Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Wow... so you're talking to VGeorgie about Betamax and that jumps to our conversion?
You really will twist shit to stupid ways... Truly, lay off the drugs.
|
no you jumped into that conversation
Vgeorgie said
Quote:
|
While the term "monopoly" is sometimes used to describe the rights holder's ability to restrict republication, the term is biased because the rights holder is the natural and bona fide legal owner of any creative output. There isn't a "monopoly" for any government to give, because governments can't give rights that are inalienable in the first place, only observe them.
|
i responded with
Quote:
the supreme court explictly declared copyright to be a monopoly 20 times in the betamax case
you might want to look at the case before you try and argue that copyright is not a monopoly [conferred by the government].
Quote:
|
"The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."
|
http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html
|
you jumped in to try and backup VGeorgie with
Quote:
gideongallery.... the shit just keeps spewing from you.
The United States Supreme Court frequently refers to a patent as providing a "limited monopoly." This is not, however, appropriate usage of the term monopoly in the economic sense. In fact, intellectual property protection cannot properly be thought of as providing an economic monopoly, at least in part, because a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market to a point where higher than competitive prices are able to be maintained, which is something that is rarely achievable by an owner of intellectual property.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelle...poly_privilege
|
sorry man but i think your projecting your own drug problem on me
i actually remember the conversation thread