Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Precisely.
Yes, and while you can debate whether it is technically property, it can be treated as such while it exists, which is why I refer to it as property. As mentioned, property implies ownership and control, and copyright grants both to the rights holder for the duration of the copyright.
|
I think I'm going to tackle that from your own point of view, that is "property of physical objects is a purely social construct, and as such copyright is fundamentally identical".
Supposedly, laws in our modern world reflect what is considered acceptable behavior. An argument could be made against such a statement but I think most will agree that it at least applies to laws that have existed for a long time (and are still in use - let's forget leftovers that haven't been repelled but are considered crazy nowadays).
From the official definition (Webster online):
Copyright:
Pronunciation: \-ˌrīt\
Function: noun
Date: 1735
The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)
You'll note that neither
"property" nor
"ownership" are used. As for the control...
By the way, there's a reason why the original law makers didn't describe it as property
Property
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-pər-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural prop·er·ties
Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Anglo-French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own
Date: 14th century
The exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing
Notwithstanding the "
thing" part (using it would be playing semantics), you'll especially pay attention to the "
enjoy" part. If you keep that in mind, you'll have to conclude the only way for you to have an idea as your property is to keep it a secret, else anybody else can enjoy it.
Which is pretty much the point of books, I believe.
It's also the reason why patent and copyrights are two very different things, covered by very distinct laws. Please don't mix the up in the discussion, as patent are irrelevant here. The topic is already getting out of hand as is.
Quote:
I'm in favor of a shorter rather than a longer term. I'd like Life+25 years. I can live with Life+50 years. I'm opposed to greater lengths.
The greater lengths being pushed for largely are for the benefit of "immortal corporations", and wind up affecting individuals as a side effect.
|
Honestly, if life+25 years is your idea of short term, I'm afraid I just can't understand your way of looking at things. I must be too young (and I'm well past my thirtieth birthday).