My, we're about to get *seriously* off topic. Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:17:43 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >>> I'd just like to make it non-trivial to make or use additional copies. >> How do you do that without infringing my fair use rights? > And that is the million dollar question. > > So-called "intellectual property" is a government-granted monopoly which > is not based on any principle of ownership. Ideas are not something you > can own in any real sense (as opposed to the legal fiction), ideas are > something that you can *have* -- but having had an idea, you can't > naturally prevent others from having the same idea independently, or > making use of your idea if you tell them about it -- and should you tell > them your idea so that now they have it as well, that does not diminish > the fact that you also have that idea.
It's a common misconception that ideas are protected by intellectual property laws. They're not. Well, they're not supposed to be. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, plot lines or similar things. Copyright protects expression of those things in a tangible medium. So if you read a book, then write a book with the same plot line, you aren't in violation of copyright. Characters can be protected by copyright, so you do have to be a bit careful about that. Patents aren't supposed to protect ideas - they're supposed to protect inventions. That's a fuzzy line, and the interpretation of 35 USC Section 101 that allows the patenting of software has made it even fuzzier. This broad interpretation has recently been used to patent story lines <URL: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051103183218268 >, which is close enough to patenting ideas that I can't really tell the difference. > Given the absolute lack of real evidence that strong "intellectual > property" laws are good for either innovation or the economy, and given > the absolute artificiality of treating ideas as if they were scarce goods, > I don't understand why the artificial monopoly rights of copyright holders > are allowed to trump the natural rights of copyright users. Because the copyright holders are organized, and have money to influence congress that outweighs the funds that - since they're generally unorganized - individual copyright holders have available. So you get laws that help copyright holders enforce and extend their copyright at the expense of the rights of the general public. <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
