With all due respect Clocker, the land concept seems a bit flawed. Don't we still practice law under the idea that "possession is 9/10 of the law?"Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 19:09
JmiF- in your continued insistance on using land as an example, i.e. "land can't be stolen, it's still there" aren't you aware that land can't be "owned" as well? You don't own the dirt, you purchase the right to use it.
To the law, such ephemeral concepts as "idea", "song" and the like hold just as much physical substance as "land", "automobile", etc.
I assume that TIDE will correct me if I'm wrong.
I know this concept is far to vague to be applied here, but ultimately, this comes down to physical tangible goods, or services. The right to profit from this material could be licenced and owned, but the material is tangible. Consider this example:
I apologize first for not having all the "detail" but I'm sure you'll see where I'm going with this. A video store in California was getting complaints about the movies available for rent in their stores. People were saying that there was too much violence, cursing, nudity, etc. So this store put together an editing crew and started editing the movies, essentially "removing" anything which they deemed offensive. When they were finished, they repackaged the movie, and made it available for rent and for purchase thru mail order as a "family oriented version" available for all ages to watch. Of course the MPAA was all over this one. As of now, they have NOT been shut down. However, the movies must be labeled with different packaging to indicate that they are not the "originals."
So if the studios won't produce the movies in a family friendly format, why can't another young businessman do it instead? :blink: