[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- From: Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <3F38FD9F.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, mickey wrote:
> "SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of UNIX and is
> therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO
> believes that major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of the Linux
> kernel are unauthorised derivative works of SCO UNIX IP," it said.
> This is a root issue in the copyright/patent/secret arena. The belief
> that one is *entitled* to be paid for their efforts seems to fuel most
> of these arguments.
> So, are they entitled? Is that what "incent" was supposed to mean?
No, they're not entitled. Many investments can turn sour. The mere input
of capital or labor doesn't intrinsically deserve a reward; if it did,
maybe the dot com I worked for would not have gone under. There is some
discussion of the rejection of the sweat of the brow theory in Feist.
Copyrigt provides an opportunity -- nothing more. Just because Gigli cost
in the neighborhood of $50 million doesn't mean that we all have to go sit
through it, wishing we were somewhere else*, just so that it turns a
Now, if there is infringement, this interferes with the opportunity to
obtain a reward in the marketplace, AND tends to divert what seems to be a
likely reward. (after all, if there is piracy, that indicates that someone
might be interested enough to buy it for real)
But I do agree that copyrights et al are being wrongly considered as
strong property rights when that's manifestly inappropriate.
*For example, the grave.