On Mar 25, 11:45 pm, Gary Wright <gwtm... / mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:
>
> > Earlier, you said you were in favor of free markets. Most  
> > economists believe that property rights is one of the key  
> > underpinnings of such a system: if you have no property rights, you  
> > can't transfer that capital, and you can't use it as collateral  
> > when raising funds. de Soto has a great book on the subject,  
> > explaining why weak property rights cause great inefficiencies in  
> > developing economies.
>
> I doesn't seem to me that Chad's comments are
> in contradiction to your points on property rights.
>
> I think he was just pointing out that 'theft' is
> a term that has a well defined ethical and legal
> meaning with respect to personal property but has
> no well-defined ethical or legal meaning with
> respect to copyright, trademarks, or patents.  It
> is true that many people use the term 'theft'
> with respect to these concepts but Chad's point is
> that it is a usage pattern that obfuscates rather
> than clarifies the discussion.  At least that is
> the sense I got from his postings.
>
> So you can be a strong property rights proponent
> and simultaneously insist that copyright infringement
> is not 'theft'.
>
> Gary Wright
As a follow up to several of the earlier postings, much has been
offered what US copyright is, and how it is observed ex-US. Some of it
was spot on, some of the comments were close but not entirely
accurate. Whether you agree with copyright law or not, here is the FAQ
on copyright from the US copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
on how things actually work today.

Cheers,
John Wait