[MPlayer-dev-eng] KiSS of copyright

[D Richard Felker III]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:26:21PM +0100, Christof Buergi wrote:
> Camillo Lugaresi sagte:
> > All I see is that the Swiss law explicitly allows personal use of
> > published works, except that this clause does not cover software.
> > The question is: if the law does not explicitly allow something, is
> > it forbidden? I'd say it's the other way around: unless the law
> > explicitly forbids it, it's allowed.
> 
> Ah, no. Normally, you're right: Something not explicitely forbidden is
> allowed. But intellectual property is special
> 
> To make a long story short: Legally, the user doesn't own the
> software. The copyright holder does. Thus, the user may not do
> anything with the software unless it's explicitely allowed be either
> the copyright holder or the law. Without this rule, all the laws about
> intellectual property would be void. This is why this rule is in fact
> part of the constitution.

Perhaps you'd like to explain this better with quotes from the actual
law/constitution. I'm not at all convinced.

> BTW: In the US, some people try to eliminate this rule, since it
> conflicts other parts of the constitution. Before you go and wish them

This imaginary rule does not exist in the U.S. Go read U.S. copyright
law and see for yourself. The law does not define copies of the
copyrighted work as 'property' of the copyright holder. Illegal
copying is infringement, not theft. And copyright essentially does not
cover acts other than copying and public performance.

> luck: The GPL would be worthless without this rule, as well.

I don't care. The benefits we'd get from eliminating copyright totally
far outweigh the loss of the GPL's protections.

Rich