[LINK] copyright is not property

[Deus Ex Machina]

Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:42:04PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> > Danny Yee [danny at anatomy.usyd.edu.au] wrote:
> > > Others have written this up better than I ever can, so check out the
> > > following:
> > > 
> > > http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003511.html
> > 
> > after a brief reading of this link:
> > 
> > everyone wants freedoms and rights. and part of that freedom is responsiblity
> > to and the respect of others freedoms and rights. now unless I missed it,
> > there is not a single shred in the above link other then as a justification
> > for abusing another freedoms and rights. now if someone creates something and
> > grants access to that to you on conditions of copyright, then enforced by law
> > or not it is immoral to accept that access without agreeing to the conditions
> > wether you like them or not, and subsequently violating that agreement is
> > anyway which way you slice it: wrong.
> 
> the problem with your argument is that without copyright laws, then the
> "agreement" is only as valid as someone declaring that your usage of the air
> around you to breathe is subject to a contract that they specify.  i.e. it has
> no validity.
> 
> without copyright and patent laws, you can no more "own" an idea (or expression
> thereof) than you can claim ownership of the air or of sunlight.
> 
> now, with copyright laws, some conditions of access & usage are valid and
> enforcable, and some (many) are not.  the author's (temporary) rights of
> control are strictly defined and limited.

of course you can own an idea. if you keep it in your head, its yours, no one
can extract it from your head. if you create a movie its yours, its
almost impossible that someone will come up with exactly the same movie.
so your premise is flawed before your launch on the rest of your spiel.

> > state enforced or not, through copyright laws or otherwise, abuse of
> > copyright has no moral justification. focusing on whether these rights exist
> > or can be enforced or are fair for the state to grant monopolies etc, is as
> > far as I am concerned irrelavent and secondary to the copyright discussion.
> > which is simply, these are the conditions access to created material is
> > provided, either you accept them or you dont. if you dont, then you you have
> > no moral ground for access.
> 
> since copyright exists only by fiat, not as a natural right, if you ignore the
> law which grants copy rights then there is no right to control usage, access,
> or distribution of any created work.
> 
> in other words, you are wrong.

and why would anyone want to deal with you? you obviously are not
prepared to enter into an agreement with intention to uphold your side.

copyright is protection for contract rights of the work in questions.

> they are about the natural right of anyone to make use of any information
> (thought, idea, creative work, words, etc) that they come across in any way
> that they see fit.  copyright and patent laws are a temporary abridgement of
> that natural right because it was decided that the public good is better served
> by thus abridging them.

no such right exists. the immense prosperity of the modern western world
is not a by-product of democracy, its a direct result of capitalism and
the legal framework of democracy as a supporting structure. of these the
cornerstones are that trade is free and fair. fair doesnt refer to price
it refers to the conditions of each in adhering to contract law and
trade practices law. that means if you agree to enter into a contract
based


> > or how big nasty coporates should just literaly give stuff away because
> > they are monopolies or making too much profit.  all these excuses have
> > little to do with freedom and the responsiblities of that freedom and
> > everything to do with some desire to forceably redistribute against the
> > desires of others. 
> 
> they have everything to do with freedom.  the freedom of people to use any
> information they come across.

double speak. no such right exists.

if you spend $250m making a movie then clearly that isnt information free for the use of
anyone that comes across it. creative works have a right to reap the
rewards of the works they create. there is no such right as free
information there is just freeloaders.

> > its window dressed socialism.
> 
> you say that as if it's a dirty word or something.

it is. socialism is the most misguided attempt in human history that
actually produces in enormous quantity the very thing it aims to prevent.
I was just reading about soviet food production Ill post some stats
later, its mindblowing.

Vic