Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme lineins econd"Eldred" case

[Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>]

On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 01:09:41PM -0800, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 1. What can nontransferablility accomplish? Why can't the creator 
> elect to transfer the copyright or patent wholy? What does not 
> allowing them to dispose of their intellectual property as they see 
> fit?

because "intellectual property" is not property and the term is a sad
mistake. if I write a book, it always is "my" book, not in the property
sense but in the creator sense. transfering the "creatorship" just
doesn't make any sense, it's a logical impossibility.


> 2. Why can't corporations own patents or copyrights? They 
> bankroll the developement or production.

because they don't create stuff. if they pay for the development, they
can (and should) get certain automatic RIGHTS, but never in history has
a publishing house written a novel. humans write novels.


> 3. What's the point of giving a corporation an unlimited license by 
> allowing the creator to hold the patent. Since a patent is a 
> monopoly, the corporation probably want to have that as well. 
> Otherwise, if the creator can merely license it to a competitor it 
> rather diminishes the value of his creation in the market place.

the whole point is that only humans can be creators. corporations can
pay for stuff, and in return can receive the economic rights, but never
the full copyright.


-- 
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
     Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6