Notices tagged with cc, page 30
-
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:10:41 EDT 
marjoleink
2. 'If entity X has monopoly in apples, the fact that I can buy oranges instead of apples does not change the fact that X has a monopoly.'.. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:10:16 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek 1. is 'thesaurusally' a word? how does this apply at all to Dutch Author's right? -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:07:11 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek no, ANYone I grant the right to sell my work - not just me. Even if I do want to sell my own work AS WELL. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:04:44 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek no, it is not! -
laroquod (laroquod)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:03:01 EDT 
laroquod
@rysiek @marjoleink More links here: http://ur1.ca/aixo7 here: http://ur1.ca/aixo8 -
lxoliva (lxoliva)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 16:02:47 EDT 
lxoliva
@marjoleink monopoly means “[only] one sells”; do you deny copyright empowers you to be the only one who sells works of your authorship? -
zotz (zotz)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:58:12 EDT 
zotz
it is certainly not meaningless. and in the case of copyright on X's work, there may be no market or a large market, and X controls it. -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:54:48 EDT 
rysiek
@marjoleink and this is precisely what we call "monopoly". a very specific one, that's true, but still a monopoly. -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:54:23 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink no. he or she has to offer a product. the market for this product either exists or not. but if it exists, only they can sell it. -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:53:40 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink here, have another source: bit.ly/RA7yDQ and another one: bit.ly/RA7zHX the fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact. -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:52:15 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink yes, but if ANYBODY has the right to sell them, it's you. irrelevant, if you indeed do want to sell them -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:51:43 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink distribution in order to?.. if the reason was dissemination, why restrict it so? no, the reason is compensation. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:51:05 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek no need for stomping feet, because where there is no 'market' in the true sense, 'monopoly' does not apply. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:50:18 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek indeed. E.g., I have copyright to my letters to my mum & dad - but I regard that more as a matter of privacy. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:46:39 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek no, that's not what copyright (as 'author's right') is about. it's about distribution. -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:45:01 EDT
marjoleink
@rysiek 'monopoly' applies to a 'market'. What a single producer/creator has to offer is not a 'market'. -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:42:45 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink but stomping your feet, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "COPYRIGHT IS NOT A MONOPOLY" does not make it so. -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:42:18 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink I agree, though, that in many regards copyright is, indeed, silly :) -
rysiek (rysiek)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:42:03 EDT
rysiek
@marjoleink it's not meaningless, it's how copyright works. and copyright is about letting authors get compensation, that was the whole idea -
marjoleink (marjoleink)'s status on Thursday, 11-Oct-2012 15:40:42 EDT
marjoleink
@zotz in a very narrow field the concept of 'market' becomes essentially meaningless.
All Hacker Poesy content and data are available under the