Re: Asimov Site

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

**** **** wrote:

> >You have an unproven assumption here. That it is wrong. It is right.
>
> Unproven assumptions can be either correct or incorrect. They can be
> intelligent, or stupid. But they are neither morally wrong nor morally
> right.
>
> You go on to contend that the right to property, specifically intellectual
> property, is a fundamental human right (I like this term, in that even if
> the Constitution is wrong, there can be a fundamental right).

The constitution itself says that just because a right isn't mentioned in the
constitution, doesn't mean that it isn't a right. Of course, it is the nature of
government to take to itself power, which means taking away grain by grain, the
rights of the people governed - but let's not get on that hobby horse.

>
>
> I have to agree, that there is a fundamental human right, to both more
> traditional property, and intellectual property. There is no denying this.
> My point is that the laws of the US, and as far as that goes, the world, are
> particularly bad at balancing a person's IP rights, with the rights of the
> public. Do not mistake my argument for abolishment of copyrights and
> patents. I want them to be more reasonable, not to cease. No, that isn't
> exactly correct...
>
> I want those who hold copyrights to act more like adults, less like
> barbarians. I want them to realize that it doesn't have to be 100% or 0%.
> They seem to have a siege mentality, where if they don't wipe out all
> piracy, they will be bankrupt in 3 months. This simply isn't true. That
> attitude threatens every fair use principle there is, and in many cases
> equates to zero economic gain.
>
> Should I prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, if just once you
> happen to walk across my lawn? Criminal trespass, conspiracy to commit
> robbery, wow... there might be dozens of laws technically appropriate. And
> if for some reason I hated you, and I had the $$$ that a big corp does, I
> could twist legislatures to strengthen the penalties on those crimes. Of
> course, with me, I'd be more likely to wave 'hi'.
>
> Be honest. How much of this is due to corporate lawyers with little work,
> wanting to prove to the bosses they are needed?

You seem to be fixated on "big corp", $$$, and lawyers. While there are
certainly enough examples of excess with those three, just because one is a well
paid corporation lawyer doesn't inherently make someone evil. Besides, here on
csa2 the issue is narrowly focused on small corps. or the heirs of no longer
functioning corps or individuals. Whatever the laws might be, or how they got to
be that way, or whether we think they make good sense or not, a law is law,
because a majority of the people's representatives have enacted it, and the
executive signed off on it. These laws are how our society regulates itself, and
in this case, regulates IP rights. As someone pointed out above, a piece of real
estate (and what is the significance of the word "real" there?) can be owned for
generations on end, but as currently regulated, IP rights expire in a century or
less. (Or rather copyrights do - I don't remember the laws on trademarks or
patents) So, there is a limit on that right. Perhaps we should say then that the
really unfair thing is that my family cannot benefit from my creativity
(assuming I have any) for more than a century, but someone else's land that they
obtain through squatter's rights can benefit without any time limitation. Why is
one right limited in time, but the other isn't?

Roy

>
>
> John