| "Intellectual property" | | Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual | property"---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other | more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and | differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It | is best to talk specifically about "copyright," or about "patents," | or about "trademarks." | | The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that | the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an | analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property. | | When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial | difference between material objects and information: information can | be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects | can't be. | | To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a | firm decision not to speak or even think in terms of "intellectual | property". | | The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make | WIPO embarassed.
If "give" means "making you the owner of the copy", then yes, you now have a lawful copy of the software and hence copyright law applies. Once again, you do not have to be the _owner_ of the CD to be able to access the content. Unless you acknowledge that you have grasped this fundamental difference, I will no longer answer your posts, and consider you a troll. Since you have such a fundamentally wrong idea of physical objects vs. non-physical objects, such a reaction is understandable since you simply do not acknowledge what property actually is, be it in legal terms, or even in non-legal terms. People who resort to name calling are the ones who do not grasp this `fundamental difference'. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnufirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss