Software Ownership?

[Sanjay Sodhi]

Thanks for the responses. I'm working on getting some solid research
together at the moment.

To clarify, I didn't mean to use inflammatory language. However silly it
sounds, I'm on your side here, guys! I'm basically going to just talk about
the fact that the current system is weak and very flawed, and that people
have got to respect the Law until it cleans itself up.

Sorry for the confusion, and once again, thanks for the help.

On 17/10/2007, Russell McOrmond <russell at flora.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Sanjay Sodhi wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm writing a paper on software ownership, the legal implications of
> > copyright "theft" and the like.
>
>    I'm the author of a number of articles on the subject of Software
> Copyright, Software Patents, and related exclusive but limited
> government granted monopolies.
>
>    I, like many before me over the last few hundred years, fully reject
> the use of the term "theft" when used in the context of intangibles such
> as the exclusive rights offered by Copyright and Patent law.
>
>    One of the best people to articulate this rejection was Thomas
> Jefferson in 1813, which is why I call this the "Jefferson Debate".
>
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate
>
>    Many in the International community also reject the use of the term
> "Intellectual Property" which, while the limits to the words are
> understood by lawyers, is a term abused by lobbiests to confuse regular
> citizens (and parliamentarians).
>
> IPR Name DISCLAIMER
> http://www.wsis-pct.org/ipr-disclaimer.html
>
>
> > My major focus is going to be on how
> > downloading copyrighted music, software and movies is theft, and the
> > fact that law has evolved to accommodate technological advances.
>
>    Ignoring the inflammatory but possibly unintended language, you want
> to look at things such as the compulsory licensing for things such as
> public performance of recorded music on radio, compulsory licensing for
> retransmission on cable television, and the Canadian private copying
> regime in Canada.   Each recognizes that the traditional contours of
> copyright of requiring permission for specific public activities is
> economically inefficient (or socially unjustifiable), and thus only
> payment is required and not permission.
>
>    Unfortunately recent governments have forgotten what was done over
> the last hundred years and are heading in the wrong direction with
> things such as "DRM", which is the circumvention of tangible property
> rights and related rights for the sake of protecting some outdated
> business models and some 'new' business models based upon theft.
>
>    Note that while this reference to theft is more correct, it is not
> without its controversies given some people deny the use of that word
> except in cases where something physical is physically removed from
> being accessible by its rightful tangible property owner.
>
>
>    This is discussed in a few articles recently posted to our site:
>
> What if the builder of your home burnt it down if you changed the locks?
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4221
>
> Locks and doors: obsolete idioms of bygone days
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4222
>
> --
>   Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
>   Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
>   rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
>   http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
>
>   "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
>    manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
>    portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
>
> --
> ubuntu-ca mailing list
> ubuntu-ca at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ca
>



-- 
Sanjay Sodhi
I make websites me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ca/attachments/20071017/7c9a6e0a/attachment.html>