Le vendredi 21 Juillet 2006 23:49, keith_w a écrit :
> Manuel Viet wrote:
> > No. That's not technicaly correct. Thieves take away a possession. You
> > can't use it anymore once it's been stolen. Unlawful copies, on the other
> > hand, don't deprive the copyright holder of his property, because he can
> > still claim ownership, and act as a master.
> >
> > That's why intellectual property is a State temporary privilege, it's not
> > like the property of a 'real' thing. In the copy process the owner still
> > has the use of the copied thing.
> >
> > Don't be fooled by the hype organized by IP holders. This is not the same
> > league.
>
> Ah, another pedant. I appreciate the fine clarification. Thanks.
> Still, intellectual property is just as much personal property and valuable
> as anything that is physically removed when it's stolen.
No. Because property is not limited in time whereas IP vanishes (copyright
after 70 years I think, depending on Mickey Mouse birthday, and patents after
about 10 years). You wouldn't like a property like that for your house,
methink. Maybe pedantic, but fact is it's absolutely not the same thing.
> That the originator still has a working "copy" or original of the product
> matters little in the overall scheme of things.
Makes all the difference because property is rooted on real things being
scarce. Things you can easily copy are not scarce anymore, they can benefit
the whole human gender without harming the originator.
> Copying and using without paying whatever fee is legally charged is the
> same thing as thieving is. You don't get your due, your recompense. In
> effect, you (they) take money out of the originator's pocket by copying
> without permission or paying for the privilege.
Well, I think you should read the law as it is written and forget how it is
reported on Fox News.
> Too much copying without permission will eventually lead, so think I, to
> the inventors saying the hell with it. It's not worth it anymore...
You're contradicted by at least 6000 years of invention and art making prior
to the first IP law.
And if I were really nasty, I would refer you to 2 facts : 1) Why did
Hollywood became the #1 film shooting location in the world ? 2) Why did the
USA became a major export player in the cotton fabric at the turning of the
XX° century ?
In fact, over protecting IP rules are a sure sign of our inhability to produce
goods, and we're (Europe included) already doomed by emerging countries like
China. We should to the contrary drastically limit the monopoly of creators
to compel them into producing localy, otherwise we're just destroying
employment to the sole benefit of countries like China (which barely pays lip
service to WIPO).
A:
1) because in CA, you didn't had to pay for Edison patent on the cineamera.
2) because a young american managed to copy the some plans of machines in
England where he was working as an intern, and build factories in the US on
his return back home. The cotton seed therefore didn't had to cross the
Atlantic ocean anymore to be transformed into fabric, leading to a major
economic crisis in England.
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|