UN agency gives 20th Century Fox web address to 'The Simpsons Movie'

Yahoo! Canada ^ | Jul 25, 2007

[1rudeboy]

Speaking of Microsoft, when you (legally) purchase a computer running a Microsoft OS, can you copy the code to create “Sloth OS” without fear of retribution? If not, why not?

[1rudeboy]

No. Do you think that was witty?

[hedgetrimmer]

Not at all.

[hedgetrimmer]

I wonder why Microsoft OS is only $3 a copy in China?

[Sloth]

Speaking of Microsoft, when you (legally) purchase a computer running a Microsoft OS, can you copy the code to create “Sloth OS” without fear of retribution?

Of course not.

If not, why not?

Because there are laws protecting Microsoft's copyright. Copyright legally exists; it's just not a legitimate PROPERTY right. We also have laws protecting endangered species, and you can't kill bald eagles without retribution, but that doesn't mean they're anyone's property.

[1rudeboy]

How about 20th Century Fox’s copyright on its cartoon franchise?

[Sloth]

How about 20th Century Fox’s copyright on its cartoon franchise?

What about it? If some party attempted to independently market a cartoon that infringed on the existing copyright, then it'd be legitimately enforceable. Fox might have an argument in getting an injunction against this guy for publishing what the article calls "sexually explicit depictions of several characters from 'The Simpsons'"; I suspect there'd be some claimed defense of parody, etc. But in any case, that would be a cease-and-desist type of situation, with (at most) damages for the harm done to the copyrighted franchise. In no just system could Fox seize the guy's domain name just because it had the word "Simpson" in it.

ABC has a series called "Lost." Do they magically gain rights to every imaginable domain name with the sequence of letters L-O-S-T in it? Including some guy who has the domain 'LostMovie.com' for years before they ever consider making a movie?

[1rudeboy]

ABC has a series called "Lost." Do they magically gain rights to every imaginable domain name with the sequence of letters L-O-S-T in it?

Of course not. It's what you do with the domain-name named L-O-S-T after you purchase it. That's what this case is about. Much like MS doesn't "own" the letters/numbers/whatever in whatever sequence in its code. But if you use the code for nefarious ends, you might stand to lose your computer.

The distinction that you fail to understand (and that others on this thread deliberately avoid) is not that I, 1rudeboy, could have filmed an indie film consisting of a montage of different individuals, all named Simpson, and properly registered the website in this case. But that I can't use Simpsons™ characters without permission from 20th Century Fox.

[hedgetrimmer]

Of course not. It's what you do with the domain-name named L-O-S-T after you purchase it.

In the anti-American internationalist view, property rights come in 'bundles'. They have worked diligently to destroy the concept of property rights and morphed ownership into the UN style viewpoint that you don't really own your property. They decide if you are 'worthy', and they decide how you should use it. So they decide which stick in the 'bundle' you get to keep. In their warped world view, this gives unprecendent power to international organizations(of course appointed by the internationalists themselves) over everything on earth.

[1rudeboy]

I read your first sentence and could go no farther because I was laughing so hard.

The notion that property rights come in "bundles" is a common-law tradition that goes back to the Norman Conquest, or thereabouts.

[1rudeboy]

Now that I think about it, this is essentially a trespass case . . . the technological version of my neighbor’s cow (through no fault of my own) eating my cabbages. And the fact that my neighbor legally purchased his cow has no bearing. And I’m entitled to damages, which in those days may have been the cow itself.

[hedgetrimmer]

Complete and exclusive control over private property comes from Roman private law.

You UN types hate that because it gives people the right to use their property as they see fit.

You and your corrupt views of private property are hurting this country and the people in it. There’s nothing funny about it.

[1rudeboy]

So let’s return to my Microsoft OS example. When you legally purchase a computer with it installed, does that give you the right (under “Roman private law,” whatever that is) to copy it and sell it to someone else?

[hedgetrimmer]

So let’s return to my Microsoft OS example

Yes, let's do. Why does Microsoft OS only cost $3 a copy in China, and hundreds of dollars in the US?

[1rudeboy]

Let me know when you get around to answering my question, and I’ll address the red herring.

[1rudeboy]

By the way, wouldn’t “complete and exclusive” control of private property constitute a “bundle” of property rights?

[hedgetrimmer]

No red herring, sir. Microsoft OS is intellectual property, is it not? Why is it worth only $3 in China but hundreds of dollars in the US?

[1rudeboy]

Answering a direct question with a question is an attempt to divert the discussion, in most cases. There is no way anyone who understands English can objectively look at #'s 573 & 574 and not come to the conclusion that you are ducking my question.

Imagine that the purchaser and seller are both located in the U.S. Duh.

[hedgetrimmer]

Answering a direct question with a question is an attempt to divert the discussion, in most cases.

No, not here.

I asked the question some time back, the answer is still wanting.

Imagine that the purchaser and seller are both located in the U.S

Clearly no need for an internationalist organization to make a decision about property rights for American citizens then. Duh.

But the discrepancy in price between the US and China for Microsoft OS is fascinating. I wonder why it's so huge?

[1rudeboy]

But apart from being regulated by the dreaded ICANN (which is U.S.), the internet is international waters. I'll just simply assume, then, that you agree that Microsoft's (and in this case, 20th Century Fox's) rights were violated. Duh.

So we return (as your circular-reasoning continues). Have you come-up with any "workable" (I jest, of course) solution to the problem of 20th Century Fox's rights being violated apart from having it pre-register the domain name (and every permutation thereof) in every country on the face of the planet?