[OT] - does IP exist?

Jb jb at nowhere.com
Mon Aug 18 03:09:12 PDT 2008


"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g8amq7$165q$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Jb wrote:
>> "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:g8adb5$f92$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>> No it's not. That's not it at all.
>>
>> For example I can give you a recording of a song I wrote. You could work 
>> out
>> the tune and melody, and then teach the song to other people. You can 
>> even
>> perform the song in public. (at least in the UK).
>
> that's irrelevant.

No it's not. You claimed copyright stops you sharing information.

IT DOESNT.

YOU ARE WRONG.


>>
>> If i gave you a book I wrote you could share the information in the book
>> with other people. You can talk about it, tell them about, you could even
>> write your own book on the subject.
>
> again irrelevant.

No it's not. You claimed copyright stops you sharing information.

IT DOESNT.

YOU ARE WRONG.


>>
>> What you cant do is copy my book and give it to other people, nor can you
>> copy my book and pass it off as your own work.
>
> two things:
> A) I now have a copy of your book which I should be able to do what ever
> I want with it - including copying it, however you just said I can't
> copy it. hence, you prevented me from doing whatever I want  with it.

Yes becasue I gave it to you under the condition that you wouldnt copy it.

IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH THAT CONDITION THEN I WONT GIVE IT TO YOU.

THATS WHY ITS CALLED

"COPY" --  "RIGHT"

Because I am retaining the right top COPY it myself.

I am not stopping you sharing the information.

As you have erronousely claimed on multiple occaisions.

And if you dont like the conditions by which the author is offering the work 
you are free to look elsewhere.


> B) passing off someone else's work as my own is not and should never be
> connected with copyright. The fact that OSS licenses need to specify
> this in the copyright is ridiculous. this should be by default. No
> matter if the work is entirely closed source by MS or put in public
> domain by Walter Bright, you should never be able to steal someone
> else's credit.

So it's wrong to steal the credit for somone elses work, but not wrong to 
actualy steal the work itslef?


>>
>> Copyright does not stop you sharing information. It stops you copying 
>> other
>> peoples work.
>>
>> What will it take to get you to understand this?
>>
>
> when you buy a chair, you own the chair and can do what ever you want
> with it including manufacturing by yourself a copy of it and give it
> away for free. you cannot copyright a chair. copyright prevents that for
> software hence limiting my rights (the inherit rights of the public).
> this limitation needs to be justifiable and this is the core of the
> argument. What will it take to get you to understand that??

I've already said it needs to be limited, to about 20 years.

Thanks. 





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list