From owner-freebsd-chat  Tue Mar  6 12:37:59 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (yowie.cc.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E41737B718
	for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  6 Mar 2001 12:37:53 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from s337240@student.uq.edu.au)
Received: from student.uq.edu.au (s337240@student.uq.edu.au [130.102.87.136])
	by yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA00209;
	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:37:20 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 06:37:19 +1000 (GMT+1000)
From: Trent Waddington <s337240@student.uq.edu.au>
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>,
	Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>,
	David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: Stallman stalls again
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010306132549.046e3ab0@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.30.0103070633520.18369-100000@student.uq.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


ok, you seem to just want to say "is not" in response to my quite valid
claims, so I'll leave you now.  I suggest that you read a little more
about the ramifications of intellectual property, its distinction from
intellectual property law and indeed copyright law.  When you have a clear
idea of how divergent intellectual property is from the purposes of
copyright law, then perhaps we can have a civil conversation.

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Brett Glass wrote:

> At 01:23 PM 3/6/2001, Trent Waddington wrote:
>
> >I claim that you are being misled by the "intellectual property" body of
> >publisher cartels.
>
> Nonsense. I'm an author, programmer, composer, and musician, and Mr.
> Stallman should not be allowed to deny me or anyone else compensation
> for my work.
>
> >This claim:
> >
> >"There is no possible justification for prohibiting the public from
> >copying what it wants to copy."
> >
> >is not RMS's, it an assertion made during the drafting of the US
> >constitution.
>
> Incorrect. The statement is Stallman's.
>
> >  If you _read_ the essay, you would know this.  Copyright is
> >not about compensating authors are the moral requirement of people to pay
> >others for their work.  That's the domain of intellectual property.
>
> Er, what hallucinogenic substance have you been smoking? Copyrighted
> works ARE intellectual property.
>
> >No,
> >copyright is all about encouraging authors to create _more_ works.
>
> Not so; that is only one of its aims. Perhaps YOU should read the
> Constitution.
>
> --Brett
>
>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message