Obviously some of you didn't understand my post to begin with. A book is an amalgamation of ideas but it is also property once it is printed up as a product. I never once defended the copyright office per se. I do defend people's right to use existing laws as needed until such a time as there is a different way to retain one's right to "certain" property. I understand the abstract that information can not be owned but there is a slippery slope when it comes to people for example who publish ideas for a living.
"The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
—U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
"An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence." —Ayn Rand, 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us