On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:29:11 Al Thompson wrote:
See, your first mistake is to describe the person as a property owner without
Second, I do not speak of private, contracted "showings" but rather of
The point of copyright is to pervert this natural way of things. To give a
government protectecd monopoly where none would normally exist. I get the
point quite clearly.
And in this brave new internet connected world, I get that it cannot hope to
work without gutting freedom of speech and perhaps democracy itself.
The draconian situation we have today is still not good enough to protect the
works of the big copyright holders to their satisfaction. Open your eyes and
look at they laws they are asking for and often getting.
> An owner doesn't give
I know that is how copyright law sets things up to work. And look how borked
the situation is.
So, you are whistling a new tune in your room with the windows open. Jack is
walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle it as
he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away hears it as
Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on the bus
whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the bus at their
various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of copyright law, do you
really think you have some power or right to prevent this situation? Some
right to be compensated by all of these people whistling without your
Oh, and by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet written
down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to copyright it.
Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform it in public
all the best,
Linux-audio-user mailing list