5 ms·

And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferabl

by Alex63 16y ago

And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable?

sabat 16y ago
And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? It's right there in black and white. I don't believe the constitution is infallible, but I do think the founders got this one right -- the way they intended it, anyway. Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable? No, for two reasons: 1- it's not actually permitted and doing so automatically creates "property" which the guys who actually wrote the copyright clause were completely against, and 2- it goes against the whole purpose of the copyright clause. See, the idea is that if you get a limited monopoly, you're more likely to keep inventing and creating. But Walt Disney is dead, and still Mickey Mouse is somehow off-limits. He's not a cartoon character -- he's the "property" of a mega-corp.
- roel_v 16y ago
  So basically, according to you there could be no legal security for large software firms in the software they license? Because all the employees retain their copyrights as original authors? So anytime you 'buy' (to use a colloquialism) Windows, you are effectively entering into an agreement with the 1000's of people who contributed to it over the years and if one of them decides that he no longer wishes to license his contribution to others, a replacement for that work needs to be made?
  - sabat 16y ago
    I suppose that's a good argument for open-source-style licensing. What you're describing fits Linux perfectly, and I don't think any driver author has tried to pull that. Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      Wrong. Recent (as in, this millennium) Linux kernel contributions require all submissions to be under an open source license. For GNU, the FSF has recommended since the beginning that the copyrights of all GNU contributions be assigned to the FSF. They have documents for download on their website and the whole shebang. "Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up." Well that negates the whole point of the non-transferability doesn't it. If people are allowed to license all rights they have to a third party, until the end of the term, then what's the difference with transferring the copyright outright?
- Alex63 16y ago
  I agree with you that the limited aspect of the monopoly has become watered down over the years, but I'm concerned that you appear to be suggesting that a corporation cannot have a limited monopoly (because that would require the transfer of the monopoly rights from a real entity to a legal entity).

by Alex63 16y ago

And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable?

sabat 16y ago

And do you accept/support a limited monopoly for the original artist or inventor? It's right there in black and white. I don't believe the constitution is infallible, but I do think the founders got this one right -- the way they intended it, anyway. Presuming that you do, do you believe that that monopoly right is transferable? No, for two reasons: 1- it's not actually permitted and doing so automatically creates "property" which the guys who actually wrote the copyright clause were completely against, and 2- it goes against the whole purpose of the copyright clause. See, the idea is that if you get a limited monopoly, you're more likely to keep inventing and creating. But Walt Disney is dead, and still Mickey Mouse is somehow off-limits. He's not a cartoon character -- he's the "property" of a mega-corp.

roel_v 16y ago
So basically, according to you there could be no legal security for large software firms in the software they license? Because all the employees retain their copyrights as original authors? So anytime you 'buy' (to use a colloquialism) Windows, you are effectively entering into an agreement with the 1000's of people who contributed to it over the years and if one of them decides that he no longer wishes to license his contribution to others, a replacement for that work needs to be made?
- sabat 16y ago
  I suppose that's a good argument for open-source-style licensing. What you're describing fits Linux perfectly, and I don't think any driver author has tried to pull that. Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Wrong. Recent (as in, this millennium) Linux kernel contributions require all submissions to be under an open source license. For GNU, the FSF has recommended since the beginning that the copyrights of all GNU contributions be assigned to the FSF. They have documents for download on their website and the whole shebang. "Also: authors are perfectly free to write up licenses that allow use until the copyright term is up." Well that negates the whole point of the non-transferability doesn't it. If people are allowed to license all rights they have to a third party, until the end of the term, then what's the difference with transferring the copyright outright?
Alex63 16y ago
I agree with you that the limited aspect of the monopoly has become watered down over the years, but I'm concerned that you appear to be suggesting that a corporation cannot have a limited monopoly (because that would require the transfer of the monopoly rights from a real entity to a legal entity).