Subject:
|
IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:35:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2688 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> If you rummage around, you’ll find that there are plenty within the LP who
> voice decent at every thing from your sign up clause (“I do not believe in
> or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or
> social goals.”), to what is the meaning of “property” or “force”.
Can you check that for a possible missing word? I read it a few times and
haven't grokked it yet. Thanks! Maybe it's a UK turn of phrase? "voice
decent at"??
> As for point 2, you can answer it if you wish.
I'll give it a brief once over later today... you already know what I'm
going to say.
> However, as I know you have strong
> views in intellectual property rights, I’d much rather hear your view on this:
>
> =+=
> COPYRIGHTS
> The attitude expressed by Libertarians is that words cannot be owned. I put
> the question to a county level Libertarian Party chairman of how authors
> would be able to publish books if they could not copyright their work. The
> answer is that the publisher would simply keep the books in reading rooms
> where people would pay to sit down and read the book. This of course is
> impractical and their demands would end the modern publishing industry.
> In addition to ending copyrighted reading material it would also end
> copyright protection for computer software. Another modern industry that
> would no longer be able to function.
> =+=
>
> (This was taken from - http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell/bronzage.htm)
>
> To be honest, I would not have given the above much credence if he did not
> mentioned that he had spoken to what he calls “a county level Libertarian
> Party chairman”.
I gotta dig before a full answer... (wanted you to know you weren't being
ignored)
But it's not my personal viewpoint. Rather, I feel that "Words" cannot be
owned any more than the knowledge that 600 angstroms is a particular color,
but the arrangements of words, the arrangement of colors into patterns, the
arrangment of buttons and controls in an application, the arrangement of
brick images into instructions, all these things can be copyrighted as
particular expressions of ideas, I feel.
I've been hung out to dry in this very group by those who feel that there
cannot be any justifiable IP of ANY sort (copyright, patent, design patent,
trademark, trade dress, you name it), and they weren't particularly
Libertarian, far from it, so I dunno.
What do YOU think? Can something be copyrighted, patented, registered as a
trademark, acknowledged as trade dress?
That's not to say that I oppose copyleft, for those who choose to release
their property that way. It is a valid choice and I applaud them, if not all
of their ideals (bringing down the whole property system as applied to
software may be a bit much to reach for).
I don't see keeping books in reading rooms as a practical scheme, that's for
sure. Further, I'd ferret out the error in the derivation this County Chair
(not a hard title to secure, if you live in a small county) came up with, or
try to, first, before concluding that the LP doesn't support IP. Not that
you did, but someone did.
Clearly you've been doing a LOT of homework lately and finding some very
interesting cites! Thanks!
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I have now corrected my spelling. (...) Yes. Naturally, just because it can be copyrighted does not make it right to do so. I think inventions and formulations can be copyrighted/patented to protect “investment” of time / money – otherwise (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) If you rummage around, you’ll find that there are plenty within the LP who voice decent at every thing from your sign up clause (“I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”), to (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
