Eminent Domain For Knowledge

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Local networks within office buildings etc. already have a term - intranet and internet refers to the whole system which includes the WWW but is also Usenet, email and other things such as IRC so the whole "bait'n'switch only works by using terminology incorrectly anyway...

Yes, I knew the internet/intranet distinction, but it didn't change the essence of the fallacy.

Bait-n-switch can work by using terminology incorrectly, but there are terms that have different meanings in different contexts -- see the "format" example above. Language is fun like that.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Your premise is false as regards United States at least. The sole authority granted the government to control books is in Article 1, Section 8: "The congress shall have power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The government lacks authority to take control of intellectual property. Eminent Domain applies to land because all land in every nation since ancient times until the present, all land belongs to the sovereign. Your purchase of land is the purchase of a freehold to develop the land, which you do own, but ownership of the land itself belongs to the sovereign and the sovereign always retains the right to reclaim what is his. (In a democracy the whole people are sovereign.)

Actually, the government absolutely has the authority to do this. All it takes is passing a law. Just because a right has been granted in the constitution, doesn't mean that the government can't/doesn't have any other rights.

Just as governments can nationalize private companies, they can also declare an expiration to the copyright of any work they want to.

In the United State the Bill or Rights expressly forbids the government to interfere with the free speech of the people or with the publishing of ideas. (Yeah, they were pretty well radical those founders.)

And putting a work into the public domain even just a year after first publication does nothing to interfere with free speech or publishing of ideas. It just allows for other people to exercise the same speech and publish the same ideas, as well.

Not that I support any of that, but to say the government can't do it is a bit naive.

[lunixer]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Unless Vogons come to destroy your planet because you refused to let them build a super speed highway.

42. The answer is 42.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Just as governments can nationalize private companies, they can also declare an expiration to the copyright of any work they want to.

And putting a work into the public domain even just a year after first publication does nothing to interfere with free speech or publishing of ideas. It just allows for other people to exercise the same speech and publish the same ideas, as well.

Not that I support any of that, but to say the government can't do it is a bit naive.

We would have to first assume that our government has the right to tell us what we can and cannot copy, this is not the case. The constitution may or may not tell the government what they can and cannot do but there are some inconsistencies between the First amendment and Article 1 Section 8.

[DiapDealer]

"Here we go looby-loo. Here we go looby-light..."

[Giggleton]

People are being persecuted for copying information, do you think this persecution should continue?

[carld]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Never. You can't build the information highway across my lawn.

You crazy kids!

Spoiler:

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

do you think this persecution should continue

I don't think its persecution, I think it's prosecution... and yes, I believe that until the law is changed (or the constitution amended), that the prosecution of those who knowingly break copyright law should continue when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

And just like you, Giggleton.... my opinion is the only one that matters on the subject. (yep, I went there)

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't think its persecution, I think it's prosecution... and yes, I believe that until the law is changed (or the constitution amended), that the prosecution of those who knowingly break copyright law should continue when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

And just like you, Giggleton.... my opinion is the only one that matters on the subject. (yep, I went there)

That's kind of like saying we should continue doing harm because that is how it has always been done.

It can be said that copyright was created to stem the tide of the bootleggers that appeared with the invention of moveable type, these bootleggers would copy a book and then sell it at a reduced price to what the "owner" of the text was charging.

I don't think the copyright framers considered that the cost of dissemination of information was going to approach zero when they wrote the constitution. Therefore copyright law is irrelevant and until it is changed to reflect the zero cost of information transmission we should act as though it already reflects this. (Share everything you can, donate)

[DiapDealer]

It can be said that copyright was created to..... yada, yada.. <SNIP>.

It can be said; that if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. But saying it wouldn't make it any more true or false—and it certainly wouldn't make it any more interesting (to anyone other than my auncles and unts, that is).

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But saying it wouldn't make it any more true or false.

Do you have something against the spread of knowledge?

[DiapDealer]

Do you have something against the spread of knowledge?

Absolutely not. It's the spread of repetitive hooey that I tend to find annoying.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Absolutely not. It's the spread of repetitive hooey that I tend to find annoying.

Making copies of every book ever written and posting them for everyone else to copy would be the spread of knowledge. IT'S ALL GOOD!

[DiapDealer]

I love lamp.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Making copies of every book ever written and posting them for everyone else to copy would be the spread of knowledge. IT'S ALL GOOD!

As well as the spread of misinformation, since not everything printed is factual.