bad and they
at least think about "Intelectual Property Laws", IMO very important
nowadays.

2 Cents,
Ralf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344362802.1256.67.camel@localhost.localdomain
 
Old 08-07-2012, 06:07 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Andrei writes:
> I did not question the legitimacy, but the future-proof-ness of a
> business relying on distributing copies.

Right: these are orthogonal issues. Whether one views the current
copyright regime as legitimate or not, I don't think it has a future.
The work of the publishing industry --making and distributing copies--
simply no longer needs doing.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fw7y1sp7.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87fw7y1sp7.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-07-2012, 10:38 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:11:07 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make
> > additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree
> > not to do so.
>
> Celejar writes:
>
> > But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
> > libertarian thought.
>
> And copies are property. Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do
> so, why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which
> are my property? Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation
> of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property?
>
> > I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my
> > property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is
> > treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible
> > property.
>
> But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property. It is a bundle of
> intangible rights created by the state. If I steal your K&R first

Natural law-esque "inalienable rights" notwithstanding, _all_ property
rights are creations of the state. I understand that ordinary property
rights are rooted in tangible objects, while IP rights aren't, but it
is by no means self-evident to me that that's a critical difference.

> edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured. If I
> make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is
> deprived of nothing and injured in no way. Nonetheless, they have (and
> will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force
> me to pay them substantial "damages" should I do so. How is this sort
> of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition,
> compatible with libertarian values?

Injury to someone else is not the sine-qua-non for the prohibition of
something. If I want to trespass on your property when you aren't using
it and I'll be sure to cause no damage, do you have the right to stop
me?

And I don't agree with the common formulations that IP law creates
"monopolies" and "prevents competition". You are perfectly free to
create your own work and compete with me for the same audiences and
dollars; the only thing you can't do is copy _my_ work.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120807183833.7b2efb63.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120807183833.7b2efb63.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-07-2012, 10:42 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:43:54 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:39:54, Celejar wrote:
> >
> > > to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> > > published. How many others did not make it?
> >
> > Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
> > couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
> > (and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
> > self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
> > who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?
>
> Both, but probably the former is more common.

Okay, but the former problem has absolutely no relevance to the current
discussion, about the legitimacy / practicality of IP law.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120807184216.8f9d3aa7.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120807184216.8f9d3aa7.celejar@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org