- #1
Per
- 14
- 0
I am currently philosophying about copyrights and ownership.
What I want is to have general laws of ownership.
Take music for example,
The music creator has ownership of his/her music. What does this ownership mean? Ususally ownership means exclusive use rights. This creator can copy his/her music without breaking the law. However some other party cannot copy the music without breaking the law. If however this other party buys the music, then does this mean the party owns the music. No, the party has only acquired use rights of the music. But does use rights include copying. No. What differs from the creator then and the party that bought the music? Possibly both have use rights to the music, but the creator has also design ownership. Without design ownership one cannot duplicate the music.
Does it make sense or are you confused. It gets worse.
Now consider that everything can be described as information.
A farmer grows potatoes. Potatoes are information just like a music piece stored in mp3 format. OK. Now does the farmer have design ownership to the potatoes? No. Nature does. But does the farmer own the potatoes he grows. Yes. In a sense, the farmer is approximately copying potatoes using natures desing; and he has a implicit agreement with nature (who owns the design of potatoes) to use copy rights from the design, free of charge. But does Nature own the potates or does the farmer own the potatoes he grows. The farmer owns the potates, however not the design of potatoes. Therefore the farmer has the right to sell the potates, so that he gets payed for the work done in copying potates.
Does it make sense?
What I want is to have general laws of ownership.
Take music for example,
The music creator has ownership of his/her music. What does this ownership mean? Ususally ownership means exclusive use rights. This creator can copy his/her music without breaking the law. However some other party cannot copy the music without breaking the law. If however this other party buys the music, then does this mean the party owns the music. No, the party has only acquired use rights of the music. But does use rights include copying. No. What differs from the creator then and the party that bought the music? Possibly both have use rights to the music, but the creator has also design ownership. Without design ownership one cannot duplicate the music.
Does it make sense or are you confused. It gets worse.
Now consider that everything can be described as information.
A farmer grows potatoes. Potatoes are information just like a music piece stored in mp3 format. OK. Now does the farmer have design ownership to the potatoes? No. Nature does. But does the farmer own the potatoes he grows. Yes. In a sense, the farmer is approximately copying potatoes using natures desing; and he has a implicit agreement with nature (who owns the design of potatoes) to use copy rights from the design, free of charge. But does Nature own the potates or does the farmer own the potatoes he grows. The farmer owns the potates, however not the design of potatoes. Therefore the farmer has the right to sell the potates, so that he gets payed for the work done in copying potates.
Does it make sense?
