13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
1:09 a.m.
On 02/12/2013 06:35 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
I never claimed that the house was a unique design. I merely state that
"the house" is a result of the owner investing time and material into
creating it. It is "his" house. He owns it, and it is within his
rights to completely control it's use.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Untrue.
1. He gets a copyright whether he wants one or not. He is forced to have one
and he must make an effort to counteract this.
If copyright only existed when applied for and registered, it would not be
nearly as nasty.
Well, due to the Hague Convention in the 80's, that is rather true,
although a composer can release under alternate licenses (or into the
public domain. Also, if the composer is the "publisher," he can simply
not enforce his copyright.
It's not
too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
builds a house. In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
1) charge people $500/month to live in it
2) let people live in it for free
3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
want to and can afford it
It is completely different. You want the person to be
able to prevent another
person from buying his own materials and piece of land and build a copy of
the the house.