Ok...just wanted to verify that indeed you have it backwards. You are claiming rights that just do not exist. The rights you speak of only apply to your personal copy, as I previously stated. The copyright laws apply to my copy. As I've said, when the copyright expires, so does any authority that you possessed over my copy. I can make as many copies as I want and sell/give to whomever I want. Do you accept this? If not, then do you believe that a work does not pass into public domain? Ever? This is the part that interests me in this discussion. Can you agree that after the copyright expires, your work is in the publuc domain. No? Please explain what authority you have after the copyright goes away. When you give up your copyright to a publisher, the problem is theirs to deal with. In fact you yourself have given up the right to make and sell(or give away) copies of your own work. Most likely the publisher will demand exclusive rights to distribute your work. You will be prohibited from making any more copies. Can you accept this as fact? I can only assume that if you signed a contract(there's that dirty word again) stating that, you do accept this as fact. After the copyright expires, they will lose exclusive distribution rights. So I need to know if you agree that all works with expired copyrights are in the public domain. If you do, I believe that you would have to admit that any rights you claim come from the copyright law, a "created" right, with limits. And that any natural rights apply only to your copy that you put into the closet.
All rights to a work come into existence when the original work is created they belong exclusively to the work's creator. It is impossible for anyone else to acquire any of those rights unless the rights are transferred from the work's creator to them.
This is why I'm asking what happens after the copyright expires. What rights are you claiming then? You seem to be saying that public domain does not exist, that your authority lasts forever. I think that almost the whole world will tell you that you're wrong. Even those $50,000 a minute philosophers who spend most of their lives discussing this very thing. Who knows? There might be somebody out there that believe that there's no such thing as public domain, that it steals from the creator of a work. Are you one of them?
If I sell a publisher the right to print and sell copies, while retaining all other rights,...
Just caught this... Just what rights do you retain beyond copyright?? Especially after the copyright expires? Do you actually believe you have some perpetual rights over the copies you don't own? I would definitely like to know what these rights could possibly be. I'm sure a lot of other people might be interested also. You talk about transfering your rights to so and so, but you never explained the rights you maintain other than copyright, and I've already explained why copyright is not a right. Real rights last forever. Copyright doesn't. Real rights apply to everyone equally. Copyright doesn't. Real rights don't require gov't recognition. Copyright does. Real rights aren't restricted by time or place, or to certain people. Copyright is. What real rights do you have over other people's possessions, whether you made them or not? Feel free to refer me to a previous post in case I missed it. Unless I forcibly take your copy, I have stolen nothing of yours.
You can't blame you're kid shooting someone on video games if the parents have to buy them for them.
You can't blame you're kid shooting someone on video games ever. You can put the blame on things such as food alergies(usually a reaction to sugar or other nasty chemicals in their soda pop more than anything), or a bad reaction to their prozac, or whatever they're forced to take to calm them down.
Nursery rhymes?? Jeez. If anybody wants violence, they just have to read the Bible. You'll get plenty of violence right there in the first book(Genesis). It's all downhill from there. There's murder, war, anger, rage, jealousy, envy, hate, mayhem, you name it. Once again, somebody's trying to distract people from other much more serious problems. And once again, it will work. It's like a guy that buys flowers for his girlfriend to make her forget that he cheated on her last light. That usually works also.
Look at the bright side. We won't have to oursource anymore. We can create even more cheap prison labor. This guy might end up working the help desk from jail. Wallmart won't have to use Chinese prisoners anymore. It will be much cheaper to ship from domestic prisons. Just run some train tracks up to the door.
No, he's not. Corporations and gov't are doing what they can to prevent average users from uploading...anything. Soon you just might need a license to upload. We must not permit this to happen. If it does, then it will be yet another law that will bring about more rubber stamped warrants and arrests. Then the net will just be more TV. The net wasn't created just to create new markets. It was meant to be a robust, reliable, computer networking system. The fact that businesses can exploit this is perfectly ok, but they must not be allowed to control it. The net was meant to be P2P. This is why we need real wireless. The ISP's don't want you uploading either. We should make sure that the internet remains out of control by these people. As long as we need a wire, that will not be possible. I don't want the net to be limited to tracking my FedEx packages or ordering out. I can do that with a phone. In fact the net can be a real pain to do those things. But the pictures are pretty. Aren't they?
...we're a free-market economy.
Uh, what? Say again? I hope you don't really believe that. You sound like you have something to sell.
If you have a good idea, put it to work
That won't matter if it's outlawed.
...you have the power here.
On that I agree, but we are letting it slip away. That will be a tragedy. If that happens, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Believe me, God had nothing to do with it. Since non-violent crime is so worthy of prison time to you, we should be nailing people for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. They are far more dangerous. Ah, sweet revenge...
YES! It's working great...if you have investments in the prison industry or those companies that support the law enforcement infrastructure. This is a very profitable business. Just like prohibition. This gives them a chance to lock up people that have money. This could bring in more money than casinos. The crime is no longer important. It's more about money than than it ever was. And building prisons makes LOTS of money...for some. For the rest of us? Well, that's another thing all together. When it comes to law, the subject of justice rarely comes up, and the only place that happens is in the universities, and there it's really just mental masturbation. Who said this? - "Justice? In life there is no justice. There is only law. In the afterlife there is justice."
I'm in no position to tell you if ablums are better(they do sound a little less harsh to me), but one thing for sure is that they are far more durable. I can still listen to some old Edison records from the 20's. My mom's Bing Crosby records from the 30's and 40's still sound ok. I doubt if you'll be passing your collection on to your kids or even less, your grandkids. And the player? HAH! Those things barely work when they're new. Anyone out there still using the machine they bought in '85? Twenty or thirty years from now let's see who's still making machines that can play those old fashioned CD's. Telephones, record players, and DC-3's...all old stuff that still work quite well today. Digital? BAH! that stuff changes every 3-5 years. Every new format is requiring you to buy new hardware to match. Records changed a little over time, but if I had to, I could play my Led Zeppelin reords on a Gramophone...once. Hell I could play the thing on a potter's wheel with a straight pin and a cone made out of paper. Try THAT with your fancy, schmantzy digital. What a horrible scam it is. All those promises of great sound and durability. It just isn't happening. They sure got us on that upgrade merry-go-round. Well you guys maybe. I just listen to the radio.
-- This post spell checked with Google(well...most of it), two great treats in one.
I suppose the developers better not put their name anywhere on their projects anymore to stay off the radar. How far will the *AA go? As far as we let them. We must continue working to insure that our communications can remain anonymous and indecipherable to those not invited. The law be damned. Let's make it impossible to enforce. The crazier they get, the bigger the eventual backlash. We should provoke them so that the rest of the world can see how ludicrous the whole IP thing is, and how it has screwed us over(details all over the net) for the last 300 years.
Suppose I have the manuscript. There is no other copy.
You're making my point for me. It's theft only if I take your copy. That one and only copy is in your possession. That copy is yours. If I buy that copy or a second copy. Then that which I bought is mine. I never said anything about taking it. If you make even the feeblest attempt to understand, you will realize that copyright(for instance) is not perpetual. It expires after a certain time. After which you lose all legal controls over other peoples copies. Or do you believe otherwise?? Real, honest to goodness rights don't expire ever. They can be taken by force... Even I can understand that copyright is not a right. It was never written as a right. It was intended to provide a temporary monopoly to the creator over control of his publications. It was out of the graciousness of the gov't that this monopoly exists. It is by gov't edict that you can maintain control over the possessions of others. It is a "right" created by the force of law. And after the time limit is up it belongs to the public. Where it always should have been. But greedy people say another thing all together. Copyright is nothing like the rights to free speech. In fact it's the direct opposite. It restricts free speech. It gives the copyright owner the power over what I can say. Notice I say the power, not the right. But like all special privileges, it does expire. And like all special privileges, I know it's wrong.
Possession of the book and possession of rights in the book are two different things.
Only by the aforementioned laws, and only in your head. Even copyright law accepts that. If your claimed rights were in fact rights, they would remain permanent, lasting forever, like real inalienable rights. IP laws grant temporary privileges in the belief that you will throw society a bone. Read up on it. After the copyright expires, you lose all legal "rights". Your ideas on this matter are clearly a twisted interpretation of the law, nothing more.
However, while I've tried to provide a logical and coherent basis for my belief...
That's what they are, your beliefs, and they are mistaken, and without any valid premise.
Please explain, in support of your assertions, how we have no rights unless a law gives them to us.
You have it so backwards. You are attempting to assert control over my possessions. You simply have no right to do that. It's just too obvious. I have explained that already. You have simply repeated your position, still without any basis. It's still just as false as the first time you stated it.
Rights are not created by laws. Rights are protected by laws, but no law can create a right. Rights are ours by virtue of our existence.
That's exactly what copyright does. It attempts to create special exclusive rights. Rights that don't exist by virtue of our existence. Without copyright, you have no legal control over my possessions. This is just one of the things that show that these laws are corrupt. The manner in which they were created and expanded would be another. A non-corrupt law protects everyone...equally, and binds everyone...equally. However, those who make and enforce the law should be doubly bound. You have no right to control things you don't own. Not by virtue of your existance or by any valid law. I don't have any of your posessions. I may own one of your creations, but after the sale or gift you no longer own it in any way. It is mine. Your rights extend only to the surface of your skin, no farther(although for the time being I'll acccept your ownership of your physical property in your physical posession, and you will accept mine. Later? You never know...). Same goes for me. We are the same. Neither you or I are worthy of any exclusive rights. Even over our creations we no longer possess.
...How do publishers acquire the right to print and distribute a book?
By exploiting the corrupt law I mentioned in another post.
You keep make contrary assertions,...
Where? Only contrary to your position, if that's what you're talking about.
And please stop talking about contracts.
Why? It's a perfectly valid assertion, unlike yours.
As I;ve said elsewhere, if you possess a copy of a work I made, you have only the rights that I have transferred to you.
Yes, you continue to repeat that without any basis in fact. Try something new. That statement doesn't hold water or anything else for that matter. In fact you last few posts haven't said anything new or meaningful. You're simply claiming things that just aren't true, and I'm now beginning to wonder if you're not just trolling.
Are you suggesting that some sort of authority is needed to reglulate my decision to build a parking lot at my private business?
Some municipalities require just that. That is a good thing. Many companies that build apartment buildings are now required to provide adequate parking for their residents. Also a good thing. For one it make more space for moving traffic. That's what streets are for. Nobody should have to put up with clogged streets just for your profits. You can't just throw yor trash into the street either. Are you suggesting that you have a right to do that? A "private" business has no right to disregard the welfare of the public. A "private" business cannot discriminate as to who they serve. And a "private" business is not the same thing as a private individual. We have a right to regulate any business to insure that they operate in a way that does not affect the rights of individuals.
If we are to eliminate energy subsidies, let's start with petroleum. We are shooting at and killing people to get it. Hardly what you would call voluntary for them. I prefer mandatory solar over going to war to keep Exxon in the black. Once we experience the real unsubsidized price, alternatives look pretty good. Oil has always operated under a protected enviroment. With the available alternatives, it needs this protection to stay in business.
It will succeed or fail on it's own merits in a free an open market.
Only the contraband market operates freely and openly. Everything else is regulated and/or subsidized(tax breaks are a form of subsidy), oil, dairy, tobacco...
I believe they crippled the regular "consumer" version by not including a digital input. They did the same to DAT. This to appease the publishing business. If they really championed it, we would've had a very durable, reliable replacement for the floppy ten years ago. Memory sticks don't compare. They just don't hold up. CD's are a pain.
P.S. The key point is the possession of the original, single, work by the author and that author's exclusive possession of all rights pertaining to the work.
And on that point, pertaining to your original, you'll get no argument. I don't posess that. You do. Your rights apply to your copy, not mine. As far as my copy, without a signed contract, all bets are off. You have no rights to transfer or to remove.
Maybe because the warrant, like the law itself, can be(and has been) used as a political tool. To me a warrant is a violation for the above reasons and more. We should never allow those responsible for making and upholding the law to break the law. In fact they should suffer double the normal penalty. We sure should never let them make laws that grants them any more rights than you or I have. All this crap about terrorism and kiddie porm is a smokescreen. Don't ever expect me to respect any law that grants special privileges to a particular individual or group.
So far, only perpetual motion machines and immortality have shown to be impossible. And even then, we might prove otherwise someday. Private communication will be much easier. It will always be a cat and mouse game. It works just like evolution, only faster. We just have to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. The law isn't important(I wouldn't be saying that if all laws applied to everybody, equally). We simply must make it impossible to enforce. Electronic weapons are easy to neutralize. Remotely jamming a gun is a bit more difficult( I hope not impossible). So we have our work cut out for us. Until we act like humans instead of animals, this is the way things will be. Se la vie(?). As long as I live, I must keep the faith that we can rise above it all. Once we can protect ourselves from each other, we will be able to keep the rights we were born with. Until then, "Might makes right". Everything else is just a distraction. While what I am looking for is possible, I'll admit that it isn't likely, given the present circumstances. It's up to us to change that.
They can sue me all they want. I guarantee they will get nothing, because that's what I have. You have spelled out your position, your beliefs, nothing more. It doesn't make it fact. Your entire post assumes a belief in rights that just don't exist. You have yet to base it on any fact or proof. You're basing it on corrupt law, bought by powerful groups(of which you wish to become a member apparently), for their exclusive benefit. Putting it into quotation marks or even quoting others beliefs doesn't make it factual either. I will always maintain that only a mutually agreed upon signed contract can in any way restrict my rights with my posessions no matter who makes them, and no matter what they are. Note that my rights with what I do with my apartment or my car are restricted by the contract I signed with the building owner or the state repectively. I signed no contract with my other posessions. I bought them outright. If you wish to maintain any control, you must produce a contract for me to sign. I will accept nothing less. As this discussion goes on, I'm becoming more and more aware of just how ludicrous your claims are. They simply make no sense. They are simply claims of one's desire to have control over others. It's a way of putting others beneath you, to provide a sense of superiority. As you look into the history of IP, you find that that was its original intent, and its obvious result. You can state your position as fact all you want. Back it up with logic, not a gun.
We're obviously wasting time telling each other who's wrong. Again, my copy in my posession is my copy to do with what I want, period. And I'll act accordingly. You can sell me anything you want, and once I am in posession, it's MINE to copy, fabricate, destroy, fold , mutilate, remove the tag from, etc. You have absolutely no right to control anything that is in my posession, unless we sign a mutually agreed upon contract providing you those rights. Only through a signed contract could you possibly even in the remotest sense maintain any cotrol over anything not in your posession. I'll spell it out for as simply as possible. Anything does does not involve us trying to occupy the same space at the same time is absolutely, positively irrelevent, your copies, my copies, the law, whatever. It appears that it's too simple for you to understand. So forget it. I'm done with this. You may continue with your specious claims all you wish. You have no basic premise no which to stand, and that's that.
My copy is MY copy. You shall have NO control over MY copy. Again, the gov't not withstanding, you have no exclusive rights to transfer to anybody. You can only claim it's yours as long as the gov't says so. Make no mistake. Copyright will go away. It has to if we are to progress. It's just a matter of time.
Don't tell me what you believe.
That's precisely what you're doing. Gov't backing doesn't make it true.
Tell me how you can acquire a right that is oringally mine if I do not give it to you.
Who or what gave you any exclusive rights? Don't tell me what the law is. This law is corrupt and doesn't count. Find me the basic premise that grants you these exclusive rights.
1. It is the value of the physical book that interests me. 2. I am trying to protect and sell the right to copy and market the physical object represented by a file on my hard drive or by a stack of paper. 3. What does paper have to do with anything?
Oooohh, I don't know. Maybe it's because most books are written on it?
Look. This will go nowhere as long as you claim rights that don't exist. There are papers(there's that word again) that try to enumerate(?) inalienable rights. You won't find copyright in there. Any "right" that infringes on another person in any way is in no way inelienable.
The discussion is about copying physical entities.
No problem. My argument still stands. I gave you no control over my copy, that I may or may not have bought from an authorized or unauthorized distributor. When you produce a signed contract with my signature on it, well then you have a point. I will have waived my rights to do what I want with my copy. Standing behind a corrupt law will not help you here.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok...just wanted to verify that indeed you have it backwards. You are claiming rights that just do not exist. The rights you speak of only apply to your personal copy, as I previously stated. The copyright laws apply to my copy. As I've said, when the copyright expires, so does any authority that you possessed over my copy. I can make as many copies as I want and sell/give to whomever I want. Do you accept this? If not, then do you believe that a work does not pass into public domain? Ever? This is the part that interests me in this discussion. Can you agree that after the copyright expires, your work is in the publuc domain. No? Please explain what authority you have after the copyright goes away. When you give up your copyright to a publisher, the problem is theirs to deal with. In fact you yourself have given up the right to make and sell(or give away) copies of your own work. Most likely the publisher will demand exclusive rights to distribute your work. You will be prohibited from making any more copies. Can you accept this as fact? I can only assume that if you signed a contract(there's that dirty word again) stating that, you do accept this as fact. After the copyright expires, they will lose exclusive distribution rights. So I need to know if you agree that all works with expired copyrights are in the public domain. If you do, I believe that you would have to admit that any rights you claim come from the copyright law, a "created" right, with limits. And that any natural rights apply only to your copy that you put into the closet.
All rights to a work come into existence when the original work is created they belong exclusively to the work's creator. It is impossible for anyone else to acquire any of those rights unless the rights are transferred from the work's creator to them.
This is why I'm asking what happens after the copyright expires. What rights are you claiming then? You seem to be saying that public domain does not exist, that your authority lasts forever. I think that almost the whole world will tell you that you're wrong. Even those $50,000 a minute philosophers who spend most of their lives discussing this very thing. Who knows? There might be somebody out there that believe that there's no such thing as public domain, that it steals from the creator of a work. Are you one of them?
If I sell a publisher the right to print and sell copies, while retaining all other rights,...
Just caught this... Just what rights do you retain beyond copyright?? Especially after the copyright expires? Do you actually believe you have some perpetual rights over the copies you don't own? I would definitely like to know what these rights could possibly be. I'm sure a lot of other people might be interested also. You talk about transfering your rights to so and so, but you never explained the rights you maintain other than copyright, and I've already explained why copyright is not a right. Real rights last forever. Copyright doesn't. Real rights apply to everyone equally. Copyright doesn't. Real rights don't require gov't recognition. Copyright does. Real rights aren't restricted by time or place, or to certain people. Copyright is. What real rights do you have over other people's possessions, whether you made them or not? Feel free to refer me to a previous post in case I missed it. Unless I forcibly take your copy, I have stolen nothing of yours.
You can't blame you're kid shooting someone on video games if the parents have to buy them for them.
You can't blame you're kid shooting someone on video games ever. You can put the blame on things such as food alergies(usually a reaction to sugar or other nasty chemicals in their soda pop more than anything), or a bad reaction to their prozac, or whatever they're forced to take to calm them down.
Nursery rhymes?? Jeez. If anybody wants violence, they just have to read the Bible. You'll get plenty of violence right there in the first book(Genesis). It's all downhill from there. There's murder, war, anger, rage, jealousy, envy, hate, mayhem, you name it. Once again, somebody's trying to distract people from other much more serious problems. And once again, it will work. It's like a guy that buys flowers for his girlfriend to make her forget that he cheated on her last light. That usually works also.
Look at the bright side. We won't have to oursource anymore. We can create even more cheap prison labor. This guy might end up working the help desk from jail. Wallmart won't have to use Chinese prisoners anymore. It will be much cheaper to ship from domestic prisons. Just run some train tracks up to the door.
You're sounding a little whiney here.
...we're a free-market economy.
...you have the power here.
No, he's not. Corporations and gov't are doing what they can to prevent average users from uploading...anything. Soon you just might need a license to upload. We must not permit this to happen. If it does, then it will be yet another law that will bring about more rubber stamped warrants and arrests. Then the net will just be more TV. The net wasn't created just to create new markets. It was meant to be a robust, reliable, computer networking system. The fact that businesses can exploit this is perfectly ok, but they must not be allowed to control it. The net was meant to be P2P. This is why we need real wireless. The ISP's don't want you uploading either. We should make sure that the internet remains out of control by these people. As long as we need a wire, that will not be possible. I don't want the net to be limited to tracking my FedEx packages or ordering out. I can do that with a phone. In fact the net can be a real pain to do those things. But the pictures are pretty. Aren't they?
Uh, what? Say again? I hope you don't really believe that. You sound like you have something to sell.
If you have a good idea, put it to work
That won't matter if it's outlawed.
On that I agree, but we are letting it slip away. That will be a tragedy. If that happens, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Thank God for the law.
Believe me, God had nothing to do with it. Since non-violent crime is so worthy of prison time to you, we should be nailing people for failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. They are far more dangerous. Ah, sweet revenge...
But there's also a small thing called deterrent.
Evidently it's a very small thing, considering how well it works. See: death penalty.
Really, is the policy working?
YES! It's working great...if you have investments in the prison industry or those companies that support the law enforcement infrastructure. This is a very profitable business. Just like prohibition. This gives them a chance to lock up people that have money. This could bring in more money than casinos. The crime is no longer important. It's more about money than than it ever was. And building prisons makes LOTS of money...for some. For the rest of us? Well, that's another thing all together. When it comes to law, the subject of justice rarely comes up, and the only place that happens is in the universities, and there it's really just mental masturbation. Who said this? - "Justice? In life there is no justice. There is only law. In the afterlife there is justice."
I'm in no position to tell you if ablums are better(they do sound a little less harsh to me), but one thing for sure is that they are far more durable. I can still listen to some old Edison records from the 20's. My mom's Bing Crosby records from the 30's and 40's still sound ok. I doubt if you'll be passing your collection on to your kids or even less, your grandkids. And the player? HAH! Those things barely work when they're new. Anyone out there still using the machine they bought in '85? Twenty or thirty years from now let's see who's still making machines that can play those old fashioned CD's. Telephones, record players, and DC-3's...all old stuff that still work quite well today. Digital? BAH! that stuff changes every 3-5 years. Every new format is requiring you to buy new hardware to match. Records changed a little over time, but if I had to, I could play my Led Zeppelin reords on a Gramophone...once. Hell I could play the thing on a potter's wheel with a straight pin and a cone made out of paper. Try THAT with your fancy, schmantzy digital. What a horrible scam it is. All those promises of great sound and durability. It just isn't happening. They sure got us on that upgrade merry-go-round. Well you guys maybe. I just listen to the radio.
--
This post spell checked with Google(well...most of it), two great treats in one.
I suppose the developers better not put their name anywhere on their projects anymore to stay off the radar. How far will the *AA go? As far as we let them. We must continue working to insure that our communications can remain anonymous and indecipherable to those not invited. The law be damned. Let's make it impossible to enforce. The crazier they get, the bigger the eventual backlash. We should provoke them so that the rest of the world can see how ludicrous the whole IP thing is, and how it has screwed us over(details all over the net) for the last 300 years.
Suppose I have the manuscript. There is no other copy.
You're making my point for me. It's theft only if I take your copy. That one and only copy is in your possession. That copy is yours. If I buy that copy or a second copy. Then that which I bought is mine. I never said anything about taking it. If you make even the feeblest attempt to understand, you will realize that copyright(for instance) is not perpetual. It expires after a certain time. After which you lose all legal controls over other peoples copies. Or do you believe otherwise?? Real, honest to goodness rights don't expire ever. They can be taken by force... Even I can understand that copyright is not a right. It was never written as a right. It was intended to provide a temporary monopoly to the creator over control of his publications. It was out of the graciousness of the gov't that this monopoly exists. It is by gov't edict that you can maintain control over the possessions of others. It is a "right" created by the force of law. And after the time limit is up it belongs to the public. Where it always should have been. But greedy people say another thing all together. Copyright is nothing like the rights to free speech. In fact it's the direct opposite. It restricts free speech. It gives the copyright owner the power over what I can say. Notice I say the power, not the right. But like all special privileges, it does expire. And like all special privileges, I know it's wrong.
Possession of the book and possession of rights in the book are two different things.
Only by the aforementioned laws, and only in your head. Even copyright law accepts that. If your claimed rights were in fact rights, they would remain permanent, lasting forever, like real inalienable rights. IP laws grant temporary privileges in the belief that you will throw society a bone. Read up on it. After the copyright expires, you lose all legal "rights". Your ideas on this matter are clearly a twisted interpretation of the law, nothing more.
However, while I've tried to provide a logical and coherent basis for my belief...
That's what they are, your beliefs, and they are mistaken, and without any valid premise.
Please explain, in support of your assertions, how we have no rights unless a law gives them to us.
You have it so backwards. You are attempting to assert control over my possessions. You simply have no right to do that. It's just too obvious. I have explained that already. You have simply repeated your position, still without any basis. It's still just as false as the first time you stated it.
Rights are not created by laws. Rights are protected by laws, but no law can create a right. Rights are ours by virtue of our existence.
That's exactly what copyright does. It attempts to create special exclusive rights. Rights that don't exist by virtue of our existence. Without copyright, you have no legal control over my possessions. This is just one of the things that show that these laws are corrupt. The manner in which they were created and expanded would be another. A non-corrupt law protects everyone...equally, and binds everyone...equally. However, those who make and enforce the law should be doubly bound. You have no right to control things you don't own. Not by virtue of your existance or by any valid law. I don't have any of your posessions. I may own one of your creations, but after the sale or gift you no longer own it in any way. It is mine. Your rights extend only to the surface of your skin, no farther(although for the time being I'll acccept your ownership of your physical property in your physical posession, and you will accept mine. Later? You never know...). Same goes for me. We are the same. Neither you or I are worthy of any exclusive rights. Even over our creations we no longer possess.
...How do publishers acquire the right to print and distribute a book?
By exploiting the corrupt law I mentioned in another post.
You keep make contrary assertions,...
Where? Only contrary to your position, if that's what you're talking about.
And please stop talking about contracts.
Why? It's a perfectly valid assertion, unlike yours.
As I;ve said elsewhere, if you possess a copy of a work I made, you have only the rights that I have transferred to you.
Yes, you continue to repeat that without any basis in fact. Try something new. That statement doesn't hold water or anything else for that matter. In fact you last few posts haven't said anything new or meaningful. You're simply claiming things that just aren't true, and I'm now beginning to wonder if you're not just trolling.
Are you suggesting that some sort of authority is needed to reglulate my decision to build a parking lot at my private business?
Some municipalities require just that. That is a good thing. Many companies that build apartment buildings are now required to provide adequate parking for their residents. Also a good thing. For one it make more space for moving traffic. That's what streets are for. Nobody should have to put up with clogged streets just for your profits. You can't just throw yor trash into the street either. Are you suggesting that you have a right to do that? A "private" business has no right to disregard the welfare of the public. A "private" business cannot discriminate as to who they serve. And a "private" business is not the same thing as a private individual. We have a right to regulate any business to insure that they operate in a way that does not affect the rights of individuals.
If we are to eliminate energy subsidies, let's start with petroleum. We are shooting at and killing people to get it. Hardly what you would call voluntary for them. I prefer mandatory solar over going to war to keep Exxon in the black. Once we experience the real unsubsidized price, alternatives look pretty good. Oil has always operated under a protected enviroment. With the available alternatives, it needs this protection to stay in business.
It will succeed or fail on it's own merits in a free an open market.
Only the contraband market operates freely and openly. Everything else is regulated and/or subsidized(tax breaks are a form of subsidy), oil, dairy, tobacco...
I believe they crippled the regular "consumer" version by not including a digital input. They did the same to DAT. This to appease the publishing business. If they really championed it, we would've had a very durable, reliable replacement for the floppy ten years ago. Memory sticks don't compare. They just don't hold up. CD's are a pain.
P.S.
The key point is the possession of the original, single, work by the author and that author's exclusive possession of all rights pertaining to the work.
And on that point, pertaining to your original, you'll get no argument. I don't posess that. You do. Your rights apply to your copy, not mine. As far as my copy, without a signed contract, all bets are off. You have no rights to transfer or to remove.
Maybe because the warrant, like the law itself, can be(and has been) used as a political tool. To me a warrant is a violation for the above reasons and more. We should never allow those responsible for making and upholding the law to break the law. In fact they should suffer double the normal penalty. We sure should never let them make laws that grants them any more rights than you or I have. All this crap about terrorism and kiddie porm is a smokescreen. Don't ever expect me to respect any law that grants special privileges to a particular individual or group.
So far, only perpetual motion machines and immortality have shown to be impossible. And even then, we might prove otherwise someday. Private communication will be much easier. It will always be a cat and mouse game. It works just like evolution, only faster. We just have to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. The law isn't important(I wouldn't be saying that if all laws applied to everybody, equally). We simply must make it impossible to enforce. Electronic weapons are easy to neutralize. Remotely jamming a gun is a bit more difficult( I hope not impossible). So we have our work cut out for us. Until we act like humans instead of animals, this is the way things will be. Se la vie(?). As long as I live, I must keep the faith that we can rise above it all. Once we can protect ourselves from each other, we will be able to keep the rights we were born with. Until then, "Might makes right". Everything else is just a distraction. While what I am looking for is possible, I'll admit that it isn't likely, given the present circumstances. It's up to us to change that.
They can sue me all they want. I guarantee they will get nothing, because that's what I have. You have spelled out your position, your beliefs, nothing more. It doesn't make it fact. Your entire post assumes a belief in rights that just don't exist. You have yet to base it on any fact or proof. You're basing it on corrupt law, bought by powerful groups(of which you wish to become a member apparently), for their exclusive benefit. Putting it into quotation marks or even quoting others beliefs doesn't make it factual either. I will always maintain that only a mutually agreed upon signed contract can in any way restrict my rights with my posessions no matter who makes them, and no matter what they are. Note that my rights with what I do with my apartment or my car are restricted by the contract I signed with the building owner or the state repectively. I signed no contract with my other posessions. I bought them outright. If you wish to maintain any control, you must produce a contract for me to sign. I will accept nothing less. As this discussion goes on, I'm becoming more and more aware of just how ludicrous your claims are. They simply make no sense. They are simply claims of one's desire to have control over others. It's a way of putting others beneath you, to provide a sense of superiority. As you look into the history of IP, you find that that was its original intent, and its obvious result. You can state your position as fact all you want. Back it up with logic, not a gun.
We're obviously wasting time telling each other who's wrong. Again, my copy in my posession is my copy to do with what I want, period. And I'll act accordingly. You can sell me anything you want, and once I am in posession, it's MINE to copy, fabricate, destroy, fold , mutilate, remove the tag from, etc. You have absolutely no right to control anything that is in my posession, unless we sign a mutually agreed upon contract providing you those rights. Only through a signed contract could you possibly even in the remotest sense maintain any cotrol over anything not in your posession. I'll spell it out for as simply as possible. Anything does does not involve us trying to occupy the same space at the same time is absolutely, positively irrelevent, your copies, my copies, the law, whatever. It appears that it's too simple for you to understand. So forget it. I'm done with this. You may continue with your specious claims all you wish. You have no basic premise no which to stand, and that's that.
My copy is MY copy. You shall have NO control over MY copy. Again, the gov't not withstanding, you have no exclusive rights to transfer to anybody. You can only claim it's yours as long as the gov't says so. Make no mistake. Copyright will go away. It has to if we are to progress. It's just a matter of time.
Don't tell me what you believe.
That's precisely what you're doing. Gov't backing doesn't make it true.
Tell me how you can acquire a right that is oringally mine if I do not give it to you.
Who or what gave you any exclusive rights? Don't tell me what the law is. This law is corrupt and doesn't count. Find me the basic premise that grants you these exclusive rights.
1. It is the value of the physical book that interests me.
2. I am trying to protect and sell the right to copy and market the physical object represented by a file on my hard drive or by a stack of paper.
3. What does paper have to do with anything?
Oooohh, I don't know. Maybe it's because most books are written on it?
Look. This will go nowhere as long as you claim rights that don't exist. There are papers(there's that word again) that try to enumerate(?) inalienable rights. You won't find copyright in there. Any "right" that infringes on another person in any way is in no way inelienable.
The discussion is about copying physical entities.
No problem. My argument still stands. I gave you no control over my copy, that I may or may not have bought from an authorized or unauthorized distributor. When you produce a signed contract with my signature on it, well then you have a point. I will have waived my rights to do what I want with my copy. Standing behind a corrupt law will not help you here.