Chambers wrote:
> On 5/12/2009 4:12 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> "Copyright" means the *exclusive* right to make copies. That right is
>> diminished whenever someone else, without the copyright holder's
>> permission, makes a copy. Unless corrected, the owner's right is no
>> longer *exclusive*, and thus he no longer retains all of the rights and
>> privileges that he had, preceding the violation. He certainly loses some
>> of the perks, because profiting from the copy is one of these perks,
>> which is rightfully his.
>>
>> That's why it's called "copyright" and not "sellright," "takeright,"
>> "haveright," or other phrases.
> 
> You're right about the exclusive right no longer being exclusive, of 
> course, but such a right is really more of a privilege than in inherent 
> right and rather an abstract concept anyway.

*All* rights are abstract, in that there is no physical connection 
between any person and that to which he has a right.  This is one of the 
chief excuses used by some to violate them; for want of some cosmic 
umbilical cord connecting some man with his property, they claim that he 
"really" has no right to it, and feel entitled to take it for some 
noble-sounding purpose.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message