2 of 2
2
Intellectual Property - related to "eating in theatres&
Posted: 31 July 2006 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

You started with a half truth, largely fabricated to make a point about a bogeyman that doesn’t exist (at least in the real case of your tickets).

It’s become so bad, that when I go to the stadium to watch a football game, it’s considered stealing for me to call my brother at home to tell him the score.

We dispatched that by determining that calling your brother is not even close to synonymous with broadcasting to the public.

Now you end up with such an extreme contortion of any reality to make your point of a potential scary uber-brother, that you are making no point of value at all.

When we fantasize about any perceived threat to individual rights we can of course come up with ridiculous unreal examples of that threat…rather a lot like developing concepts of trascendant gods and demons.

If you don’t like the rules to your holding tickets (set out in advance by the way), then don’t buy the tickets, or buy the tickets and break the rules but know that your expedient can not claim moral high ground, and it may cost you the forfeiture of tickets, rights to future tickets or even civil action by the property owner for breach of agreement.

If people were not willing to live within the rules and obligations involved in owning the tickets…didn’t by the tickets…the stadium owners would either become bankrupt or change the objectionable restrictions.

But there perhaps is the rub. Maybe you propose it is unfair that we must secure our right though actions which may make us uncomfortable. Maybe you believe that a beneficent overlord (authoritarian state?) should mete out rights without requiring the hardship of responsibility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2006 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  187
Joined  2006-07-14

[quote author=“cgallaga”]You started with a half truth, largely fabricated to make a point about a bogeyman that doesn’t exist (at least in the real case of your tickets).

1) If the stadium truly owns the facts related to events at the stadium (and they have claimed that they do), and

2) If making those facts public is ‘stealling’ (copyright infringement), there’s no half truth in my initial statement.

3) And furthermore, because we know that in 1996, the major sports leagues successfully lobbied Congress to introduce the legislation of a treaty that would give them a legal claim to the ownership of facts (statistics), and not only live statistics, but historical ones as well (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp29.htm), there’s reason to believe this ‘bogeyman’ really does exists. At least it’s a threat.

[quote author=“cgallaga”]We dispatched that by determining that calling your brother is not even close to synonymous with broadcasting to the public.

- Are you arguing that stealing is not stealing if you only do it in a limited fashion ? You’re right that making the facts public to just one person probably wouldn’t reach a cost-benefit threshold worthy of action on the stadium’s part. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t consider every instance as a copyright infringement.


[quote author=“cgallaga”]Now you end up with such an extreme contortion of any reality to make your point of a potential scary uber-brother, that you are making no point of value at all. 

I’ve been intentionally introducing extreme examples in an attempt to find some limits to what you believe is the authority of a property owner, and unfortunately I can’t find an example extreme enough.

Again, yes, the property owner can kick you out of the stadium if they want,  the owner doesn’t have to sell you a ticket if they don’t want to, why do you keep bringing up a position that is not disputed?

The problem I have is that the stadium may be able to get a court injunction against you for making public the facts/statistics of a game - I have a problem with this because facts should not be protectable. That, simply stated is my position. The scenario in the stadium is pretty much trivial, but if it were upheld, it may set a precident everywhere that would be extrememly damaging, in my opinion.

[quote author=“cgallaga”]Maybe you believe that a beneficent overlord (authoritarian state?) should mete out rights without requiring the hardship of responsibility.

I’m arguing AGAINST the idea of an authoritarian state !!!!! where does this stuff come from? where is it that I’ve suggested anything close to the idea that the state or some other ‘beneficent overlord’ should step-in to force anyone to do anything?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2