Axel Schulz wrote:
Hej!
Believe it or not I just looked into a book before I get crazy here ;-) And now I am certain. A famous professor in this field talks exclusively about "ownership".
But what you explain to me is so sound!!! Now I am completely confused. I recognized already that the understanding of ownership differs between you (the list members) and me.
It will become clearer and clearer as the tide turns, and all the sheep on our side will finally recognize that only principle will stand against the forces trying to screw things for the rest of us in the area of exclusive rights policy. Richard Stallman is the single most important part of the information freedom movement, because he has been a rock, staking out the correct principles for twenty years.
That turn in the tide is very likely to be happening very soon. I predict that the opening up of the discourse regarding software patents which has recently been accomplished in the EU by ffii and others, will be the floodgate for the change.
Seth
You're talking about information, which is a far cry from property.
Well, but software is more than that. And if I just hold a authorship in software I would not be able to protect the "excecutable" part of the software, or?
Copyright is only a special privilege granted to the way one expresses information, not the information itself.
If I follow you than copyright (in authorship) and ownership do not fit, right? But a copyright in software works like a right to "ownership", or a means "ownership", doesn't it?
Copyright wasn't designed as a property right, quite self-consciously because it participates in the realm of information.
Yes, but that had to change! Consider my "information on supply" argument.
After all, I think my freedom argument is still sound. You reject it because of good reason. I stick to it.
But now I have to sleep!
Axel