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 08-09-2012, 12:29 AM
Joel Rees
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On 8/8/12, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Celejar writes:
>> I can say the same about the very institution of private property; it
>> creates a monopoly (only I have the legal right to use a particular
>> piece of property) where none would otherwise exist, and that is its
>> very purpose.
>
> You and I cannot eat the same apple. We can both have the same idea.

Ah, but we can't both sell the same idea in the marketplace!

(Or so the monopoly theory goes, which is confused thinking, since we
can both sell apples, even the same kind of apples. We could even
cooperate to sell the same apple, if we thought such a thing
profitable.)

--
Joel Rees


--
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/CAAr43iOB8S-YdLmObV45YvEiovaVciWRxhH_n=b3WuZtvkL7WA@mail.gmail .com
 
Old 08-09-2012, 12:31 AM
Joel Rees
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On 8/8/12, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 04:01:40 +0200
> Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 21:29 -0400, Celejar wrote:
>> > I can also say that any private ownership of property is monopolistic,
>> > since it gives the owner a monopoly on the use of some particular
>> > piece of property.
>>
>> Since I didn't follow the whole thread: Are you aware that somebody's
>> intelectual property could be the ownership of somebody else?
>
> Not quite sure what you're saying here.
>
>> If you're on work and you've got the idea how to improve something
>> regarding to your job, than you're the copyright holder (it's your
>> intelectual property), but you're not the owner. At least not for
>> averaged employment agreements in Germany.
>>
>> http://www.dict.cc/?s=ownership
>> http://www.dict.cc/?s=property
>>
>> Language barriers already make it difficult to understand for humans
>> with different native languages. In our native languages we have anyway
>> some kind of secret languages.
>
> I do think we may have a language barrier here.

Two people, one wants a monopoly, the other does not.

Instant language barrier.

--
Joel Rees


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAAr43iODJ4geX44aHOey8oj96sdW6Z6-Zt_CbVTgOvVtCi_eUg@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iODJ4geX44aHOey8oj96sdW6Z6-Zt_CbVTgOvVtCi_eUg@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-09-2012, 12:46 AM
Joel Rees
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On 8/8/12, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Thus you have a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of your work.
>
> Celajar writes:
>> Okay, but this is veering close to sophistry; I can also say that any
>> private ownership of property is monopolistic, since it gives the
>> owner a monopoly on the use of some particular piece of property.

Property law regulates how you use your property and how you control
the property's use.

A long time ago, in the feudal system, a patent was the privilege to
control other people's use of something that had been in the public
commons. Examples would be the authorization to take tolls on a bridge
or a section of highway. (The patent also was usually supposed to come
with the obligation to maintain the object of the patent, but of
course that obligation was not always met.)

This is different from homesteading, where something that had been
ostensibly in the public commons, but not really used by anyone, was
taken out of the public commons and made private property.

> Monopolies are commoplace and not, in and of themselves, necessarily
> either illegal or immoral.

Monopolies are necessarily a curb on the freedoms of the people. There
is a tendency towards unethical or immoral in their existence, unless
they are well administered/maintained. (That was the reason for the
intent of meaningful time limits in both patent and copyright.)

> Nonetheless copyright creates monopolies
> where none would otherwise exist: that is its purpose.

Not in the US Constitution, at least. Copyrights and patents in the US
were both intended to allow the government to regulate monopolistic
activities in a way that would benefit both the public and the person
obtaining the copyright or patent.

(And I'm being distracted from work. Back to work. Back to work.)

--
Joel Rees


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAAr43iMzganKGcwwVH-MOCbrxzSK53NqiF1GbbYvm_tdsm9ZkA@mail.gmail.com">ht tp://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iMzganKGcwwVH-MOCbrxzSK53NqiF1GbbYvm_tdsm9ZkA@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-09-2012, 02:22 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:48:39PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> The best thing is to be an anarchist!

apt-get install anarchism

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
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/20120809142205.GH2687@tal
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:55 AM.

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