Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Rustom Mody <rustompmody@...>
Cc: Linux Audio User <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 6:58 am

--14dae9340a13b0891d04d5bde6cb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

James, Michael,

I understand what you are saying, however, by asking someone about
permission, you are basically giving him the power to say "No".

It would be a matter of decency or courtesy only if it would be notifying:
"Dear sir, I've used your tune in my play. Sincerely..."

If we are in a position when such "courtesy" means saying "Can I please use
your tune in my play?", we are philosophically saying that the author has
the right to decide how you should employ your body and your property in a
certain way. I maintain that by making up an idea, you do not now gain
property rights in everything that uses that idea.

"Something smells rotten. Coulton did not "aim to become a tyrant" but FOX
Broadcasting came in, used his work, copyrighted it for themselves and
won't even give him credit by name. THEY are now the tyrants, but your view
would seem to suggest that Coulter should simply accept this."

Yeah. This rotten problem is called copyright. The problem is not in
Coulton not being able to stop FOX using his work, the problem in FOX being
able to stop others from using it.

If there was no copyright, FOX would just use it and not be able to exclude
others.
If there was no copyright, all art would be free. Always.
GPL and CC have meaning only in the world of copyright. They try to
partially undo it.

So to me it seems backwards to say that the problem is in that Coulton did
not use CC or similar. The problem is the copyright.

"If I say to a friend, "Here, have a bunch of candies, share with your
friends," and then I find out he hoarded it for himself, I'll think twice
about giving him candy in the future."

The difficulty with this analogy is that it is basically a contract
situation. Copyright is not a contract, it is a law that is enforced,
meaning it works by using physical force against anyone who disagrees, you
never agree to it.

Also, I have little regard for the sentiment that if I give something away
for free, others have to do the same. It is their business what to do with
it and it is not my call to decide how others live their life, unless they
are invading my property.
I can of course suggest this to them, but I cannot dictate it to them.

L.V.

--14dae9340a13b0891d04d5bde6cb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

James, Michael,I understand what you are saying, however, by asking=
someone about permission, you are basically giving him the power to say &q=
uot;No".It would be a matter of decency or courtesy only if it=
would be notifying: "Dear sir, I've used your tune in my play. Si=
ncerely..."
If we are in a position when such "courtesy" means saying &qu=
ot;Can I please use your tune in my play?", we are philosophically say=
ing that the author has the right to decide how you should employ your body=
and your property in a certain way. I maintain that by making up an idea, =
you do not now gain property rights in everything that uses that idea.
"Something smells rotten. Coulton did not "aim to become a=20
tyrant" but FOX Broadcasting came in, used his work, copyrighted it fo=
r=20
themselves and won't even give him credit by name. THEY are now the=20
tyrants, but your view would seem to suggest that Coulter should simply=20
accept this."Yeah. This rotten problem is called copyright. Th=
e problem is not in Coulton not being able to stop FOX using his work, the =
problem in FOX being able to stop others from using it.If there was=
no copyright, FOX would just use it and not be able to exclude others.
If there was no copyright, all art would be free. Always.GPL and CC hav=
e meaning only in the world of copyright. They try to partially undo it.So to me it seems backwards to say that the problem is in that Coulton=
did not use CC or similar. The problem is the copyright.
"If I say to a friend, "Here, have a bunch of candies, share =
with your=20
friends," and then I find out he hoarded it for himself, I'll thin=
k=20
twice about giving him candy in the future."The difficulty wit=
h this analogy is that it is basically a contract situation. Copyright is n=
ot a contract, it is a law that is enforced, meaning it works by using phys=
ical force against anyone who disagrees, you never agree to it.
Also, I have little regard for the sentiment that if I give something a=
way for free, others have to do the same. It is their business what to do w=
ith it and it is not my call to decide how others live their life, unless t=
hey are invading my property.
I can of course suggest this to them, but I cannot dictate it to them.<=
br>L.V.

--14dae9340a13b0891d04d5bde6cb--

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

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, James Harkins, (Thu Feb 14, 2:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sun Feb 17, 10:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Thu Feb 14, 9:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 12:25 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Fri Feb 15, 2:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 3:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Rustom Mody, (Fri Feb 15, 5:06 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 6:58 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 9:04 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Fri Feb 15, 2:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 3:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sun Feb 17, 11:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 10:43 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 10:44 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Simon Wise, (Fri Feb 15, 7:42 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 7:45 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Al Thompson, (Fri Feb 15, 7:13 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sun Feb 17, 10:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 7:31 am)