On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:36:29 +0100
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> | "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.

But you have to be the legal owner to be entitled, under the current
laws, make any copy. Thus, whatever the license, unless you're the
lawful owner of the copy, you may not make a copy. 

>    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.

OK, it is quite clear that you question the fact that society considers
software and other forms of intangible, creative expression as
forms of property. This is a valid debate, but it has no effect on what
the law means. We can also debate whether land should be considered
property, or whether property should be inheritable. That, however,
doesn't change the current laws one jot. 

My previous post quite clearly indicated how the current legal
situation with regard to "ownership" of software and other intangible
works is. I shall not repeat it, but it is quite clear that you let
your understanding of the current reality be clouded by your

But you should refrain from answering questions that concern the
current legal situation based on those convictions.

I might be interested in a debate on the best way to enable people to
benefit from their intangible creations. Certainly, the current
excesses in the film and music business shows that the current system
is no longer giving society a reasonable return for the benefits
granted to the copyright owners, and that it is now actively stifling
innovation instead of promoting it. Still, the law as it currently
stands doesn't equate "having access to" with "being the owner of" and
hence doesn't grant someone with mere access to a GPLed work the right
to make copies.

Take care,

As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh 
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to