RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> > The fact that they are "not the same thing" completely
> > negates your "the law of one is the law for all" claim that
> > "property law"
> > somehow carries into the other areas.

	You know, I read over my original argument again, and I absolutely cannot
understand how you could have misunderstood it. There is no reference to
property law at all in it, and several times I mentioned that I was talking
about contract law. So how you could have misunderstood me to mean that
property law applies to contracts is baffling to me. What I mean is the
reverse, that intangible property rights and conceptually part of contract
law.

	The one thing I said that was not clear and where I understand your
confusion was:

> Most property rights are contractual. You come to own property because you
contract for it.

	However, I maintain that the rest of my argument is completely clear and
you have not responded to it:

>> There was also no intent to create
>> "intellectual property" in the minds of the founders of the United
States.

>Because there was no need for them to do so. If I have possession of an
idea and agree to
>tell you the idea for $10 provided you agree not to disclose the idea to
anyone else, I don't
>need any special laws other than the normal laws that permit me to make and
enforce contracts.

>Access restrictions are purely contractual things and more obviously so. If
I put a security
>restriction on a CD and sell it to you, there's an implied agreement that
you will respect the
>restricitions. If I really wanted to, I could have you sign an agreement to
that affect.

>> That is also why "theft" and what we can generally refer to as "the theft
>> words" never applies these topics no matter how often or loudly someone
>> yells "you stole that idea from me."

>But it is theft, as surely as if I pay you $10 to mow my lawn and you don't
mow my lawn.
>Violating a contractual agreement not to disclose and not paying the
damages the agreement
>specifies is a form of theft by fraud.

>> Worse, absolutely none of the DRM arguments even exist within the
>> presidents
>> of copyright law as a significant subset of the technology and
uncertainty
>> only comes into play well after the act of copying is completed.

>Then forget about copyright law entirely. Think only about contractual
property and the fact
>that a person who comes up with an idea cannot be compelled to disclose it
and can disclose it
>under any terms he or she chooses. Think that when you buy a CD or a
program, there's an implied >contract that the CD or program is for your
personal use and that violating that contract is as >much theft as living in
an apartment without paying rent.

	DS