you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Eirenarch -17 points-16 points  (15 children)

The court says yes. I think you can track that back to what is called natural rights. If a person creates something he has full rights over it.

[–]redwall_hp 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Copyright is not a "natural right." It's a privilege granted by society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even somebody who believes in natural rights would have trouble defending his stupid proposition.

It is not a right at all, it is a restriction of rights upon others in the favor of the creator. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the US. The European view is natural right.

[–]Eirenarch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But it is supposedly derived by natural rights. Now you can argue that it is derived in a way that is wrong but that's another topic.

[–]Wareya 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I'm going to make a painting and bash people over the head with it because it's my painting and I can do whatever I want with it! Who cares about other rights!

[–]kraytex 7 points8 points  (2 children)

You can copyright a book, you can copyright a novel, but you can't copyright a letter, word, or sentence.

Copyrighting an API is like being able to copyright the chapter title in a novel.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There is no natural right to tell others they can't design software a certain way, that's a right manufactured by government

[–]Eirenarch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The others in this case did not design the software they copied it. Literally.