[free-sklyarov] Re: He's free....

[Jason H Clouse]

<<Much of what you say is an opinion about what the law ought to be.>>

Kind of depends on what you mean.  The fact of the matter is that any law
passed by the national legislature that addresses Copyright or Patent in
this manner is in violation of the Constitution by exceeding the
enumerated powers.  Congress was only given permission to pass laws
granting a time-limited monopoly right to authors and inventors and NOT
to grant a property right in this matter.  Furthermore, *ownership* of
the expression of ideas is a patently (if you'll pardon the pun) silly
notion.  BTW, I'm a musician--I definitely stand to gain from the
ownership of expression; but not much more than I do from a limited
monopoly right.

<<Western jurisprudence does now and has long recognized intangible
property.>>

Certainly this matter is heavily based on who you talk to.  I can't see
any sensible reason to consider intangibles to be property. 
Nevertheless, if you have any good arguments for it I'd certainly be
willing to hear them.

<<There are enough good arguments against this entire proceeding; leave
the unsupportable arguments for the other side.>>

Agreed.

J
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.