End of Property Rights at the Hands of the Corporations?

[Steve Gagne]

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere

[Brant Gaede]

If something is sold and bought with a proviso that's one thing. It's merely a form of cooperative ownership established by contract.

This use of copyright law is legal reaching however. It's contract substitution.

Most of this will be worked out on its own. Farmers who can pay six figures for equipment have a lot of say and they'll use it. I don't think there is anything in the article about complementary judicial rulings. It hasn't even gotten out of the Copyright Office yet. Let's see if it tries a power grab. The corporations are obviously trying. Maybe the Commerce Department will get pissed off at the Copyright Office. The pigs are rooting around in the sundry feeding troughs abetted by law for hire never mind the mire.

--Brant

money and power, power and money--other people's rightful power and money

fight for your freedom--but never mind junior being drafted to fight in Vietnam; Daddy had to fight in Europe; his was the "greatest generation," so get going; all generations get screwed--that was two generations (three if you count WWI and four if you count "The War of Southern Succession," but that's now run out for it's fewer men and more brains for the guns, sacrifice has turned into jejune cultural inertia and selfishness has no balls

[jts]

a video on the same topic

[Brant Gaede]

Jerry, that video adds not one thing to this discussion. Please, no cud chewing.

[Derek McGowan]

intellectual property (and the opening article) is a major reason why I don't agree with the line from Atlas Shrugged- there is no conflict among reasonable men.... that was a paraphrase

The idea is that two people, at the slightest hint of conflict, would calmly examine the situation and yield their own desires to the side with the more reasonable claim. Such as the Rearden-giving-up-Dagny-to-Galt thing.

My counter example from the real world is with cell phones. They come locked with certain software and made to use on certain networks. This is perfectly reasonable for the phone makers. But consumers find that they can give their (paid for) devices new or better functionality, so they have to jail break the phone. Reason is also on their side. In fact the phone maker should be able to see their side of the argument and agree that someone should be able to use their intellectual power and their property and produce something bigger and better. At the same time the consumer should easily agree with the phone maker and their financial and intellectual property motivations.

Conflict indeed

[syrakusos]

Derek, I agree with your context. i hesitate to endorse your conclusions. On the one hand, a contract is a contract. On the other hand, one bad clause does not negate the agreement -- the principle of severability. And while I hesitate to endorse the one-sided pirating of a contract, I do acknowledge that the reality of legal theory follows the empirical, not the morally ideal.