Quote:
It's not "just because of putting your stamp on something.
Actually, that is part of it. This discussion is confusing copyright law and contract law - they are not the same, although the music industry uses both to try to protect their product. In particular, it deals with implied contracts (ie, those which are not explicitly negotiated and agreed on) but which the music and software industry claims a person agrees to by by opening the package and using the product.
It is not at all clear that the fine print on a CD or ticket to a movie or is always a fairly negotiated contract. And even if it is a form of contract, imposing a contract is not always as simple as the words on the paper. If I sign a permission slip saying my child can go on the field trip and I will hold the school harmless for any and all injuries suffered, and if my child is injured, that permission slip may be quite meaningless, depending on the circumstances. The school will try to pressure the parent to not sue, pointing to the 'agreement' - but such agreement does necessarily suspend or supersede other types of law.
==== Other thoughts ======
Lets say that when a person buys a CD and agrees to the terms, he is generally bound to those terms, as they were reasonable, and there was some degree of 'contracting'. Then that person loses the CD, and I find it while walking down the street or cleaning a house I just bought. Am I bound by any agreement? I never made a contract with anyone regarding that disk - I didn't pay anyone anything, and there was no label or seal I broke that 'indicated agreement.' According to the theory of contracts, I should be able to do anything I like with that disk!
And what if a shovel had a little label on it that said "by buying this product, you agree you will not loan it to anyone outside your household"? "No communist shovel sharing!! Tell your neighbor to get a job and buy his own shovel!" That would be ridiculous.
And what if that shovel said "you can't sell this shovel to anyone else, but must destroy it or return it to Acme Shovels when you decide not to use it"? You can't sell it a garage sale or even give it as a present if it is new! You don't own the shovel, you only own the right to use it at the shovel maker's discretion.
This expansion of control over non-tangible property threatens the core model of libraries. Today, I can donate a book to a library, and anyone who has a library card can borrow it. That would not be possible if these new ideas on intellectual property existed a century or two ago.
No, Orwell, copyright law is a strange social invention. It is a game where there is no natural basis, and the rules change at the whim of government, a beast that people would find obviously oppressive if applied to ordinary property.
Copyright has some value to society, but on examination, it is quite arbitrary. The length of copyright has changed over time. In the US, there is a strange co-incidence.... Congress tends to extend the duration of copyright protection every time that Disney's Micky Mouse is set to go into the public domain! If there were some natural basis to copyright, how can its duration be adjusted by the government? Copyright is a social creation, not a natural right. It is an act of fiat by the government. The laws are being scripted by Hollywood and acted out by Congress, which is far from anyone's idea of justice.
Some artists have argued that if they create a painting and sell it for a low price 'because they are not famous' and later the painting sells for millions, they (or their heirs) should get some percentage of that, as they have some inherent right to their creation in perpetuity. That argument has not gotten much traction - maybe if they put a little sticker on the back of the painting like that on the CDs? All they need to do is unionize so that all the 'real' artists agree to put those stickers on, and then it will become a common, acceptable practice?
Last edited by monty on 08 Sep 2008, 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
08 Sep 2008, 12:30 am
