# Dex, you are not Bill O'Reilly **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 31, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045 "2005-07-31T22:53:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/21 "2005-08-01T03:06:06Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Pray tell what the fuck this thread is doing?!? You’re getting a chance to counter the statement. At the same time trying to whine about not getting a say about it? What the fuck are you talking about? Uh huh. And if a talk show host cuts your mic off before you have a chance to respond to him, you can print your response on flyers and hand it out on the street corner. Point is, you can’t respond in the same forum, and someone who only reads that forum will only see one side of the argument. In this case, the argument didn’t belong there in the first place. The closed thread is in Cafe Society. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/22 "2005-08-01T03:19:47Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Pray tell what the fuck this thread is doing?!? You’re getting a chance to counter the statement. At the same time trying to whine about not getting a say about it? What the fuck are you talking about? This thread is discussing a moderating action. Furthermore it’s not worth starting a pit thread to answer a jab every time either. It’s never happened to me that I can recall. When it happens I’ll consider it but probably wouldn’t bother coming to the pit. It’d nag me for sure though. I never said I was oppressed. If you want to paraphrase me you have to come up with something remotely resembling what I said. Making a statement about values and “cutting the mic” is a good way to put it. That’s bad form. Unprofessional if you will. I’m not trying to counter anything. Merely giving some support to the opinion expressed by the OP. You seem like you need to take a few deep breaths. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/23 "2005-08-01T03:22:00Z")
What **Mr2001** said too. Any person reading the thread won’t see the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/24 "2005-08-01T03:25:54Z")
> [@Pedro](#): > > I never said I was oppressed. If you want to paraphrase me you have to come up with something remotely resembling what I said. To be fair you were not paraphrasing me so allow me to retract that statement. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/25 "2005-08-01T03:29:46Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Uh huh. And if a talk show host cuts your mic off before you have a chance to respond to him, you can print your response on flyers and hand it out on the street corner. Point is, you can’t respond in the same forum, and someone who only reads that forum will only see one side of the argument. > > In this case, the argument didn’t belong there in the first place. The closed thread is in Cafe Society. You and **Pedro** seem to be taking it upon yourselves to save the rest of us from the evil that is **CKDH**. Don’t give me this shit about not knowing about the Pit and that it’s a forum for mod complaints. If a Doper is unaware of the Pit, or doesn’t frequent it from time to time, I hardly see how the mod is doing harm overall by closing a thread. If someone is so insular as to not be aware of other forums where shit like this is taken, what’s the problem. I mean, if someone is ignorant of the forums on the very site that puports to fight ignorance, where does the fight stand? Of course, it seems that since it’s me saying it, it’s wrong. Be damned the idea that maybe I, too, can grow and change. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/26 "2005-08-01T03:45:27Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > You and **Pedro** seem to be taking it upon yourselves to save the rest of us from the evil that is **CKDH**. Don’t give me this shit about not knowing about the Pit and that it’s a forum for mod complaints. If a Doper is unaware of the Pit, or doesn’t frequent it from time to time, I hardly see how the mod is doing harm overall by closing a thread. If someone is so insular as to not be aware of other forums where shit like this is taken, what’s the problem. > > I mean, if someone is ignorant of the forums on the very site that puports to fight ignorance, where does the fight stand? Of course, it seems that since it’s me saying it, it’s wrong. Be damned the idea that maybe I, too, can grow and change. I think you’re being disingenuous. I never felt the fight against ignorance, besides lending itself to a clever motto, was concerned with forum descriptions. It’s unlikely that anyone would run a search on the off chance that the OP of the closed thread will feel sufficiently wronged to start a new complaint thread. Anyway that is not my main gripe. I don’t believe the mods are evil doers or engaging in a conspiracy. I do believe that a justification citing the rules for closing a thread without passing judgment would be much more appropriate where any defense is not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/27 "2005-08-01T04:00:27Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > That’s just the title of an act. It doesn’t make copyright infringement equivalent to theft any more than the Patriot Act makes wiretapping patriotic. Mr2001, as far as your assertion that the NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT does not equate copyright infringement with theft, you might wish to think about why the act has that name. More to the point, though, concerning Dex admonishing about theft, you should note that “theft” is not just a criminal offence. “Theft” is a general term used in both criminal and civil matters. In civil matters, it is defined as the wrongful taking of another’s property. In the context of copyright infringement, the person wrongfully taking the intellectual property is civilly liable for theft, even though the person may not necessarily be liable for the criminal offence of theft. When one refers to theft of intellectual property, the reference may be to criminal liability, civil liability, or both. Dex was correct in his use of the term “theft”, and those that quibble would be better to spend their efforts learning about the law rather than mindlessly nitpicking about that which they are clueless. In short, Mr2001, you really should go re-set your imbecile button rather than continue to embarrass yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Pedro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pedro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pedro)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/28 "2005-08-01T04:47:48Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Dex was correct in his use of the term “theft”, and those that quibble would be better to spend their efforts learning about the law rather than mindlessly nitpicking about that which they are clueless. Clearly **Dex** used an accusatory tone. Even if he is right and the copy was obtained illegally (a likely supposition from what I understood) the point stands. We don’t know, this is not a court of law and the discussion itself was not about anything illegal. A right to dispute or explain such a charge in equal footing is only fair. The only pertinent reason to close the thread appears to be that it discussed illegal means of obtaining copyrighted content. I agree with that reason. The closing of the thread was not a punishment that **Dex** saw fit to give for a perceived crime, as I see it. Any consequences thereof are extraneous to the moderation. But to reiterate, I consider it bad form and not more than that. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/29 "2005-08-01T05:57:38Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Imagine if someone started a thread about performing illegal abortions. Dude! We _talked_ about this. Don’t say “abortion;” say “gestation infringement.” It’s all about the ethical gray area, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/30 "2005-08-01T07:55:02Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > You and **Pedro** seem to be taking it upon yourselves to save the rest of us from the evil that is **CKDH**. Don’t give me this shit about not knowing about the Pit and that it’s a forum for mod complaints. Are you all right? Maybe you should go back and read the OP again. Whatever you’re talking about, it’s not what I wrote. I have no quarrel with Dex other than this particular post of his, and in fact I have no idea whether he’s the “most pitted mod” or why. Of course I can come here to bitch about a moderator’s actions, but I shouldn’t have to. A mod who closes a thread should not use his final post to get in a political jab, especially in a thread that wasn’t even a debate in the first place in a forum that’s not meant for debates. To put it another way, the fact that I can stand on the street corner and complain about a talk show host silencing his guests doesn’t mean he isn’t a jerk for silencing them in the first place. > [@](#): > > If a Doper is unaware of the Pit, or doesn’t frequent it from time to time, I hardly see how the mod is doing harm overall by closing a thread. As you are now surely aware, after reading the OP again with your eyes open, _I am not objecting to the fact that the thread was closed_. I’m objecting to the fact that Dex chose to get in a gratuitous political snipe in his closing message. You’ll note that I am not arguing with Dex’s political opinion, merely saying that it did not belong in the post he made immediately before closing the thread. > [@Muffin](#): > > Mr2001, as far as your assertion that the NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT does not equate copyright infringement with theft, you might wish to think about why the act has that name. For the same reason the PATRIOT Act has that name: to give the bill a meaningless emotional boost, so someone who votes against it can be painted as favoring “theft” or opposing “patriotism”. The title of the bill is just for show; it doesn’t change the classification of the offenses it covers. > [@](#): > > In civil matters, it is defined as the wrongful taking of another’s property. In the context of copyright infringement, the person wrongfully taking the intellectual property is civilly liable for theft, even though the person may not necessarily be liable for the criminal offence of theft. Oh? Let’s see a cite. When has anyone ever been found liable for “theft” simply for infringing copyright? > [@](#): > > In short, Mr2001, you really should go re-set your imbecile button rather than continue to embarrass yourself. Perhaps you should do the same before you make any more foolish comparisons between laws applying to physical property and laws applying to intangible works. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/31 "2005-08-01T10:48:53Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > For the same reason the PATRIOT Act has that name: to give the bill a meaningless emotional boost, so someone who votes against it can be painted as favoring “theft” or opposing “patriotism”. The title of the bill is just for show; it doesn’t change the classification of the offenses it covers. I wonder how many people actually know what the acronym PATRIOT stands for in “The PATRIOT Act.” It seems to me that the acronym phenomenon has gotten a little out of hand in many areas. I mean, I can see the sense in “MADD,” (“Mothers Against Drunk Driving”) but shouldn’t fathers, heck, everyone, be “mad” about drunk driving? But then they’d have to call it “PADD,” (“People Against Drunk Driving”). And I guess that just wouldn’t do. Oh, and BTW, IMHO, IAMNAL, and YMMV, AFAIK. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/32 "2005-08-01T11:22:22Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > So you’re saying **Dex** _didn’t_ make a political point immediately before closing the thread? Gee, maybe there’s a bug in my browser that inserts random opinions into people’s posts. I’m saying the fact that you have a problem with it is a sign of your stupidity. Whether or not you want to spin the word “theft” to mean “political” is your own problem. The SDMB is overseen by a for-profit corporation that doesn’t want legal hassles with copyrights and whatnot. Deal with it. Grow the fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/33 "2005-08-01T12:17:56Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I’m saying the fact that you have a problem with it is a sign of your stupidity. Whether or not you want to spin the word “theft” to mean “political” is your own problem. Look, whether or not you want to recognize it, this is an issue where labels can be divisive, just like calling abortion murder, or calling an invasion liberation, or calling critics traitors (though not to the same extent, of course). As evidence, see what has happened when those terms were mentioned in the many threads in GD, or on other forums like Slashdot, that discussed the ethical issues surrounding copyright. Referring to downloading as theft is an argument in itself. Don’t you think it’s rude to start an argument when no one who opposes your view will be able to respond? > [@](#): > > The SDMB is overseen by a for-profit corporation that doesn’t want legal hassles with copyrights and whatnot. It sure is. So what? That doesn’t give its moderators license to be jerks when they enforce the (perfectly sensible) policies. The SDMB doesn’t want legal hassles with illicit drug use either, but we don’t see moderators preaching about the evils of recreational drugs as they close those threads. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/34 "2005-08-01T12:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > As evidence, see what has happened when those terms were mentioned in the many threads in the many threads […] that discussed the ethical issues surrounding copyright. By “those terms” I mean theft/stealing, not the other examples I listed for other issues. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/35 "2005-08-01T13:07:48Z")
(I hate to come in here, but I do have a fascination with throwing kerosene on flames…) In terms of abortion, I would like to point out that there are people who think that killing doctors (and others) at abortion clinics isn’t really murder. I was not using the term “theft” as a legal term, but as a moral and ethical one. The thread was closed because it was a discussion of illegal activities. My “political” pronouncements were to remind people that artists/creators are entitled to make a profit from their work, and that illegal downloading is depriving them of that profit and is therefore morally the same as stealing. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/36 "2005-08-01T13:15:39Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > My “political” pronouncements were to remind people that artists/creators are entitled to make a profit from their work, and that illegal downloading is depriving them of that profit and is therefore morally the same as stealing. Moral, political… it’s still your own opinion on a hotly debated issue. Why do you feel the need to “remind” people of your moral code as you close a thread? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/37 "2005-08-01T13:25:00Z")
Well, that’s a funny phrase coming from a telemarketer. It may not be theft, but it ain’t pure simon honesty, either, Mister. Now, I’ve done the ‘try it, like it, buy it’, but it’s always been a grey area. The position of the board is that they’re stronger than your average bear on this issue, for various reasons. We all know this. So lay off it. ---
**Author:** ![RyJae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@RyJae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RyJae)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/38 "2005-08-01T13:25:43Z")
I understand the protecting the owners from potential lawsuits. But with reviews for a upcoming show/movie available online already,. wouldn’t the proper action be warning those posters who advocated P2P? Rather then lock down the thread where people who have seen the reviews can discuss the upcoming show thus increasing the “buzz” about the film and in turn helping the artists/creators when the DVD is released? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/39 "2005-08-01T13:38:24Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Well, that’s a funny phrase coming from a telemarketer. That was about five years ago, but congratulations for remembering one of my old jobs. I’ll even give you a gold star if you can remember another one. > [@](#): > > It may not be theft, but it ain’t pure simon honesty, either, Mister. Now, I’ve done the ‘try it, like it, buy it’, but it’s always been a grey area. I won’t argue with that. There’s a time and place to debate the ethics of file sharing, which is exactly what led me to start this thread - to point out one example of a moderator choosing the _wrong_ time and place to do it. > [@](#): > > The position of the board is that they’re stronger than your average bear on this issue, for various reasons. Yup. And I have no problem with that rule being enforced swiftly, consistently, and _civilly_. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/40 "2005-08-01T13:41:07Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > > [@Muffin](#): > > > > In civil matters, it is defined as the wrongful taking of another’s property. In the context of copyright infringement, the person wrongfully taking the intellectual property is civilly liable for theft, even though the person may not necessarily be liable for the criminal offence of theft. > > Oh? Let’s see a cite. When has anyone ever been found liable for “theft” simply for infringing copyright? Now you want me to do your homework for you? Start with the following: > [@United States Supreme Court in Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System](#): > > The Copyright Act, 17 U. S. C. §§ 1 (c) and (d), gives the owner of a copyright “the exclusive right” to present the creation “in public for profit” and to control the manner or method by which it is “reproduced.” A CATV that builds an antenna to pick up telecasts in Area B and then transmits it by cable to Area A is reproducing the copyrighted work, not pursuant to a license from the owner of the copyright, but by theft. > [@United States Supreme Court in Harper & Row](#): > > [Respondent] possessed an unfettered right to use any factual information revealed in [the memoirs] for the purpose of enlightening its audience, but it can claim no need to ‘bodily appropriate’ [Mr. Ford’s] ‘expression’ of that information by utilizing portions of the actual [manuscript]. The public interest in the free flow of information is assured by the law’s refusal to recognize a valid copyright in facts. The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft, empowering a court to ignore a copyright whenever it determines the underlying work contains material of possible public importance." Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 621 F.2d 57, 61 (1980) (citations omitted). > [@Mr2001](#): > > > [@Muffin](#): > > > > In short, Mr2001, you really should go re-set your imbecile button rather than continue to embarrass yourself. > > Perhaps you should do the same before you make any more foolish comparisons between laws applying to physical property and laws applying to intangible works. You really should get a grasp of what copyright law is about. Here are the fundamentals with regard to tangibility. > [@United States Supreme Court in Wheaton v. Peters](#): > > I shall proceed, now, to some notice of the light in which copyrights have been viewed in this country. > > It appears from the journals of the old congress (8 Journals 257), that this question was brought before that body by sundry papers and memorials on the subject of literary property; and which were referred to a committee, of which Mr Madison was one; and on the 27th of May 1783, the following resolution was reported and adopted. > “Resolved, that it be recommended to the several states, to secure to the authors or publishers of any new books not hitherto printed, being citizens of the United States, and to their executors, administrators and assigns, the copyright of such books for a certain time, not less than fourteen years from the first publication; and to secure to the said authors, if they shall survive the term first mentioned, and to their executors, administrators and assigns, the copyright of such books for another term or time, not less than fourteen years; such copy or exclusive right of printing, publishing and vending the same, to be secured to be original authors or publishers, their executors, administrators and assigns, by such [\*\*225] laws and such restrictions, as to the several states may seem proper.” > > This right is here treated and dealt with as property already existing; and not as creating any thing which had previously no being. It is spoken of as something tangible, that might pass to executors and administrators, and transferable by assignment. And the recommendation to the states was, to pass laws to secure such right. > [@United States Supreme Court in American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister](#): > > Before taking up the errors assigned it may aid in the elucidation of the questions involved to briefly consider the nature of the property in copyright which it is the object of the statutes of the United States to secure and protect. A copyright, as the term imports, involves the right of publication and reproduction of works of art or literature. A copyright, as defined by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawles’ edition, volume 1, p. 436, is: “The exclusive privilege, secured according to certain legal forms, of printing, or otherwise multiplying, publishing and vending copies of certain literary or artistic productions.” And further, says the same author, “the foundation of all rights of this description is the natural dominion which every one has over his own ideas, the enjoyment of which, although they are embodied in visible forms or characters, he may, if he chooses, confine to himself or impart to others.” That is, the law recognizes the artistic or literary productions of intellect or genius, not only to the extent which is involved in dominion over and ownership of the thing created, but also the intangible estate in such property which arises from the privilege of publishing and selling to others copies of the thing produced. > > . . . . > > While it is true that the property in copyright in this country is the creation of statute, the nature and character of the property grows out of the recognition of the separate ownership of the right of copying from that which inheres in the mere physical control of the thing itself, and the statute must be read in the light of the intention of Congress to protect this intangible right as a reward of the inventive genius that has produced the work. We think every consideration of the nature of the property and the things to be accomplished supports the conclusion that this statute means to give to the assigns of the original owner of the right to copyright an article the right to take out the copyright secured by the statute, independently of the ownership of the article itself. > [@United States Supreme Court in Bong v. Alfred S. Campbell Art Co.](#): > > While it is true that the property in copyright in this country is the creature of the statute, the nature and character of the property grows out of the recognition of the separate ownership of the right of copying from that which inheres in the mere physical control of the thing itself, and the statute must be read in the light of the intention of Congress to protect these intangible rights as a reward of the inventive genius that has produced the work. Mr2001, your lack of comprehension is monumental. I sincerely hope that you are not involved in the legal profession. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045.md?page=3)