Andrew Donnellan <ajdli...@gmail.com> writes: > On 12/18/09, Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > I'm doubtful that it's correct to say “If it's copyright, it has an > > owner”. Copyright is *not* a property right; it's a different > > monopoly right. Monopolies are held; that doesn't make the holder of > > a monopoly the “owner” in a property sense. > > > > IANAL, but it seems the attempt to frame copyright as property is > > not founded in its inception nor its effects. > > As much as a lot of us want to disagree with it, the law does > explicitly state that copyright is property
That is answering the question of what specific laws say in specific jurisdictions, which is not a question I raised. While it's true that the wording of copyright law in specific jurisdictions is where it actually matters, this sub-thread is about the correct *framing* of copyright. Which is why I'm arguing from the inception and effects of copyright, to point out that copyright wasn't conceived as property, nor is it sensible to see its effects in terms of property. So we should avoid the framing of copyright as *necessarily* a property right; that wasn't the case in the past, so we don't need to accept that it will remain so. Our framing should be in accordance with that. -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
