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
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
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
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
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:
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com