[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On 08/02/2012 11:00 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:
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)

If you want to copy your beta-max recording to a blu-ray disk
for your own use, that's fair usage, and no violation of the
copyright.  However, if you SELL the copy (and keep the
original) that's a violation for which you could be prosecuted.
You would be making money off of somebody else's work, and
that's a definite no-no!


Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley

Reply to: