View Single Post
Old 03-04-2012, 01:04 AM   #117
bill_mchale
Wizard
bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,451
Karma: 1550000
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Device: Nook Simple Touch, HPC Evo 4G LTE
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey View Post
There's no balancing. Limited copyright is legalized theft. Books (and other works of "art") should belong to the rights holder until such time as those rights are voluntarily relinquished.
Limited copyright can't be construed as legalized theft, because it was copyright that essentially created the notion of intellectual property in the first place.

If you want to retain perpetual rights over a work of art, then there is an easy way to do it; never publish it. Ever.

As it is, copyright is an agreement that is made between authors and the public (via the government) that provides an incentive to publish (limited exclusive rights) in return for agreeing to let the work go into the public domain. If you publish you essentially have become a party of this agreement.

Quote:
Since society has some warped view on the definition of property, I'll gladly take the extensions that keep getting tacked onto existing copyright.
What any definition of property other than yours is warped?

--
Bill
bill_mchale is offline   Reply With Quote