View Single Post
Old 07-17-2008, 12:00 PM   #82
rlauzon
Wizard
rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.
 
rlauzon's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivaldirules View Post
I don't understand these two sentences together. A legitimate claim, of course, would be one granted by our government. I know of no other ways of defining, obtaining, or divining a "legitimate claim".
OK. I can see that.

I believe that that since the right was granted to the author, and since copyright is not a property right, that the grant does not automatically get transferred to the heirs upon author's death.

For example, the gov't grants you a driver's license. Upon death, that license is void and your heirs cannot us that driver's license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vivaldirules View Post
To me, it makes sense for us (i.e., our government) to define and protect intellectual property.
There's no such thing as "intellectual property". If it's "intellectual", it cannot be "property".

Quote:
Originally Posted by vivaldirules View Post
I think that the current laws are archaic and should be modified - but not abolished.
No argument here.
rlauzon is offline   Reply With Quote