2 ms·

Presuming a basket of infinite depth (since physical goods are otherwise a poor analogy for copyright infringement), a more accurate version would be the suited

by duggan 12y ago

Presuming a basket of infinite depth (since physical goods are otherwise a poor analogy for copyright infringement), a more accurate version would be the suited figure repackaging and selling a decorative basket of your free candy. Can you clarify why you think the person repackaging the candy in this situation has a moral highground? Why are they not also "smelling some money"?

comboy 12y ago
> Can you clarify why you think the person repackaging the candy in this situation has a moral highground? Why are they not also "smelling some money"? Well to me the person that got the candy for free, owns that candy now and can do whatever she wants with it (throw it away, eat it, give it, sell it). She owns that candy and can make a decision. Earlier the person giving away those candies owned them and he decided to give them away for free. So yeah it seems to me like a similar situation. Person later coming after you saying "Hey I gave you this candy for free, you cannot sell it". I know that with copyrights it's different and yes you really cannot sell that free candy. It just subjectively feels wrong to me because of him changing his opinion only after it become part of the internet (based on the fact that it was assumed to be public domain, free to share and include anywhere)
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Well to me the person that got the candy for free, owns that candy now and can do whatever she wants with it (throw it away, eat it, give it, sell it). She owns that candy and can make a decision. Earlier the person giving away those candies owned them and he decided to give them away for free. Don't really understand this logic. Whatever he decided back then, he has all the rights in the world, including the legal right, to change his mind. You might it sound like giving something away at first and then deciding to charge for it is immoral or something. Of course its even more likely that he didn't really "decide" anything at the start, in the sense that he hadn't had in his mind the impossible to him at the time scenario of companies using his sketch et al. Only after it happened he decided he should get some money off of it, it's not like he had a bait and switch plan all along.
pyre 12y ago
This seems like a similar situation to "submarine patents."[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent

by duggan 12y ago

comboy 12y ago

> Can you clarify why you think the person repackaging the candy in this situation has a moral highground? Why are they not also "smelling some money"? Well to me the person that got the candy for free, owns that candy now and can do whatever she wants with it (throw it away, eat it, give it, sell it). She owns that candy and can make a decision. Earlier the person giving away those candies owned them and he decided to give them away for free. So yeah it seems to me like a similar situation. Person later coming after you saying "Hey I gave you this candy for free, you cannot sell it". I know that with copyrights it's different and yes you really cannot sell that free candy. It just subjectively feels wrong to me because of him changing his opinion only after it become part of the internet (based on the fact that it was assumed to be public domain, free to share and include anywhere)

coldtea 12y ago
>Well to me the person that got the candy for free, owns that candy now and can do whatever she wants with it (throw it away, eat it, give it, sell it). She owns that candy and can make a decision. Earlier the person giving away those candies owned them and he decided to give them away for free. Don't really understand this logic. Whatever he decided back then, he has all the rights in the world, including the legal right, to change his mind. You might it sound like giving something away at first and then deciding to charge for it is immoral or something. Of course its even more likely that he didn't really "decide" anything at the start, in the sense that he hadn't had in his mind the impossible to him at the time scenario of companies using his sketch et al. Only after it happened he decided he should get some money off of it, it's not like he had a bait and switch plan all along.

pyre 12y ago

This seems like a similar situation to "submarine patents."[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent