> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael
> Nordstrom
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: Intellectual property (was: owner_id_build vs.
> copyprevention_bit)
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002, Dennis McCunney wrote:
>
> > Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are.
> > Redistribution of copyrighted intellectual property with the express
> > permission of the rights holder is _theft_, pure and simple.
>
> s/with/without/ (although I don't agree that it is "property" nor
> "theft" to redistribute it:)
Agreed on the correction of "with" to "without". That was what I menat to
say in the first place. As for the other part...
> You make the same mistake as the last time we discussed a similar
> subject (on plucker-list), i.e. the assumption that the rest of
> the world == USA ;-)
No, I don't. The US is a signatory to the Berne Copyright Convention. I
believe your country is too. What varies is what is considered
infringement.
> In my country you are allowed to make copies of intellectual work
> for family members and *friends*.
What you refer to would come under the heading of "Fair Use" over here. The
sticky part comes when you try to define what a reasonable number of
"friends" may be. "The entire world" won't pass muster. Nor will "The
entire country".
> In USA you seem to have a long history of passing laws that protects
> the revenue for some companies; in the rest of the world we usually
> also take into consideration how we can balance the rights of both
> sides (i.e. in this case the copyright holders and the "users").
Let me put it this way. Suppose you write prose instead of code. In
particular, suppose you write books, and sell these books to publishers.
Suppose that electronic format editions of your books are released, which
can be purchased for a fee from the publisher and downloaded by the reader
to read on whatever device the format is for (like, say, a PalmOS based
PDA). Further suppose that someone with a rather liberal idea of "family
and friends" posts copies of your books to places like binary newsgroups and
makes them available by FTP. People grab the free version instead of paying
for a liscensed copy.
Not only does your publisher lose potential revenue on this -- _you_ do too.
And since you are like the vast majority of writers, you are lucky if you
_can_ make a living writing, so _any_ lost sales will hurt. Lose enough
sales and your publiaher may decline to publish your next book because your
sales aren't high enough to make it worth publishing you.
Wouldn't you be at least a _little_ annoyed at widespread copying and
sharing of your work, without even being asked how you felt about it?
I _don't_ like a lot of what is happening re intellectiual property in the
US. I'm opposed to software patents, for example, and appalled by the
efforts of folks like Disney to indefinitely extend copyrights on stuff they
have.
But most of the folks I know at the moment are writers, artists, and
musicians trying to make a living out of what is essentially intellectual
property, who are _directly_ hurt by unrestricted sharing of thier
copyrighted work. I'm not concerned about loss of revenue by large
corporations. I _am_ concerend about the welfare of my friends.
> /Mike
______
Dennis
_______________________________________________
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
