RE: Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)

Hum.

> I don't think real property and intellectual property
> are the same. I do think the kids stealing items off a
> table on the street is analagous to copyright
> infringement on the internet.
>

Suppose you have built a table and you expose it on the street without stealing-protection.
Suddenly, the table is not on the street. You say: -"Some kids steal it". Then you will find it on the market place. Here you will claim for _your table_ and what you will get is _only your table_ (and probably no indemnities, because you were so silly to expose your table without stealing-protection).

Now, suppose you have made some work, and you expose it on the net. Your work did never leave your Website. However, you discover that some kids copied it, because you randomly find your work on the market place.
Here, you will only claim for _your rights_, but it is not possible to claim for your "work", because your work did never leave its original place on your Website.

The difference between stealing a table, and stealing a (copy)right may only be defined by the difference between the material, opposed as ideal sources of the goods.
There is a loss of value of the table when people use it, while IP rights subsists even when the support of the work become unusable.

> Feel free to disagree, but you will need a better
> argument if you want the law on your side.

> As "rational" as your proposal is, it is not "law"
> until it is "code" in the USC or case law says it is
> law.

Read it better. It sometimes helps.
For example, you can use the Search tool:

# of apparitions of the word "copyright"= 100 occurences-.

# of apparitions of the word "rigth"= 66 occurences, most   of them directly related to the matter of the USC17, and to   alleviate the sentences. You can read it as a synonym.

# of apparitions of the word "property"= 11   It appears only once in Cahp13, sec1320 to define precisely the   "Ownership and transfer", applied to "registered Designs" !   Other occurences are used to underline obvious differences   (or limited analogies) between the words (copy-)right and property.

You can check: I am not an English speaker nor a lawyer. However, I admit it may be sometimes useful to compare with other copyright laws than the USC.
:-)

Kind regards

I.R.Maturana -- http://www.in3activa.org (LPT-ESv1r3 - http://www.in3activa.org/doc/es/LPT-ES.html) Received on Mon Jul 21 2003 - 19:03:06 GMT