Boundaries of Ownership
It is important that I make this very clear and that I do so at the earliest possible moment. I must do this because the essay that you are reading is about intellectual property, and that means that this essay must be self-referential. When one writes or speaks or communicates in any way about intellectual property, one is dealing with some of the most basic rules of the very medium in which one is operating. There is no neutral ground here, no possibility of genuine detachment or objectivity. Either I am going to claim the protection of the current laws that apply in the United States and under the World Intellectual Property Organization, or I am not.
So here it is: I am not.
There is a name just under the title of this essay, but that name has no connection with any concept of ownership. What you read here is not controlled by any copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents, trade secrets, or any other kind of intellectual property. The words on this page are not an "authoritative" version of this essay; no such version exists, and--as far as I am concerned--no such version ever will exist. The only limits on what you can do with this essay and the words in it are the limits imposed by the laws of physics and the extent of your imagination. As the available technologies advance, the limits will move outward, and you will be able to do more and more things with these words. No matter what you do with this material, I will not send lawyers chasing after you demanding royalties or anything else. If you do get into some sort of trouble for using something from this paper, that trouble won't be started by me.
Why am I doing this? Why am I abandoning copyright protection for my own creation, fo...
... middle of paper ...
...t may be. We must look at this alternate world with all the objectivity, clarity, and thoroughness we can possibly muster, for it is only by doing so that we can assemble in our own minds the solid core of intellectual property that is genuinely worth protecting, if such a solid core even exists.
Ultimately, I return to the points I raised on the first few pages of this essay. Anyone can move around any information that they want to, and nobody really seems to be changing that fact in spite of many efforts to do so. I personally have chosen not to fight the fact until the fact changes. Take what you want from these words. Do what you want with them. Change them, send them, mail them, post them, write them, draw them, paint them, speak them, sing them, chant them, record them, film them. This essay is yours, and everybody's, and nobody's.
Nobody owns this essay.
Does the introduction of a system of registration of title remove the need for the law to recognise possessory or equitable interests in land? Why? Why not?
Plaintiff Nazhma Stoltzfus, has brought a quiet title action seeking to assert her partial ownership rights to the farm and to recover damages for wrongful exclusion and conversion. Defendant Elmer Stoltzfus is moving for summary judgment on adverse possession grounds. Elmer’s should be denied because his possession of the land does not satisfy the hostile and adverse requirement of adverse possession.
implacability of the natural world, the impartial perfection ofscience, the heartbreak of history. The narrative is permeated with insights about language itself, its power to distort and destroy meaning, and to restore it again to those with stalwart hearts.
The central message of this text is that increasingly, outdated copyright laws are being manipulated and put to use in a ludicrous manner. This is resulting in the suppression of people’s ability to generate and share their own creative expressions.
It is one sad existence, to live and die, without discovering, what could have been. The question is often asked, what is the meaning of life? Or even, what is the purpose? There is no clear answer, and yet there is a search in every moment, every breath, and every corner, for a minute hint. In a societal setting, identity is merely determined by the amount of tangible things owned. Society places the ideology on individuals that those who own the most tangible things are above others. An individual can trump all those societal values by owning the self. This brings equality to all, and levels the playing field. This has been true throughout history, however behind all of this, there are individuals learning to conquer themselves. It begs the question, what defines a person, the physical or the metaphysical? There is obviously a compelling relationship between ownership and the sense of self or identity. But, is it ownership that determines the sense of self or is it perhaps, that the sense of self determines ownership. The
To words meaning two different things have a way of relating to one another to create something new? Many things can be made to describe two simple words like ownership and identity. Ownership can be both tangible and intangible. When looking at how ownership relates to identity, people tend to look at aesthetic instead of how ownership builds moral character that leads to identity.
... reflects the accomplishments made in four centuries. While man still does not have absolute free speech, he is not so suppressed that he must hide his feelings by literary means.
Over the past decade the societal view of creative society has greatly changed due to advances in computer technology and the Internet. In 1995, aware of the beginning of this change, two authors wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing diametrically opposed views on how this technological change would take form, and how it would affect copyright law. In the article "The Emperor's Clothes Still Fit Just Fine" Lance Rose hypothesized that the criminal nature of copyright infringement would prevent it from developing into a socially acceptable practice. Thus, he wrote, we would not need to revise copyright law to prevent copyright infringement. In another article, Entitled "Intellectual Value", Esther Dyson presented a completely different view of the copyright issue. She based many her arguments on the belief that mainstream copyright infringement would proliferate in the following years, causing a radical revision of American ideas and laws towards intellectual property. What has happened since then? Who was right? This paper analyzes the situation then and now, with the knowledge that these trends are still in a state of transformation. As new software and hardware innovations make it easier to create, copy, alter, and disseminate original digital content, this discussion will be come even more critical.
What is the relationship between ownership and self identity/development? This is a extremely complicated question. There are many theories trying to answer this question, such as, Plato 's claim the "owning objects is detrimental to a person 's character", whereas Aristotle argues that "ownership of tangible goods helps to develop moral character." To answer this question we must first ask, what is ownership? If this question is asked to friends, relatives, even strangers, we will receive many similar answers to this question. People will say something along the lines of, "the possession of an object" or "to be in control of something". However, we must then dive deeper into the question and ask ourselves, can we really possess an object if it can be taken
There is uncertainty surrounding the law in regards to the ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. This paper will deal with these issues by analysing two cases that involve these questions. It will first address Jack’s case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will examine a Laurence’s case and whether he can rely on proprietary estoppel or not. By dealing with the two cases, this paper will clarify questions of what constitutes a chattel or fixture, and in what situations proprietary estoppel may apply.
Before any discussion on the actions of MPAA can be broached, it is necessary to deliver a brief historical primer on the intellectual property laws, in particular copyrights. To begin with, a copyright is used to protect creative rather than industrial forms. No formal registration is required to gain protection of a creation. The only requirement is that creation must be expressed, that is, an idea or knowledge in and of itself is not copyrightable, only the expression of the idea.[2]
“Copyright is a fundamental right of ownership and protection common to all of the arts” (O’Hara & Beard, 2006, p. 8). “It is a form of intellectual Property (IP)” and it gives the owner exclusive rights to the copyright (O’Hara & Beard, 2006, p. 11).
violators. So although some form of a copyright law is needed, the one we have
particular interest to educators is the “fair use” doctrine, which extends a get-out-of-jail-free card (so to speak) to anyone using copyrighted...
Copyright is a protection for authors, composers or artists and other creators who create innovative idea base work. Copyright law is important because of its role to protect the interests of the creator, while allowing others to gain access to it legally. It designed to make sure that creators receive appropriate rights for their own ideas and creativity, and to promote artistic creativity by protecting the creator.