Because public schools have to provide an education to everyone. Mentally/physically handicap, etc. Private schools can kick people out who have low test scores, or not accept people in at all.
I hear that all the time, and I think it's bunk. First, I challenge you to find a private school that will refuse a kid with any but the most difficult handicap's. Sorry it just won't happen. Second, lets assume a tuition difference of $1100 between private and public and that 5% of the students have some kind of shortfall. (which I think are extremely generous assumptions). Well fine, that means those 5 extra kids per 100 would half to cost over $100,000 per year to be worth it. Bullshit, if it's that expensive - then I'm sorry someone should half to go without. ( ther real numbers are probably more like 2% and $3000)
Your superb grammar and spelling indicate that you have not been subjected to the public education which you characterize as a "sorry failure". In fact, it appears that you have been subjected to no education whatsoever.
Remember, that without public education you'd probably know less than you do now (hard though that is to believe) and without SSI and public healthcare your grandma would be living in what used to be your bedroom and your parents would be working two jobs each to pay for her medicine.
Actually, I attribute my bad spelling more to ignoring my spelling classes - and fiddeling arround with computers, which hardly anyone else my class had at the time. Somehow, I'm not sorry that things worked out that way, but even so my spelling and grammer scores still outtested most of the state of california. Also at the time, I seem to renember my parents paying arround $2500/yr to send me to a high rated private school while the state was paying about $3300/yr per student to send other kids to gettho high. Somehow, I don't think I was more deprived then they were, bad spelling or not.
PS: knowing how to spell doesn't help you much if you don't know how to think. Hint, think about pyramid schemes and why they always fail, and then think a little about SSI. Think about accountability and efficiency, and then think a little about medicare.
I've had more then my fair share of jobs at very big companies, I've seen alot of crap, alot of money outright wasted, and I hated it. But, more or less, at least they don't have the eternal power to coerce money from the people that support them. At least people have the option of avoiding doing business with them, which is much easier than avoiding doing business with the IRS.
That is simply not true, especially for the vast majority of private schools which are catholic schools. Many are chartered for the sole purpose of public good, are chariatable, and very biology/evolution theory orientated. Yeah, if some student's a bastard they're going to get kicked out, but that's the way it should be.
Actually, there is lots of evidence. First look at census data and rate how much teachers are getting paid vs how high test scores are - you will see almost an opposite coorlation. Also, I don't know about your state, but here in CA the average per student cost of a public education is at least 7000, while if you price the private schools in the area- it's not only less expensive, but has a much larger success rate. Also, what you say simply didn't happen in countries like Hong Kong - which didn't have public education for a long time.
Actually, awhile ago - I renember reading of how a group of private investors were looking into buying extra atlas missles to finance a private space program. NASA did everything they could to squish it. If you really want to help space research, let space be profitable and watch what happens.
I was just thinking, what happened to the space program is a classic example of why it's better for things to be privatized. I mean, one of the worst possible things that can happen to a government program is..... that is becomes successfull. At that point it becomes an entrenched bureauocracy that sucks the air out ofanything else that might have been a viable or healthy alternative. The moon race isn't the only example, SSI, public education, medicade/medicare are all drastic and sorry failures. I really feel sorry for the prople who truely believe in them.
"Freely comes my way" - by defenition does not ignore how I acquire something or the obligations I took on board when I acquire it. It is self explanatory, as is the nature of information. Once any escapes your "domain" there is no comprehensive force in the universe that will reign it back. You are declaring rights that can not naturally exist and are never enforcable by their nature. Excuse me, but I find it morally offensive when people go arroud touting rights rights over me that don't and can't exist. They shouldn't be supprised when I challenge.
Codeification is worthless when it does not complement the real world arround it. The law could also declare that gravity pulls upward and would be just as worthless, and people who follow it would be just as destined to failure. I wouln't be happy to see it, but if if someone jumped off a bridge because the law said gravity pulls upward, and called me a sociopath for challenging and refusing to participate - well they would get whats comming to them.
If you have a copy of my work, you obtained that copy in one of two ways: 1) Via a channel that I authorized; 2) Via a channel that I did not authorize.
If you got your copy via an unauthorized copy (e.g., from someone who bought one copy and made many duplicates) you have no rights at all to do anything with that copy. The only way for you to get any rights to a copy of my work is to get it via an authorized channel.
That's based off the false premise that you didn't forfiet your rights - say by using an unethical authorization scheme such as copyrights. Which violate my rights because they pre-assume the right to restrict my ability to copy information that I come accross freely, and pre-assume agreements that I never made and then attempt to impose them on me.
Thankfully, another fundamental right is the right to secure my rights. Which for copyrights information technologiles now give me the abillity to do so.
If I make something, I have complete and exclusive rights to determine how that something is used. If I don't want you to touch it, hold it, or use it, you can't. If I want to make one copy and sell it to you with proviso that your purchase obligates you to make no additional copies, that's my right. If I want to sell some of those rights to a company that makes and sells many copies, with each purchase of a copy binding that buyer to make no additional copies, that's my right, too.
All rights to an authored work originate with, and flow from, the creator of that work. The owner of a legitimate copy of that work has only the rights granted by the author....
Thank you, but by time I get ahold of a copy, that is irrelavent. You might have created it, but I have it and I didn't coerce you to get it. I have made no agreements, I have signed no contracts, I have not deprived you of your original copy. It has escaped your domain, and becomes mine to copy freely. My right to copy what is freely at my disposal dominates at that point.
Copyright is perfectly moral, therefore, because it is simply the state's recognition that the creator of a work owns that work and that others hold copies and/or rights in the work only at the volition of the work's creator.
Copyrights are garbage at that point, because at that point it violates my right to copy freely what comes into my domain freely and non coercively. Perhaps the state will try to promise you domain where you have none, perhaps a bum on the street promised I'd pay you million bucks. You would be stupid to believe either one, both of them are promising rights they can't deliver and that don't exist.
Says who? In any case, how an artist wants to make money is a matter for that artist, and no one else.
And there's the problem, right there. It's not about the money, but the morality of copyrights. How will the artists ever make money without copyrights? Well how will the plantation masters ever make money without slavery? No bullshit, first give up the false premise that you have the right to restrict what people copy in their domain at all, and then work on how to make money from there.
In general, just one more immature post trying to dress simple greed in bogus moralistic rationalizations.
Yes. "I created some music, so I claim a right to coercively restrict you from copying it for my own personal gain" - is a pretty greedy bogus moralistic rationalization.
First off, all these moves by huge orginisations are more reactionary than predatory. Things are changing quickly, and they can't deal with it to well.
What I think is happening, is we are moving into a democratic technocracy. Where the major policy decisions and values are being forced by the nature of the technology and not the nature of government. Copyrights are a classic example. No matter how many laws you pass, no matter how many troops you send out, they are effectively dead, and unenforcable - unless you become an absolute police state, something that is not likely to happen in normal democratic governments - even though they are trying very hard at it.
In a way this is a natural progression, and is good. Technology allows our society to move away from mob rule. I have a right not to be taxed and regulated so much even if the popular mob thinks otherwise.
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but democracy was considered extreme, free speech and free markets extreme, free religion extreme, remember those extreme people who wanted to abolish slavery rather than compromise with the slave states, and even quantum mechanics was considered extreme.
For god's sake, I think if you worried about being rational as much as you did being extreme - you might have figured out by now that just because an institution calls something a right does not mean that is is. And that property rights derive from physical limits, and not personal incentive or wishfull thinking. And that all the problems with IP are a symptom of something and didn't just magically happen.
Instead of worrying about being extreme, lets worry about being right. Otherwise we have doomed ourselves to worthlessness.
Every time someone points out an inherent flaw in Java, it's always assumed that it can be overcome with faster CPU's or faster/more clever compilers. That is just plain wrong. Java forces people to program in a way that is flawed, and absolutely fails to accept the fact that the domain of thinking and problem solving should be left to people and the domain of dataprocessing and computing should be left to computers. I wish I could say that I was just an obsolete C programmer who was unwilling to change, but that is simply not so. Java tries to force you to program a certain way even if that way is not an optimum one to solve a given problem. IMHO.
Goddammit you, you stole a copy of my Geo Metro. WTF, I have no incentive to drive it now. I paid for that Geo Metro, gimme gimme gimme royalities Right Now! YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I'm suing!!!!
Actually, he can have a *COPY* of my furntiure any time. In fact, he can have a copy of my car too. In fact, it's a Geo Metro, there are 10 million coppies of it out there. Somehow I don't feel violated.
You'll note that globalism only seems to work one way. Why can't I buy shoes directly from Indonesia for $5? Why can't I get a PC from China for $100? If American companies really want to compete globally then let's open the door both ways and see how they fare when I can buy a DVD player online for a fiver + shipping.
actually, why cant you? not a flame, I just don't see why you cant. Are there any regulations that prevent you? If it's not that way, then it's not free trade.
I disagree, freedom begets progress and progress needs freedom. It's just like 1850, US society simply couldn't move forward with the industrial revolution unless we got rid of slavery first. Near the end, slavery laws were harsher than they had ever been in the history of human kind - the sign of a desperate people trying to make an unworkable system work. The same is true with the DMCA today. IMHO, our society simply can't move forward into the information age with the current copyright system in place. People are desperately trying to force it, but they are not leading the way into the future - they are only desperately reacting to forces like free (not as in beer) software, the internet, and similar such forces in general. They are not in the drivers seat anymore, that's all there is too it.
The real guage of the success of the DMCA will be in the USA. If it rises in the USA, there will effectively be economic pressures to make it rise everywhere - if it fails in the USA it the same pressures will cause it to fail everywhere. The reason for this is simple - the US was the first to get a tase of the information age, and was the first to feel the heat from copyrights effectively becoming unenforcable.
They can see how copyright laws screw up the ability to run the legal system. It's such an unreasonable restriction, they won't even tolerate it. So how can they tolerate the RIAA, the DMCA, the MPAA, and copyright restrictions in general without being hypocrites.
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters."
Excuse me, but please feel free to steal a *COPY* of my TV any time. In fact, steal a copy of my car too, heck it's a geo metro, there a million coppies. Some-how I don't feel violated of my rights.
I really have no objection if you wish to sign a NDA with everyone who comes in contact with your "book", that also requires the people they come in contact with to sigh an NDA etc...
But that's not what a lot of media lords want. They want to spew the information everywhere and anywhere, and anyone who makes use of it or coppies it is obligated by the terms of the creator. That'd be like me sending you a $100 bill in the mail as a loan, and expecting you as being legally obliged to pay it back with interest or send it back unopened. Sorry, rights don't work that way, nor does the political entity that I'm in bind them to me.
I have rights, and me and people like me often organize in the form of government to secure those rights. But in no way does government create rights, nor am I obliged to go along with it when they impose flase ones.
You are able and allowed to read my book only because I have given you permission, via that rights transfer to a publisher, to do that. Absent the permission that flows directly from my ownership of my work (not the authorized copy you own, but the actual work) you would not have a book, period.
Betime I get a copy of your book, I have signed no contract, made no agreement, never obligated or coreced or decieved you to create it. Perhaps you've allowed everyone to copy it, perhaps no one, I am compeletly unaware, and am not bound to your contracts and agreements with someone else. Perhaps I am aware of your intentions, but again, I am not bound to your agreements with someone else. If I violate those, that's a percieved violation, not a real one. The fact is that I have this information, and could make a trillion coppies of it and store it in a wharehouse, and you could live your life the same never experience a thing different- how would you be violated. Perhaps I print up coppies and sell it - you might percieve to be violated, you might not like it, you might never even have of created your work knowing that I would to that, but the simple fact is that my passing along information is not inhibiting your use of that information in the same way. I am being equitable to you. I am not violationg you. Now if the government promises you a monopoly if you make creative works, that's between you and the government. I have still not violated you, maybe I've broken some laws, maybe the government will try and give me a hard time, maybe you have been decieved by the government who makes promises they can't uphold in the information age, but I have still not violated you.
(A: Why that copy is equivalent to the work itself, and; (B) How that the work's creator did not fully own his work at the moment of its creation.
(a) the copy isn't equivalent to the work itself, but it is good enough for me - that's why you are not being violated. (perhaps in all the analogies I suggested something other than what I intended to) (B) I won't dispute.
You don't half to show the things you create to the world arround you, but once you do it's out of your hands. In that way you forfiet your rights (not of ownership, but of privacy and of restricting downstream copying)
More fundamentally, you've failed to explain how, apart from my transferring ownership or rights, someone other than myself can own or have rights to something I made. Until you do that, you are describing you own desired state of affairs, not reality.
The reality is that with information, two people can posess the same data at the same time without the other loosing it. I didn't make it up, it really is the way the universe works. Nor am I coercing you to put it in a place that I can copy it, nor am I busting in your house to sneak it out in the middle of the night. Nor am I even copying it and claiming to be the original creator. You have failed to explain how I have violated your rights by copying something you created - and that is because I haven't.
PS: did you ever hear the saying - fight fire with fire, hence the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Because public schools have to provide an education to everyone. Mentally/physically handicap, etc. Private schools can kick people out who have low test scores, or not accept people in at all.
I hear that all the time, and I think it's bunk. First, I challenge you to find a private school that will refuse a kid with any but the most difficult handicap's. Sorry it just won't happen. Second, lets assume a tuition difference of $1100 between private and public and that 5% of the students have some kind of shortfall. (which I think are extremely generous assumptions). Well fine, that means those 5 extra kids per 100 would half to cost over $100,000 per year to be worth it. Bullshit, if it's that expensive - then I'm sorry someone should half to go without. ( ther real numbers are probably more like 2% and $3000)
Your superb grammar and spelling indicate that you have not been subjected to the public education which you characterize as a "sorry failure". In fact, it appears that you have been subjected to no education whatsoever.
Remember, that without public education you'd probably know less than you do now (hard though that is to believe) and without SSI and public healthcare your grandma would be living in what used to be your bedroom and your parents would be working two jobs each to pay for her medicine.
Actually, I attribute my bad spelling more to ignoring my spelling classes - and fiddeling arround with computers, which hardly anyone else my class had at the time. Somehow, I'm not sorry that things worked out that way, but even so my spelling and grammer scores still outtested most of the state of california. Also at the time, I seem to renember my parents paying arround $2500/yr to send me to a high rated private school while the state was paying about $3300/yr per student to send other kids to gettho high. Somehow, I don't think I was more deprived then they were, bad spelling or not.
PS: knowing how to spell doesn't help you much if you don't know how to think. Hint, think about pyramid schemes and why they always fail, and then think a little about SSI. Think about accountability and efficiency, and then think a little about medicare.
I've had more then my fair share of jobs at very big companies, I've seen alot of crap, alot of money outright wasted, and I hated it. But, more or less, at least they don't have the eternal power to coerce money from the people that support them. At least people have the option of avoiding doing business with them, which is much easier than avoiding doing business with the IRS.
That is simply not true, especially for the vast majority of private schools which are catholic schools. Many are chartered for the sole purpose of public good, are chariatable, and very biology/evolution theory orientated. Yeah, if some student's a bastard they're going to get kicked out, but that's the way it should be.
Actually, there is lots of evidence. First look at census data and rate how much teachers are getting paid vs how high test scores are - you will see almost an opposite coorlation. Also, I don't know about your state, but here in CA the average per student cost of a public education is at least 7000, while if you price the private schools in the area- it's not only less expensive, but has a much larger success rate. Also, what you say simply didn't happen in countries like Hong Kong - which didn't have public education for a long time.
Actually, awhile ago - I renember reading of how a group of private investors were looking into buying extra atlas missles to finance a private space program. NASA did everything they could to squish it. If you really want to help space research, let space be profitable and watch what happens.
I was just thinking, what happened to the space program is a classic example of why it's better for things to be privatized. I mean, one of the worst possible things that can happen to a government program is ..... that is becomes successfull. At that point it becomes an entrenched bureauocracy that sucks the air out ofanything else that might have been a viable or healthy alternative. The moon race isn't the only example, SSI, public education, medicade/medicare are all drastic and sorry failures. I really feel sorry for the prople who truely believe in them.
"Freely comes my way" - by defenition does not ignore how I acquire something or the obligations I took on board when I acquire it. It is self explanatory, as is the nature of information. Once any escapes your "domain" there is no comprehensive force in the universe that will reign it back. You are declaring rights that can not naturally exist and are never enforcable by their nature. Excuse me, but I find it morally offensive when people go arroud touting rights rights over me that don't and can't exist. They shouldn't be supprised when I challenge.
Codeification is worthless when it does not complement the real world arround it. The law could also declare that gravity pulls upward and would be just as worthless, and people who follow it would be just as destined to failure. I wouln't be happy to see it, but if if someone jumped off a bridge because the law said gravity pulls upward, and called me a sociopath for challenging and refusing to participate - well they would get whats comming to them.
If you have a copy of my work, you obtained that copy in one of two ways: 1) Via a channel that I authorized; 2) Via a channel that I did not authorize.
If you got your copy via an unauthorized copy (e.g., from someone who bought one copy and made many duplicates) you have no rights at all to do anything with that copy. The only way for you to get any rights to a copy of my work is to get it via an authorized channel.
That's based off the false premise that you didn't forfiet your rights - say by using an unethical authorization scheme such as copyrights. Which violate my rights because they pre-assume the right to restrict my ability to copy information that I come accross freely, and pre-assume agreements that I never made and then attempt to impose them on me.
Thankfully, another fundamental right is the right to secure my rights. Which for copyrights information technologiles now give me the abillity to do so.
If I make something, I have complete and exclusive rights to determine how that something is used. If I don't want you to touch it, hold it, or use it, you can't. If I want to make one copy and sell it to you with proviso that your purchase obligates you to make no additional copies, that's my right. If I want to sell some of those rights to a company that makes and sells many copies, with each purchase of a copy binding that buyer to make no additional copies, that's my right, too.
All rights to an authored work originate with, and flow from, the creator of that work. The owner of a legitimate copy of that work has only the rights granted by the author. ...
Thank you, but by time I get ahold of a copy, that is irrelavent. You might have created it, but I have it and I didn't coerce you to get it. I have made no agreements, I have signed no contracts, I have not deprived you of your original copy. It has escaped your domain, and becomes mine to copy freely. My right to copy what is freely at my disposal dominates at that point.
Copyright is perfectly moral, therefore, because it is simply the state's recognition that the creator of a work owns that work and that others hold copies and/or rights in the work only at the volition of the work's creator.
Copyrights are garbage at that point, because at that point it violates my right to copy freely what comes into my domain freely and non coercively. Perhaps the state will try to promise you domain where you have none, perhaps a bum on the street promised I'd pay you million bucks. You would be stupid to believe either one, both of them are promising rights they can't deliver and that don't exist.
Says who? In any case, how an artist wants to make money is a matter for that artist, and no one else.
And there's the problem, right there. It's not about the money, but the morality of copyrights. How will the artists ever make money without copyrights? Well how will the plantation masters ever make money without slavery? No bullshit, first give up the false premise that you have the right to restrict what people copy in their domain at all, and then work on how to make money from there.
In general, just one more immature post trying to dress simple greed in bogus moralistic rationalizations.
Yes. "I created some music, so I claim a right to coercively restrict you from copying it for my own personal gain" - is a pretty greedy bogus moralistic rationalization.
First off, all these moves by huge orginisations are more reactionary than predatory. Things are changing quickly, and they can't deal with it to well.
What I think is happening, is we are moving into a democratic technocracy. Where the major policy decisions and values are being forced by the nature of the technology and not the nature of government. Copyrights are a classic example. No matter how many laws you pass, no matter how many troops you send out, they are effectively dead, and unenforcable - unless you become an absolute police state, something that is not likely to happen in normal democratic governments - even though they are trying very hard at it.
In a way this is a natural progression, and is good. Technology allows our society to move away from mob rule. I have a right not to be taxed and regulated so much even if the popular mob thinks otherwise.
blah blah blah ...unreasonable extremism ... blah blah blah
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but democracy was considered extreme, free speech and free markets extreme, free religion extreme, remember those extreme people who wanted to abolish slavery rather than compromise with the slave states, and even quantum mechanics was considered extreme.
For god's sake, I think if you worried about being rational as much as you did being extreme - you might have figured out by now that just because an institution calls something a right does not mean that is is. And that property rights derive from physical limits, and not personal incentive or wishfull thinking. And that all the problems with IP are a symptom of something and didn't just magically happen.
Instead of worrying about being extreme, lets worry about being right. Otherwise we have doomed ourselves to worthlessness.
Every time someone points out an inherent flaw in Java, it's always assumed that it can be overcome with faster CPU's or faster/more clever compilers. That is just plain wrong. Java forces people to program in a way that is flawed, and absolutely fails to accept the fact that the domain of thinking and problem solving should be left to people and the domain of dataprocessing and computing should be left to computers. I wish I could say that I was just an obsolete C programmer who was unwilling to change, but that is simply not so. Java tries to force you to program a certain way even if that way is not an optimum one to solve a given problem. IMHO.
Goddammit you, you stole a copy of my Geo Metro. WTF, I have no incentive to drive it now. I paid for that Geo Metro, gimme gimme gimme royalities Right Now! YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I'm suing!!!!
Actually, he can have a *COPY* of my furntiure any time. In fact, he can have a copy of my car too. In fact, it's a Geo Metro, there are 10 million coppies of it out there. Somehow I don't feel violated.
You'll note that globalism only seems to work one way. Why can't I buy shoes directly from Indonesia for $5? Why can't I get a PC from China for $100? If American companies really want to compete globally then let's open the door both ways and see how they fare when I can buy a DVD player online for a fiver + shipping.
actually, why cant you? not a flame, I just don't see why you cant. Are there any regulations that prevent you? If it's not that way, then it's not free trade.
Yeah, but in this case the criminals write the laws, or live in hollywood.
I disagree, freedom begets progress and progress needs freedom. It's just like 1850, US society simply couldn't move forward with the industrial revolution unless we got rid of slavery first. Near the end, slavery laws were harsher than they had ever been in the history of human kind - the sign of a desperate people trying to make an unworkable system work. The same is true with the DMCA today. IMHO, our society simply can't move forward into the information age with the current copyright system in place. People are desperately trying to force it, but they are not leading the way into the future - they are only desperately reacting to forces like free (not as in beer) software, the internet, and similar such forces in general. They are not in the drivers seat anymore, that's all there is too it.
The real guage of the success of the DMCA will be in the USA. If it rises in the USA, there will effectively be economic pressures to make it rise everywhere - if it fails in the USA it the same pressures will cause it to fail everywhere. The reason for this is simple - the US was the first to get a tase of the information age, and was the first to feel the heat from copyrights effectively becoming unenforcable.
They can see how copyright laws screw up the ability to run the legal system. It's such an unreasonable restriction, they won't even tolerate it. So how can they tolerate the RIAA, the DMCA, the MPAA, and copyright restrictions in general without being hypocrites.
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters."
Excuse me, but please feel free to steal a *COPY* of my TV any time. In fact, steal a copy of my car too, heck it's a geo metro, there a million coppies. Some-how I don't feel violated of my rights.
I really have no objection if you wish to sign a NDA with everyone who comes in contact with your "book", that also requires the people they come in contact with to sigh an NDA etc...
But that's not what a lot of media lords want. They want to spew the information everywhere and anywhere, and anyone who makes use of it or coppies it is obligated by the terms of the creator. That'd be like me sending you a $100 bill in the mail as a loan, and expecting you as being legally obliged to pay it back with interest or send it back unopened. Sorry, rights don't work that way, nor does the political entity that I'm in bind them to me.
I have rights, and me and people like me often organize in the form of government to secure those rights. But in no way does government create rights, nor am I obliged to go along with it when they impose flase ones.
You are able and allowed to read my book only because I have given you permission, via that rights transfer to a publisher, to do that. Absent the permission that flows directly from my ownership of my work (not the authorized copy you own, but the actual work) you would not have a book, period.
Betime I get a copy of your book, I have signed no contract, made no agreement, never obligated or coreced or decieved you to create it. Perhaps you've allowed everyone to copy it, perhaps no one, I am compeletly unaware, and am not bound to your contracts and agreements with someone else. Perhaps I am aware of your intentions, but again, I am not bound to your agreements with someone else. If I violate those, that's a percieved violation, not a real one. The fact is that I have this information, and could make a trillion coppies of it and store it in a wharehouse, and you could live your life the same never experience a thing different- how would you be violated. Perhaps I print up coppies and sell it - you might percieve to be violated, you might not like it, you might never even have of created your work knowing that I would to that, but the simple fact is that my passing along information is not inhibiting your use of that information in the same way. I am being equitable to you. I am not violationg you. Now if the government promises you a monopoly if you make creative works, that's between you and the government. I have still not violated you, maybe I've broken some laws, maybe the government will try and give me a hard time, maybe you have been decieved by the government who makes promises they can't uphold in the information age, but I have still not violated you.
(A: Why that copy is equivalent to the work itself, and; (B) How that the work's creator did not fully own his work at the moment of its creation.
(a) the copy isn't equivalent to the work itself, but it is good enough for me - that's why you are not being violated. (perhaps in all the analogies I suggested something other than what I intended to) (B) I won't dispute.
You don't half to show the things you create to the world arround you, but once you do it's out of your hands. In that way you forfiet your rights (not of ownership, but of privacy and of restricting downstream copying)
More fundamentally, you've failed to explain how, apart from my transferring ownership or rights, someone other than myself can own or have rights to something I made. Until you do that, you are describing you own desired state of affairs, not reality.
The reality is that with information, two people can posess the same data at the same time without the other loosing it. I didn't make it up, it really is the way the universe works. Nor am I coercing you to put it in a place that I can copy it, nor am I busting in your house to sneak it out in the middle of the night. Nor am I even copying it and claiming to be the original creator. You have failed to explain how I have violated your rights by copying something you created - and that is because I haven't.
PS: did you ever hear the saying - fight fire with fire, hence the GPL.