narendra sisodiya said on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 07:18:14PM +0530,: > there are 3-4 more book on next desk, everywhere you can find that > copyright (and thus full power) goes with publisher...
Sir, Look at "ownership" or immoveable property - a piece of land, a residential building, agricultural land, bunglaow, etc. You may be the owner. You can rent it out to A, and assign the right to collect the rent to B. You can mortgage it to C. And assign the right to redeem the mortgage to D. So, you have no possession of the property - it with the tenant. You have no income from the property - it goes to B. YOu have even mortgaged, and no right to redeem. Now, you can actually sell the property. ;-D All this is possible because you have a right, called "ownership" in the property in question. Like this, the publisher gets teh "copyright" because it was owned by the author.The author could have licensed only a part, instead of assigning the whole of that ownership. The publisher can now "license" all or some of the components of the copyright. This is how the film industry works. The producer (copyright owner) assigns the right to distribute the film in certain areas to distributors, who pay him money. Sometimes, this assignment may be permanent. Sometimes, the producer will assign all his rights in perpetuity. SOmetimes, he will assign only "world distribution rights". That is a feature, not a bug. If the above is complicated, go through Raj's posts again. THey are simpler. The GPL only utilises the concept of copyright, makes it stand on its head, and gives you more rights than the copyright law allows. This is possible only because copyright subsists in teh GPL'ed work. Deny the GPL, and you do not have any rights in the work - not even to retain a copy of that work on your computer. HTH. -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://[paivakil|fizzard].blogspot.com A closed mouth gathers no feet. _______________________________________________ Ilugd mailing list Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
