You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Regarding Plagiarism and Intellectual Property
Ideas are meant to be shared. How you use that idea is your property, not the idea itself. Therefore intellectually property is absolutely natural.
Ideas are meant to be shared. How you use that idea is your property, not the idea itself. Therefore intellectually property is absolutely natural.
That passes the logic test in my mind, but it's entirely pointless. Here's why: you cannot sell that which you do not first own, but to sell it is also to exchange ownership of it. If I buy from you a painting which you created, it is now my painting. I may do with it as I please, to include producing copies of it. I may even sell those copies which I have created. You are still the creator of the original work. You no longer own the original work, but you do own your identity. So there is one thing which I morally cannot do: I cannot pass myself of as the original creator of the work, because in so doing I will have stolen your identity which you did not sell to me. Identities can certainly have monetary value, or athletes' faces would not appear on product packaging. So, having purchased your painting, I now own it, and may do with it as I please. I may sell it. I may create reproductions of it an sell those. I may even do these things without crediting you, the original creator. I may not, however, seek to gain, financially or by admiration, from assuming the identity of you, the original creator. There is a tangible distinction between these things.
There is also an exception to all this, which would be if, at time of purchase, you and I entered into a contractual agreement of some sort. Copyright declarations and simple statements of "by using this product you agree to..." are vapid prose and cannot be considered truly binding contacts. They are not unlike if I were to write "1 million monies" on a piece of paper and submit it to you for payment. You would not accept it because it is not serious and no one else has or ever would recognize it's value. This is the reason why all serious contacts are witnessed and signed by a neutral third party.
purchasing the painting doesn't provide you with the rights to the created product. it provides you with the right to own the art. If you want the rights, you have to purchase them separately. If you create copies of the art you have purchased, then you have violated my rights and you will get sued. Unless you can prove that you purchased the rights, they are mine under the law of most countries.
Intellectual property belongs to the creator unless you specifically purchase those rights or the creator is willing to assign them to you.
That is an intangible derivative of
the physical worldreality. If I purchased the artwork, it is now my property. What you are describing would be more akin to 'renting' the artwork. I am well aware that copyright law contradicts what I am saying. My point is that copyright law falls apart under logical examination. There is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. This is why intellectual property is so difficult to define and IP law has become so convoluted as a result. It requires one to engage in logical acrobatics.Actually, it requires an acceptance of the rights of others. At this point I'm going to leave you to live in your contrived reality and return to actual reality.
Well if you're going to resort to making insulting insinuations:
But, if you ever decide to poke your head out from your intellectual blanket fort again, you ought to explore the concept of negative vs. positive rights. There are some great essays on the subject.