4 ms·
I don’t have that intuitive sense. Other than believing copyright is wrong and that is ther biz model. The legislature has already ruled. They have defined pub
by njharman 8y ago
I don’t have that intuitive sense. Other than believing copyright is wrong and that is ther biz model.
The legislature has already ruled. They have defined public domain. They (and everyone who knows copyright law) understands you can do anything with public domain. Including selling, licencensing. As the OA correctly state several times. Only the clickbait title implies otherwise.
Fraud has also been apropriately legislated.
- vanderZwan 8y ago> The legislature has already ruled. So? It's not like law is a "define it once and never adjust or iterate it" kind of deal. A law is not correct just because it has already been defined and applied. That would be the moral equivalent to circular reasoning, and by that logic we should still stone people for taking the Lord's name in vain and in general go eye for an eye on each other.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago> in general go eye for an eye on each other Note the original “eye for eye” statute was setting a judicial penalty limit, not giving people license to brutal personal retaliation. This was important in legal history because ancient justice prior to that tended to severely over-penalize criminal violence. “Eye for eye” would have read “if a person gouges out another person’s eye, the penalty is (only) that their own eye should be gouged out” —- which would have seemed very lenient given the existing legal climate in the ancient near-east.
- codedokode 8y agoSelling a work is one thing but fradulently claiming that you own the copyright for it or that nobody can use it without your license is another thing.