Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

[I_Ryan]

@Sam Armstrong

I didn’t say I owned the pattern. I said I owned the book. If you use my book to copy it, I own the copy because you violated my property rights in the original book, not because the pattern on the book happens to be the same as the one on mine.

I responded to that here:

@I. Ryan

@meambobbo paraphrasing Stranger

[…] the media cannot be used to create copies and/or redistributions.

That argument is ridiculous. For, if you, for example, consider the “use” of a book, you quickly realize that (a) the “use” of the book which enables you to study the book, an apparently legitimate activity, and (b) the “use” of the book which enables you to copy the book, an allegedly illegitimate activity, do not necessarily differ. For (a) to study the content of the book via the harvesting the rays of light which reflect of it and then the writing of summaries of key sections or the copying of the patterns and symbols which constitute key sentences into a notebook and (b) to copy entirely the content of the book via the harvesting the rays of light which reflect of it and then the copying of the patterns and symbols which constitute the entire book into a notebook do not, in their “use” of the book, differ. How can some one seriously tell me that, because they partially own the book but not me, my pen, my house, my chair, my desk, or my notebook, I am allowed (a) to do action A to the book and then action X to my notebook but not (b) to do action A to the book and then action Y to my notebook?