Comments on: The Copyright Monopoly Is a Limitation of Property Rights

By: The Copyright Monopoly Is a Limitation of Property Rights | Torrentfreak.com

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:20:13 +0000

[...] TorrentFreak [...]

By: Undernews For 26 March 2011 | Cyber Crimes Unit

Undernews For 26 March 2011 | Cyber Crimes Unit — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:59:26 +0000

[...] Copyright monopoly really an attack on property rights [...]

By: Joerendar

Joerendar — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:21:00 +0000

I have problems with his analogy of the chair and the dvd. You physically own the dvd and the chair and you can do whatever you want with the two. You can use both as a paperweight, a frisbee, or break it into pieces to make an art collection or scrap material. However, the intellectual property contained on the dvd is another story. His comparison suffers from trying to compare apples and oranges. Both are property but one is intellectual and the other is physical. Companies have problems with you stealing their intellectual property and giving it around. That why they give a license to use their intellectual property under certain conditions. They could care less what happens to the dvd itself. He needs a better analogy to make his point.

By: Joerendar

Joerendar — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:21:00 +0000

By: The Utilitarian Idea of a Monopolistic Right in Intangible Property « Music Law Boy

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:35:26 +0000

[...] to a recent article, entitled The Copyright Monopoly is a Limitation of Property Rights, the author, Rick Falkvinge, writing for TorrentFreak.com, argues that copyright is merely “a [...]

By: RzzaJizza

RzzaJizza — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:11:00 +0000

This article ignores the fact that there is an inherent difference between a good that can be used by one person at one time (the chair) and a cd or dvd, which contains digital files that can be reproduced and enjoyed by millions for little or no fee. The ease with which a digital file can be copied necessitates a broad application of copyright laws already in place, to preserve the creators ability to garner income from its labor, and discourage the illegal (yes I said it) sale and distribution of its content. By downloading an album or dvd from TPB that you would otherwise have to pay for at a store, you have not acquired the necessary rights to use the product, and are STEALING. No matter which way we spin it, there is no question that piracy is ILLEGAL (but its awesome).

What I do not understand is the seemingly arbitrary and nonsensical method with which loss to the record industry is measured. Can someone explain this?

By: Scary Devil Monastery

Scary Devil Monastery — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:21:00 +0000

Given your rambling and incoherent arguments i’m wondering who the drunk one is. Trademark means simply, as Rick says, that if you create a copy of an existing item and sell it you are not allowed to claim to be the original creator.

This is why such a thing as “no-brand” printer refills exist, for instance – and do a booming (and quite legal) trade.

By: Scary Devil Monastery

Scary Devil Monastery — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:16:00 +0000

Your argument falls apart on one very crucial issue. There IS no “content” on the disc, just as there IS no “content” on a chair.

What there is, is the physical structure of a material item. The fact that you can create a nigh-perfect copy of the structure of said item using the proper tools doesn’t magically change it from any other material item.

Either you own the disc…or you do not. Which is where Rick’s point comes through – when you “purchase” the disc, you don’t own it.

For all intents and purposes your purchase has gotten you an indefinite lend-lease contract with odd provisions. But you can not under IP law ever “own” a material item which, when analyzed in a certain way, will provide information deemed “licensed”. Which by direct extension mean you can’t own anything at all.

Given the recent advances in 3D printers this is a rather important distinction to make.

By: Scary Devil Monastery

Scary Devil Monastery — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:06:00 +0000

“I swear officer, all I did was tell him where the dynamite was, how to light it, where to put it to blow up the building and gave him a great link for buying matches, but I had nothing to do with anything illegal! ”

Correct. Doing any of that is perfectly legal. Just as a chemistry professor is not a terrorist simply because his teachings make the creation of explosives perfectly clear to any attendees in his class.

Your point?

By: Scary Devil Monastery

Scary Devil Monastery — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:06:00 +0000

Your point?