> Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it
He seems to be confusing "freeware", which is basically a license for copyrighted work, with "public domain", which is the absence of a copyright.
He seems to be confusing "freeware", which is basically a license for copyrighted work, with "public domain", which is the absence of a copyright.
Ain't no such thing.
Copyright exists, immediately upon creation (not publication) of a work.
It's different from trademark, in that practical applications, enforcement, registration, etc., does not invalidate the copyright.
Copyright can expire, which then becomes, effectively, "public domain."
Registering a copyright doesn't create the copyright. It simply makes it easier to go after those that disrespect it.
I'm pretty sure that the only way to truly transfer the ownership of copyright of a work, is to have agreements in place, before it is created (like "work for hire" contracts).
If copyright could exist, then a copyright for the copyright must be able to exist, and it'd be turtles all the way down.
This is not nitpicking. Copyright, as intellectual property, is entirely made up as all other intellectual property is.
Saying copyright exists is as laughable as saying intellectual property is as non rivalrous as the chair you sit in.
Still. People have gone to jail for copyright infringement, so I doubt at least they would feel like laughing at the idea that copyright exists.
I’m aware of recent cases in Canada where defendants chose to ignore a court ruling and attempt to republish very similar material as what the court had originally found them to be in copyright violation for. They were then found to be in contempt of the court which is a criminal offence and then ordered to complete jail time and pay substantial fines.
Copyright violations are not criminal offences in countries I’m aware of. Please tell me of any cases where a copyright violator faced jail time for the copyright violation and not for related criminal offences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial
Swedish law has only gotten more strict since 2008 with regard to copyright.
How would you prove the existence of the universe? Do we not need a bigger universe that contains ours? And so forth? (Don't mention the big bang, which is a bunch of non-falsifiable formulas.)
Take tangible land, your exclusive use of it has boundaries, for example airspace rights or mineral rights. It is all made up.
The difference is tangible v intangible, but in either case the rights are made up.
You keep using these words, ontology and epistemology. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
>If copyright could exist, then a copyright for the copyright must be able to exist, and it'd be turtles all the way down
This doesn't make any sense.
First, not all things that exist are covered by copyright or have a copyright about them existing (air exists, but doesn't have a copyright. Neither do slugs, pebbles, Uranus, and other existing things).
Copyright is just sets of laws dictating ability to copy, distribute, and so on. It doesn't need a copyright for itself, and even if it did, the regular terms for reproducing any other legal code would suffice.
>Copyright, as intellectual property, is entirely made up as all other intellectual property is.
All human laws and conventions are made up. Doesn't mean anything - copyright is still enforceable with very real prison buildings, cells, and bars - and if resisting arrest for it, very tangible police battons, tasers, and bullets are not out of question either.
However, even being in the public domain does not in itself mean you can do everything. For example, in France you still have to respect the “moral rights” of the author, meaning you have to include their name and original title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_France#The_pu...
Even photos of works in the "public domain" might be protected again, e.g. read about the (in)famous Wikimedia Lawsuit from the German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiss_Engelhorn_Museum
- Expiry of copyright.
- Explicit dedicated to the public domain by the copyright holder.
- Non-copyrightable work (such as computer or animal generated work).
In the last one, copyright doesn’t exist, because it can’t, so the point is moot.
> animal generated work
Actually, didn’t that monkey get copyright of the image? I can’t remember, for sure.
We can’t actually transfer the copyright, itself; only the rights to adapt and/or reproduce.
In the "monkey selfie" case, the monkey lost, and lost hard. Probably because PETA behaved like ... PETA ... They footgun themselves constantly, by acting way too extreme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...