 |
royls@telus.net wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2005 02:50:30 -0800, "Negloid" wrote:
>
> >royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> On 4 Jan 2005 23:00:49 -0800, "Negloid"
wrote:
> >>
> >> >royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> >> On 3 Jan 2005 18:00:54 -0800, "Negloid"
> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2 Jan 2005 20:05:11 -0800, "Negloid"
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >royls@telus.net wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:16:29 GMT, "Randall D. Kelton"
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >A monopoly to sell something that you invented is not the same as a
> >monopoly to sell something that you did not invent.
>
> ?? So what?
So there is a difference between removing something from the public
domain that was there before, and preventing something from becoming
public domain when it is invented.
> >Salt existed. To
> >grant a monopoly over its sale would mean taking something out of
the
> >public domain that was there before.
>
> Just like beer, or a story that the public has read or heard, or
> Windows in the public's hands.
Note your qualification. You didn't just write "a story". You wrote
"a story that the public has read or heard." You must make this
distinction because you hope to avoid discussion of the fact that the
copyright is granted the instant the words are written. It didn't
start out public domain. The "crime" of removing salt from the public
domain cannot be compared to the "crime" of a copyright since the story
didn't exist before the copyright was granted.
You will respond, and your response will be to try and claim that the
"product" salt didn't exist before, as though the salt monopolies you
discussed allowed others to sell NaCl as long as they didn't use a
certain process to produce it. Or you will try and fall back on your
natural law bullshit, completely avoiding this discussion, hoping to
ignore the differences between these two types of monopolies all
together.
> >A story is created by the author
> >and the copyright he receives takes nothing out of the public domain
> >that was there before.
>
> Yes, of course it does. It stops people from using the information
in
> their heads after they have read the story
They have not read the story when it is first created. It starts out
private and remains there.
> , granting the author an
> artificial private property right in the contents of others' minds.
It amazes me that you will continue with the "ownership of someone's
brain" garbage after admitting it was garbage.
> >No one
> >invented salt and therefore no one should be able to claim that they
> >"own" salt.
>
> Anyone who produces salt owns _that_ salt.
Did I miss the point where you left off and your 6-year-old daughter
began writing your replies?
> >> >> >2) A government grants monopoly rights to either harvest it or
> >> >> >distribute it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Usually to produce and/or sell it. It should be noted that
when
> >salt
> >> >> was taxed in British India, people were actually forbidden to
go
> >down
> >> >> to the ocean and get their own. A government-granted salt
> >monopoly
> >> >> could forbid independent production for one's own use, just as
> >patent
> >> >> and copyright monopolies do.
> >> >>
> >> >> >And you are comparing that to:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1) Software did *not* exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither did the salt as a product.
> >> >
> >> >Yes but no one invented salt, and that is the difference that
> >destroys
> >> >your anology.
> >>
> >> No, it is not even relevant.
> >
> >Amazing.
> >
> >According to you there is no difference between a monopoly over what
> >you create and a monopoly over something that God created.
>
> God did not create the _product_, salt.
Actually he did. Salt exists naturally. A salt monopoly prevents me
from selling something that God created. A copyright prevents me from
selling reproductions of something that Tom Clancy created.
Roy, you do realize that you aren't fooling anyone with this
obfuscation, don't you?
> >> A
> >> government-granted monopoly is a government-granted monopoly
> >
> >A monopoly over trademarks is the same then. They are all the same,
> >according to you. Since the word "monopoly" can be applied, they
must
> >all be the same.
>
> They are all monopolies, certainly. Why do you try to deny such a
> self-evident fact?
Most people would understand my point. Obviously you are too dense.
You tried to prove that a monopoly on salt is the same as a monopoly on
a story because they are both monopolies. By that logic, all
monopolies are exatly the same because the "M" word applies.
Roy, in between all of your obfuscation, perhaps you should stop for a
minute and consider why you must always rely on it.
> >> , whether
> >> on salt, Windows, or wheels (which someone _did_ invent: would
that
> >> make it OK with you if government granted someone a monopoly on
> >making
> >> and selling wheels?).
> >>
> >> Kelton claimed there was no government-controlled monopoly. He
was
> >> wrong. I identified that fact of objective reality. You have
tried
> >> to pretend that fact is not what it is
> >Just to clarify: I have agreed with Kelton?
>
> You have tried to obscure, evade and deny the facts of objective
> reality that prove him wrong and me right. What else could be your
> purpose in trying to argue against my refutation of him?
My purpose is to contradict your comparison of a salt monopoly to a
copyright.
|
|
