Messages in this thread | | | From | "David Schwartz" <> | Subject | RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] | Date | Thu, 1 May 2003 20:34:16 -0700 |
| |
> > The fact that they are "not the same thing" completely > > negates your "the law of one is the law for all" claim that > > "property law" > > somehow carries into the other areas.
You know, I read over my original argument again, and I absolutely cannot understand how you could have misunderstood it. There is no reference to property law at all in it, and several times I mentioned that I was talking about contract law. So how you could have misunderstood me to mean that property law applies to contracts is baffling to me. What I mean is the reverse, that intangible property rights and conceptually part of contract law.
The one thing I said that was not clear and where I understand your confusion was:
> Most property rights are contractual. You come to own property because you contract for it.
However, I maintain that the rest of my argument is completely clear and you have not responded to it:
>> There was also no intent to create >> "intellectual property" in the minds of the founders of the United States.
>Because there was no need for them to do so. If I have possession of an idea and agree to >tell you the idea for $10 provided you agree not to disclose the idea to anyone else, I don't >need any special laws other than the normal laws that permit me to make and enforce contracts.
>Access restrictions are purely contractual things and more obviously so. If I put a security >restriction on a CD and sell it to you, there's an implied agreement that you will respect the >restricitions. If I really wanted to, I could have you sign an agreement to that affect.
>> That is also why "theft" and what we can generally refer to as "the theft >> words" never applies these topics no matter how often or loudly someone >> yells "you stole that idea from me."
>But it is theft, as surely as if I pay you $10 to mow my lawn and you don't mow my lawn. >Violating a contractual agreement not to disclose and not paying the damages the agreement >specifies is a form of theft by fraud.
>> Worse, absolutely none of the DRM arguments even exist within the >> presidents >> of copyright law as a significant subset of the technology and uncertainty >> only comes into play well after the act of copying is completed.
>Then forget about copyright law entirely. Think only about contractual property and the fact >that a person who comes up with an idea cannot be compelled to disclose it and can disclose it >under any terms he or she chooses. Think that when you buy a CD or a program, there's an implied >contract that the CD or program is for your personal use and that violating that contract is as >much theft as living in an apartment without paying rent.
DS
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |