Re: intellectual property

[Fred Foldvary]

--- Barney Hamish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 How does the market decide that the _thought_ creation belongs to the
 creator as you state?

The publisher includes a contract with the book that states that the seller
agrees not to copy the book, and not to transfer it to anyone unless the
next owner also agrees not to sell the book.  It would be like a covenant
that goes with the book.

Fred Foldvary

=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: intellectual property

[Steve Miller]

Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever downloaded from a
P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce royalties.  Why?  All I
have to do is claim that I would have never purchased the music at the
market price.

on 9/5/03 3:08 PM, Steve Miller at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not
 consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially
 reduces royalties from sales.  Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of a DVD
 to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me.  If I had
 not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it
 himself.  My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is
 legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced.

 Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties.  Suppose I buy
 Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc.  The original is damaged.  Suppose
 that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another original.
 Again, royalties are reduced by fair use.

 Steve

 on 9/5/03 2:47 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- Steve Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual
 property rights?

 As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author.
 Owners of books may rent out the books.
 Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending.

 Is copying alone an
 act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed?

 Fair use permits copying without permission for personal use.
 What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the
 author.  Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales.

 What makes that sharing theft?

 The reduction of royalties from sales.

 Fred Foldvary

 =
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: intellectual property

[Steve Miller]

Well, as Robert Book pointed out, there is a conflict between laws.  The law
says fair use, whatever that means exactly, but now the DMCA says not even
that.  Though the DMCA really only permits the prevention of fair use, I
think.  But anyway, it's a real stretch to call the current situation a
contract between buyer and seller.  I guess they now have EULAs and such
with some media, but not others.

on 9/5/03 3:56 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- Steve Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties.  Suppose I
 buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc.  The original is damaged.
 Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another
 original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use.

 The reduction of royalties is the damage caused by theft, but not all
 reduction in royalties is theft.  When permitte by contract or law, it is
 not theft.

 Fred Foldvary


 =
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]