13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
3:46 p.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 19:09:00 Al Thompson wrote:
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.
Well, let's make it an original design then shall we. What then in your eyes?
all the best,
drew
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.