Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Did you just make that up?
I was quoting the woman at that McCain rally. She said Obama is an "Arab", but I'm fairly sure she didn't say "Arab terrorist".
:) -
"Arab terrorist" (it appears that is what she said)
How so?
"Arab", yes; "Arab terrorist", no. -
"John Key's rich mates" does not imply that anyone rich is John Key's mate.
I/S deserves better than today's responses.
-
Can you handle it? Can you make copies out of nothing? In peoples' heads? Can you draw a line around it that everyone can see?
The differences seem glaring to me.
Of course there are differences. What I'm really asking is, what is it about these differences that legitimises the difference in treatment?
-
A "right" to restrict copies does not "naturally" exist, so it must be granted.
Still wondering how this is different from normal property rights.
-
What it sounds like you're saying is that someone should be able to create one thing, and live off that forever. That works in almost no other space. You can give someone a building, but it doesn't produce income by default.
Yes it does, essentially. Any fool can place a classified ad, and bingo, income generation. It seems to me it's a lot__more__ difficult to produce income from a copyrighted work.
-
Maybe we could solve this problem by having all property revert to the public domain after 50 years.
-
@ Lyndon,
Sorry it came out sounding so bitchy. :)
My pills don't seem to be working well today. -
Physical property works differently because the costs and benefits (and logistics and, yes, perceptions) of physical property are different. Which is why the state doesn't take a third of your net creative output into a copyright equivalent of the general fund every year.
Actually, income from creative sources is taxed at the same rates as any other.
-
Your "individual ownership" ring fences everything into a series of mini monopolies. We are talking about means to reproduction here, not physical objects.
Sure, but the onus is on you to demonstrate essential difference between the two.
The swimming pool owner is well within his rights (I think we all agree) to deny entry to all and sundry, but this too limits public benefit, despite not impacting the owner's access, so why should IP be considered different?