Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!aerospace.aero.org!abbott
From: abbott@aerospace.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott)
Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property
Message-ID: <80636@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 10 Aug 90 14:21:16 GMT
References: <80565@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Aug10.043721.2081@looking.on.ca>
Sender: news@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: abbott@antares.UUCP (Russell J. Abbott)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 25

In article <1990Aug10.043721.2081@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca
(Brad Templeton) suggests:

> [O]wnership should derive from creation -- ... you [should] own the
> results of your labours.

But you give no argument in support of this position other than that
that is the way you and some others think it should be.  I and some
others don't think it should be that way.  It seems to me that we are
going around in circles.

As I've said before, I believe that recognition of creativity is
important (and perhaps others wouldn't agree with me about that), but I
don't believe that ownership is.  Does it just come down to a difference
of preferences?

I've given reasons why I don't think the concept of ownership (or legal
control if you prefer) should apply to all products of human creative
activity.  You haven't given reasons why you think it should (other than
that you do think so), and you haven't dealt with my arguments about why
it shouldn't.  You just keep repeated your assertion that you believe
creation should imply ownership/control.  Perhaps there just isn't any
more to say.

-- Russ Abbott