Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@...>
Cc: Linux Audio User <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 7:45 am

--047d7bd91a8434cdfd04d5965128
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:

> "Anyway, if his point is that property theory doesn't

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) 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. 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 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. 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.

--047d7bd91a8434cdfd04d5965128
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Louigi Verona <l=
ouigi.verona@gmail.com
> wrote:=

"Anyway, if his point=
is that property theory doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property th=
eory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?&quo=
t;Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property=
.You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to inv=
ade other people's

property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly get =
apartial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in publi=
cwithout my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer=

and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).An=
d you did not agree to any of this.L.V.
_I'm not sure =
I buy this argument.=A0Allow me to pl=
ay devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree with the positio=
n I'm about to present.
If I never see your writing, there is no wa=
y for me to copy it. In order to copy it I must first see it. If you were t=
o make your writing available only under a conditional contract of sale (co=
pyright) 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=A0writing=
,=A0then the only people that ever see this writing and will be "force=
fully" bound to the contractual agreement are those that agree with it=
. No one is forced to not copy it if they don't buy it, and by buying t=
hey enter into a contract of sale. In other words, copyright does not try t=
o remove things from the public domain, it tries to prevent them from enter=
ing into the public domain in the first place by restricting the sharing of=
those things to a community of people who respect the conditions of it bei=
ng shared.=A0
The only cases where I feel like your argum=
ent could hold is when I am forced to read or listen to your work due to pu=
blic broadcasting. 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.

--047d7bd91a8434cdfd04d5965128--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, James Harkins, (Wed Feb 13, 2:15 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:42 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 11:13 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:45 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Paul Davis, (Wed Feb 13, 3:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 4:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Paul Davis, (Wed Feb 13, 4:37 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 5:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 9:35 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, michael noble, (Wed Feb 13, 7:45 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 8:22 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, michael noble, (Wed Feb 13, 8:57 am)
[LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Wed Feb 13, 3:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 9:07 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Ralf Mardorf, (Wed Feb 13, 11:28 am)
Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Feb 13, 6:49 am)