BEL: Matrix Intellectual Rights
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I can't believe Bob is defending copyright law...
I can't believe Bob is defending copyright law...
As a followup to last night's discussion..
Thou shalt not steal and copyright law are two wildly divergent topics. Copyright law is an arbitrary extension of the concept of stealing but unfortunately, no one really understands what it affects and what it means (just ask the courts).
The idea of a contractual relationship in the area of mas distribution of intellectual property is a practical infeasibility. As applied, it leads to incredible abuses by the seller on the buyer (and pehaps the other way around as the buyer tries to get back at the seller.). How about, the book that is freely given but you do not own and cannot sell and cannot even tell anyone about.
For example: http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/08/09/020812opgripe_1.html
Would you like these restrictions when buying a car? You can drive it but do not own it. You cannot sell it and if you have any problems with it, you can't tell anyone (except perhaps us). (Perhaps I have just described leasing). How about buying a car that can only be serviced by the dealer that you bought it from. Any of these things could be made valid by printing on the underside carpet of the driver's footwell. Think I'm kidding, read about the issues of sneakwrap. For example, see: http://www.idg.net/english/crd_sneakwrap_717640.html
None of this is "good" law
I can't believe Bob is defending copyright law...
As a followup to last night's discussion..
Thou shalt not steal and copyright law are two wildly divergent topics. Copyright law is an arbitrary extension of the concept of stealing but unfortunately, no one really understands what it affects and what it means (just ask the courts).
The idea of a contractual relationship in the area of mas distribution of intellectual property is a practical infeasibility. As applied, it leads to incredible abuses by the seller on the buyer (and pehaps the other way around as the buyer tries to get back at the seller.). How about, the book that is freely given but you do not own and cannot sell and cannot even tell anyone about.
For example: http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/08/09/020812opgripe_1.html
Would you like these restrictions when buying a car? You can drive it but do not own it. You cannot sell it and if you have any problems with it, you can't tell anyone (except perhaps us). (Perhaps I have just described leasing). How about buying a car that can only be serviced by the dealer that you bought it from. Any of these things could be made valid by printing on the underside carpet of the driver's footwell. Think I'm kidding, read about the issues of sneakwrap. For example, see: http://www.idg.net/english/crd_sneakwrap_717640.html
None of this is "good" law
John724:
You raise some good points. I'd really like to hear Bob's response to this. Would you do us all a favor and call his show so we can get his response?
Also, what do you think of the information from Knight located here: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=221653#post221653
You raise some good points. I'd really like to hear Bob's response to this. Would you do us all a favor and call his show so we can get his response?
Also, what do you think of the information from Knight located here: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=221653#post221653
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status