Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll
More to the point, I question the premise that intellectual property laws cover "information" as opposed to, say, the way in which that information is presented.
If a new Sarah Palin expose comes out claiming that, say, Sarah Palin eats kittens for breakfast, I believe it would be within the author's rights to insist that newspapers NOT quote or reproduce the chapter on the kitten eating, nor to print the photographic proof of the kitten eating...
...but just printing the fact that "New Sarah Palin expose contends that the former Alaskan governor eats kittens for breakfast" would not be covered under IP laws. If I understand correctly, the author wouldn't be able to demand that the newspaper not print the claim because "People have to read the book to find that out!"
So, in other words, the government can't seize IP rights in order to keep the public informed because IP rights don't prevent the spread of information. IP rights prevent the spread of CERTAIN FORMATTING of that information -- i.e., the author's exact wording and illustrations.
IANAL, so the above may be laughably wrong.
And, uh, no offense to Ms. Palin.
|
Exactly. I had written in my post above (phone calls made it take me about 4 hours to finish
).
"Barring a non-disclosure agreements, copyright does not forbid our "sharing the knowledge".
Read a great book, go to a great lecture? Feel free to publish a blog or youtube sharing the knowledge you gleaned from it.
You just can't put up a copy other people's work."
I deleted it for the sake of length and not opening the derivative works can of worms, but I still think "work" vs "knowledge" is a critical distinction.
