 |
royls@telus.net wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2005 15:47:14 -0800, "Negloid" wrote:
>
> >royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> On 9 Jan 2005 02:31:33 -0800, "Negloid"
wrote:
> >>
> >> >royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> >> On 4 Jan 2005 23:31:45 -0800, "Negloid"
> >wrote:
> >
> >> >So as long as it benefits society, it is perfectly possible,
moral,
> >and
> >> >logical to own "the contents of someone's brain"?
> >>
> >> ?? No. A trademark restriction is not ownership of the contents
of
> >> anyone's brain, but a limitation on the uses people can make of
those
> >> contents. Like a signature. As I said.
> >
> >"A copyright is not ownership of the contents of anyone's brain, but
a
> >limitation on the uses people can make of those contents."
> >> And you ignored.
> >
> >Checkmate.
>
> ?? You have just admitted that a copyright does not secure property
> in ideas
It's always so much fun to reduce you to such petty lying (reduced from
the more grandious kind you usually start with). I admitted no such
thing. In fact I forced you to admit that copyright does not grant
ownership over pieces of other people's brains, as you had comically
claimed several times before.
Roy:
"It is likewise a fact of physical reality that when someone reads the
book, or hears it read aloud, the intangible story then also exists in
the reader's/listener's brain. It is likewise a fact of physical
reality that the author does not and _cannot_ possess the contents of
any other person's brain. How can he own what he cannot possess?"
-You
"?? No. A trademark restriction is not ownership of the contents of
anyone's brain, but a limitation on the uses people can make of those
contents. Like a signature. As I said."
-You, in fine Roy fasion, showing why you cannot carry on a
conversation for more than a few posts without painting yourself in to
a corner.
For weeks you carried on with the laughable line that copyright is
wrong because it grants ownership over a person's brain. At least you
have given up on that load of bullshit.
|
|
