Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?

[David Kastrup]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org> writes:

> Qua, 2007-05-30 às 20:33 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
>> On May 28, 2:39 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <r...@1407.org> wrote:
>> > Seg, 2007-05-28 às 12:04 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
>> >
>> > > And therefore the GPL is more of a copyright license, whereas the MS-
>> > > EULA
>> > > is more of a contract -- since the MS-EULA _takes away_ rights one
>> > > would
>> > > otherwise have, whereas the GPL _grants_ rights one would otherwise
>> > > _not_ have.
>> >
>> > Why... I argue that perhaps MS-EULA would be illegal in most copyright
>> > laws were it not for all those "except where prohibited by law" :)
>> >
>> 
>> So are you saying the copyright law is too restrictive?
>
> Well, you see... do write a book. Do you know what copyright law
> says about that book you wrote?

Actually nothing at all.  The manuscript is personal property and
nobody has the right to touch it.

> Nobody but you can copy it.
> Only you can say who can copy it.

That is perfectly acceptable and has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright comes into play once you sell or otherwise transfer
ownership of a copy.  Once you do _that_, copyright law kicks in
regarding the rights of the _recipient_ of that copy.

> In order for publishers to copy it and distribute it (by selling
> copies), you need to authorize them to do that.
>
> Or you may be weak enough in order to assign (by contract) your
> copyrights to them.
>
> Or you could publish it as a Free Book.
>
> Or you could make it in the public domain.
>
> Or you could burn the only copy.
>
> Doesn't this look restrictive?

As long as no copy gets given to anybody else, it is my private
property.  Nobody has any business snooping through my private stuff
when I don't hand any of it out.  That has nothing to do with
copyright law.

Copyright law only kicks in once I make copies accessible to other
persons.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum