I’m so absolutely sick of it.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Legally I think you own the book, but not it’s contents? So legally it would be the same? (The content is copyrighted so you can’t reproduce it etc)

    You own the book and you own your copy of its contents, but you don’t hold* the copyright.

    Why do people have such a hard time phrasing it clearly like that, and instead say things like “you don’t own the contents?”

    (* A copyright is a temporary monopoly privilege granted by Congress. It isn’t itself property and is therefore “held,” not “owned.”)

    • jimbo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is the ownership of property in general not also just a “temporary monopoly privilege granted by Congress” or whatever the local legal authority is? If there were no laws protecting property rights, backed up by the power of some sort of government, those property rights would be meaningless.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s not. In stark and diametric contrast to copyright, ownership of actual property is a natural right.

        Read the Constitution: copyright law has the express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” It is nothing more than a means to that end. And in particular, it is absolutely not, in any way whatsoever, some sort of entitlement for creators.

    • olmec@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have seen a few of your arguments, and it sounds like you are being very pedantic, and are totally ignoring the big picture entirely.