From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262880AbTEBDV6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2003 23:21:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262883AbTEBDV6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2003 23:21:58 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:47040 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262880AbTEBDV4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2003 23:21:56 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Robert White" , "Jamie Lokier" Cc: Subject: RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 20:34:16 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > The fact that they are "not the same thing" completely > > negates your "the law of one is the law for all" claim that > > "property law" > > somehow carries into the other areas. You know, I read over my original argument again, and I absolutely cannot understand how you could have misunderstood it. There is no reference to property law at all in it, and several times I mentioned that I was talking about contract law. So how you could have misunderstood me to mean that property law applies to contracts is baffling to me. What I mean is the reverse, that intangible property rights and conceptually part of contract law. The one thing I said that was not clear and where I understand your confusion was: > Most property rights are contractual. You come to own property because you contract for it. However, I maintain that the rest of my argument is completely clear and you have not responded to it: >> There was also no intent to create >> "intellectual property" in the minds of the founders of the United States. >Because there was no need for them to do so. If I have possession of an idea and agree to >tell you the idea for $10 provided you agree not to disclose the idea to anyone else, I don't >need any special laws other than the normal laws that permit me to make and enforce contracts. >Access restrictions are purely contractual things and more obviously so. If I put a security >restriction on a CD and sell it to you, there's an implied agreement that you will respect the >restricitions. If I really wanted to, I could have you sign an agreement to that affect. >> That is also why "theft" and what we can generally refer to as "the theft >> words" never applies these topics no matter how often or loudly someone >> yells "you stole that idea from me." >But it is theft, as surely as if I pay you $10 to mow my lawn and you don't mow my lawn. >Violating a contractual agreement not to disclose and not paying the damages the agreement >specifies is a form of theft by fraud. >> Worse, absolutely none of the DRM arguments even exist within the >> presidents >> of copyright law as a significant subset of the technology and uncertainty >> only comes into play well after the act of copying is completed. >Then forget about copyright law entirely. Think only about contractual property and the fact >that a person who comes up with an idea cannot be compelled to disclose it and can disclose it >under any terms he or she chooses. Think that when you buy a CD or a program, there's an implied >contract that the CD or program is for your personal use and that violating that contract is as >much theft as living in an apartment without paying rent. DS