|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/07/07 20:47
"Bill" <trash@chromehorse.net> wrote in message
news:JOydnad4Y_vprFfYnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@golden.net...
>I am perfectly aware of the fact that ideas are not legally protectable.
>
> That is a legal issue which I am not talking about.
>
> I disagree with you that the examples I gave don't involve "stealing" in a
> useful sense of the word. You seem to absolutely insist that "stealing"
> can only be used in the way that lawyers want to use it in court.
I'm using stealing in the sense that everyone uses it -- taking something
that isn't yours to take. "Stealing," by definition, is a judgmental word.
> Do you really think that the creators of all those imitation reality shows
> didn't "steal" the basic idea from "Survivor".
Not in the same sense that someone who downloads an mp3 file is stealing
expression. Survivor notwithstanding, human society evolves by building on
earliers ideas. This is true with respect to all aspects of human society,
not just artistic expression.
> Did I say anywhere that that means they should be arrested and charged
> with theft?
Did I say anything anywhere about arrest or criminal charges?
> Did you miss the part where I said that appropriating existing concepts
> and ideas is not a bad thing and is, in fact, an essential part of our
> culture, and that the cross-pollination can be a healthy thing?
I didn't miss that, which is why I think extrapolating from that point to a
condemnation of copyright laws means that you're conflating the concept of
ideas with the concept of expression.
>
> Geez, Paul, I find your posts are generally very useful and informative,
> but not everyone requires a definitive legal opinion on a particular word
> usage. And Stephen Spielberg absolutely did steal entire sequences from
> "The Bridge". (Is a "sequence" an idea or expression?)
I haven't seen The Bridge, so I don't know what Spielberg did.
> There. Said it again. Does not mean I think he should be sued for it. In
> fact, obviously, quite the contrary.
I'm not talking about suing -- you still miss my point. Ideas should be
freely available for use by everyone. The specific expression of those
ideas should not. Copyright law carefully and deliberately distinguishes
between the two (the DMCA not withstanding, but we're both agreed that
specific law is a particularly bad one). You're calling for a restructuting
of law to accomplish a goal that, long ago, was the underlying rationale for
the law in the first place.
>
> PTravel wrote:
>
>> I told you -- you keep mixing up ideas, which are not protectable, with
>> the expression of ideas, which are.
>>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|