Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:50:37 -0500
> John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Celejar writes:
>> > ...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
>> > unreasonable for it to charge per copy?
>>
>> It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
>> copies they make, but why should your "producers" be able to charge for
>> copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
>> incur no costs and none of their property is involved? If the producers
>> don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
>> from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
>> what copying I can do. Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
>> copies of objects that I own?
>
> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
> over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
> reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
> cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
> who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
about "intellectual property" which, if I am understanding correctly
(and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.
So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
8-track...Then on CD. Or, what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
it was out on VHS, then LaserDisc, then DVD, now Blu-ray. If it is
about the intellectual property, why do I have to buy the *same* IP
every time the industry decides to change formats? In theory, if IP
is the item with cost associated with it, if I have paid for it once,
I should have a right to it regardless of what format it is in.
It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
cooked...Okay, now it is on a plate, so that is an extra charge, and
so forth.
Am I wrong here? (I'm not saying they'll change, just that it is a
specious argument)
--b
Reply to: