[OT] - does IP exist?

[Yigal Chripun]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Manfred_Nowak wrote:
> 
>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>
>>> "I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
>>> other's eyes is no different than the intention of keeping the
>>> work private unless someone pay for the right to read/view it. A
>>> right to copy it, or sell on to others, would be an additional
>>> widening of the authors intention, and still the readers
>>> obligation to honor."
>> Now, that you have made your statement a bit more complex, you
>> introduced new terms  like "author", "copy", "read/view". This terms
>> have a fuzzy definition only and I doubt that anyone is able to
>> define them in advance and sufficient detail.
>>
>> For example the wording does not exclude the case where someone payed
>> for the right to "read/view" a work, encrypts it and then publishes
>> the encrypted work. This would not violate the right he has payed
>> for, because no one can "read/view" the original work. In addition
>> the encrypted work might hold marks of his own "author"-ship, because
>> he himself wrote the encrypting program.
>>
>> Then someone other finds "by accident" the key to the encrypted work,
>> "copies" the encrypted work, decrypts it; then spends no look at the
>> decrypted work, but feeds it into the appropriate compiler; then
>> enjoys the resulting functionality.
>>
>> Is this finder of the key allowed
>> 1) to publish/sell his findings, because he is the "author" of the
>> resulting code/algorithm, which transforms a publicly available peace
>> of (des)information into some functionality?
>> 2) to enjoy the functionality?
>>
>> -manfred
> 
> Although it may have appeared that way, I didn't set out to define a
> framework that covers all cases. My intent was to show that those
> argumenting for all information (however produced and presented) being
> freely available, have a bad case as they are likely to have personal
> information themselves that they won't like being considered free.
> 
> In fact, I bet that most of those asserting their right to copy media from
> Pirate Bay, protest the new laws in Sweden removing the right to keep email
> conversations private. And that is a contradiction showing their hypocrisy.
> 

I think you confuse two separate issues here:
a) privacy:
I _DON't_ want to give information that only I know
or
No one can pry my brain and take out information by force
vs.
b) I _DID_ wanted to give the information to someone (say newspaper A).

Copyright is about some person A decides to give the information TO
person B AND ALSO forcefully deny that person B to make the same
decision for themselves.