Is there any legal jurisdiction that does NOT subscribe to the Berne Convention? In other words, is there anywhere that one can publish outside the regime and automatically evade automatic copyright?

Related to Nelson Cruz, so how does one avoid violating ‘moral rights’ by creating an adaptation based on a public domain work? Must EVERYTHING be paraphrased?

How is a translation of a public domain (expired copyright) not a copyrighted adaptation? It is a total paraphrase of the original by being translated. If one creates an adaptation based upon a translation of a work with an expired copyright is it a violation of the translator’s copyright?

Furthermore, how ‘bad’ (deviant) must a translation-adaptation be to violate the ‘moral rights’ of a dead author of an expired copyright work?

Is it a violation of the a dead author’s (expired copyright) ‘moral rights’ to include the author’s original work in it’s entirety in his language along side an adaptation from a translation in another language? How could that violate the ‘integrity’ of the original when the two works are clearly distinguishable as being the works of separate authors in separate languages?

I think that you misunderstand the purpose of the GPL. It is not to ‘free code’ in the way you think. Instead it is to make sure that code written under it is always free for the user to modify and run, provided that they pass along the same rights, and contribute back any changes that they distribute.

In effect, by using the GPL, I am saying that you can run and use my code, and the cost of doing so is to contribute any code you write and redistribute back to the project.

Think about it. Microsoft charges for Windows. Linus charges for the Linux kernel. They just do it in different ways (and since I prefer Linus’s way, guess what I use?)

“”This does not waive copyright. Stating you do not have a copyright does not make this true.”

“This means there are problems with the legislation.

“Just because there are rent control laws, doesn’t necessarily mean we should abolish private property when it comes to land.”

This is an evasion. You IP-redistributionist-socialists want to argue we anti-IPers are hypocritical since we don’t “waive” our copyright. 1. This is not hypocritical; our policy beliefs, and how we navigate in the imperfect world you and your kind foist on us, are separate issues, so there is no contradiction; 2. even if we are hypocritical, it does not prove you are right in your IP socialism, so this is just ad hominem; and 3., finally, it is not possible to “waive” copyright, as you claim, so your entire attack disappears. You want to blame us for opposing copyright, and for having copyright, yet the latter is not in our control. It is imposed on us by you and your ilk.

This means there are problems with the legislation.

Just because there are rent control laws, doesn’t necessarily mean we should abolish private property when it comes to land.

I think it’s a bit of a leftover from those days but mostly the usage stems from ignorance of the fact that you dont’ have to put a copyright notice or register or do anything to get a copyright.

I can’t find any record as to when it happened, but copyright is shown as having a transitive verb usage by both merriam-webster and dictionary.com.

I’m sure it comes as a surprise; I was more that a bit disheartened to learn that my own pet peeve (funnest) is also grammatically correct.
”

My point was not a semantic or grammatical one. IT’s a legal one. You cannot “copyright” something since there are no steps needed; no action by the author. IT’s just automatical, by federal law. This is what people don’t get; and they imply otherwise when they use it as a verb.

I can’t find any record as to when it happened, but copyright is shown as having a transitive verb usage by both merriam-webster and dictionary.com.

I’m sure it comes as a surprise; I was more that a bit disheartened to learn that my own pet peeve (funnest) is also grammatically correct.

http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

(may not be appropriate for work/tykes)

-gumnos

While there remain IPR laws, Steve’s idea of holding copyright in order for others not to abuse a lack of copyright seems to be the best means of protecting people.

“The one, who is the owner of the material, writes somewhere the material is not copyrighted and the one doesn’t go after people who copy it.”

This does not waive copyright. Stating you do not have a copyright does not make this true.

The one, who is the owner of the material, writes somewhere the material is not copyrighted and the one doesn’t go after people who copy it.

Pretty simple really.

Silas, pray tell, how does one “waive” one’s copyright? Are you suggesting that one add, in footnote 13, the text, “I hereby waive my copyright.”? Would that work? Or, are you one of those I described in the first and third paragraphs of my post above?

Which is a stupid argument – obviously, nobody has the power to “suck it into a proprietary black hole”. At most, they can utilize it in a proprietary product – and so what? That doesn’t make the existing code cease to exist – it doesn’t affect it in any way whatsoever! So where is the problem, again?

Here I thought only the owner of the IP can initiate a prosecution against copyright infringement by a formal complaint and if he or she doesn’t, this effectively means there would be no copyrights on certain IP.

But how can you ever be sure he won’t? He can say he won’t…and then change his mind a few years down the track when your entire business depends on “infringement” of his “IP”, and hold you to ransom, etc.

Also, you and others have gone a lot further by selling your copyrights to publishers. When you do so, you are, by your own standards, authorizing others to commit aggression for you, which is morally equivalent to the aggression itself. Perhaps it’s “hard” to promote the book’s ideas otherwise. I disagree, but regardless, you don’t seem to even try.

You’ve already conceded that your position on IP hinges on wholly arbitrary assumptions you can’t justify. Time to give up this crusade until you can put it on firmer footing.