On Wednesday 13 February 2013 02:44:50 michael noble wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > "Anyway, if his point is that property theory doesn't > > govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property > > theory > > should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?" > > > > Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property. > > > > > > You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade other > > people's > > property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly > > get a > > partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public > > without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer > > and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission). > > And you did not agree to any of this. > > > > L.V. > > > > _ > > I'm not sure I buy this argument. > > Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree with the > position I'm about to present. > > If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In order to > copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your writing available > only under a conditional contract of sale (copyright) Copyright law is a *far* cry from a contract negotiated and entered into freely by two consenting parties. > that states the > writing is not to be shared with anyone else, and that contract of sale is > made known prior to any exchange of said writing, then the only people that > ever see this writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual > agreement are those that agree with it. Not by a long shot. > No one is forced to not copy it if > they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a contract of sale. In > other words, copyright does not try to remove things from the public > domain, it tries to prevent them from entering into the public domain Except when they retroactively extend the copyright terms right? > in > the first place by restricting the sharing of those things to a community > of people who respect the conditions of it being shared. > > The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when I am > forced to read or listen to your work due to public broadcasting. So you never drive your car with the windows down or walk along the street and have someone pass by with music playing? > However, > except for perhaps some severe fascist states, it rarely happens that > people are forcefully exposed to media in the first place that they are > then denied the right to copy it against their will. all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
