Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj
It might as well be when it starts making sense.
I have several problems with IP:
1) if it's property, why does it revert to public domain after a time? It would make sense for it to stay a property and licence forever. It's said that it's not really a property, but it's called property. Bad naming.
|
With respect to Xenophon, leasehold in nothing like copyright. Leasehold is a rent paid to a freeholder (the owner of a property) for a fixed term. Copyright on the other hand is a licence granted by the government to an individual on the expression of an idea in a fixed format that gives that individual an exclusive right to exploit this expression (authorise the distribution of copies) for a limited time. A freeholder always owns the property, the copyright holder owns nothing.
In truth, everything enters the public domain at the instant it is created. The very moment an author puts the last full stop on his manuscript — it belongs to me (and you, and all of society). The author has only been granted a licence to exploit, but not any ownership rights at all. That makes sense logically, because if the work in question did not belong to you and me (society) in the first instance — then government does not have any ability to grant a monopoly sub-licence for something it does not own (on our behalf). I’m constantly amazed how authors can have so little grasp of the fundamentals of the mechanism by which they purport to make a living from. I sometimes thing that, if an author is unable to grasp such a simple concept — how trustworthy should I take what they actually do write about
That is why all this talk about intellectual property is just so much nonsense. It’s a fiction dreamed up by the monopoly hoarders in an attempt to justify their increasingly abuses of the copyright laws for their own benefit (copyright, patent and trademark). All they are trying to do is link the three distinct strands of monopoly practice into one idea so that they can use the different (and unique) qualities of each to mutually support their attempts at more and more restrictions on fair use rights (what they call loopholes in the current law). Any author who tries to claims ownership is a thief. THEY are the ones doing the stealing. They are fraudulently claiming something for themselves that does not belong to them. What they should be saying, is that the hold a monopoly licence to exploit a product for their sole benefit.
Ideas are not property — its ludicrous to suggest otherwise. A monopoly on distributing copies of the expression of an idea is in no way, shape or form anything like the ownership of a property. It’s just a simple licence, no more and no less. And, as we are all being constantly told, e-books are licensed copies only, WE do not OWN them! And THAT'S under the same precious copyright legislation that the copyright hoarders are now trying to claim ownership rights over the product they produce. Talk about double standards!
In a way, this is why so many copyright hoarders tie themselves in knots trying to justify their unnatural practices. Practically all the supporters of the existing status quo bend over backwards trying not to use the word INFRINGEMENT when talking about copying files or downloading them. The reason for that is because they would then have to explain exactly why I should have to pay an author for seventy years after they die, why I should have to pay for exactly the same product multiple times, and why I should not be able to make use of a product if it’s not actively being exploited by anybody.
It’s easier to deliberately mislead discussions by calling file-sharers thieves because it deflects the spotlight from their shady activities which, when the dust settles, are far far more morally and ethically unworthy than anything a file-sharer may get up to. They use language in an attempt to make others believe that they are the good guys and we are the bad ones, while all the time, it is they who are the weasel worded manipulators and mis-informers.
You can tell the people arguing from a morally bankrupt position by the language they use, and especially by the language they do NOT use