# Ever get the urge to deface or destroy religious propoganda in a public place? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055 "2009-03-11T10:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/221 "2009-03-19T16:21:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Point is, the original objection - that the stuff is a “free donation” and thus the end user is by definition entitled to do whatever he or she wants with it - is too simplistic. I don’t think it is. There is certainly no explicit contract, which makes any conditions unenforcable, which makes them equivalent to non-existent. I’m sure the Gideons would prefer that people did not throw them away, but at the end of the day, they have no legal say over it. The guy did specifically tell me that once the Gideons dropped off the books, they had no more legal ownership or control of them. What he wasn’t sure about was whether the _hotels_ had any claim. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/222 "2009-03-19T16:37:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think it is. There is certainly no explicit contract, which makes any conditions unenforcable, which makes them equivalent to non-existent. > > I’m sure the Gideons would prefer that people did not throw them away, but at the end of the day, they have no legal say over it. > > The guy did specifically tell me that once the Gideons dropped off the books, they had no more legal ownership or control of them. What he wasn’t sure about was whether the _hotels_ had any claim. Untrue. All sorts of “implicit contracts” exist and are enforceable. > [@](#): > > An implicit contract is one where the terms are NOT > expressed, neither orally nor on paper. You walk > into a restaurant and sit down. The waitress asks, > “What would you like?” You say, “A slice of apple > pie sounds good.” After you eat, she brings a bill. > What? A bill?!? You thought she was just being > kind. Never did you _explicitly_ agree to pay for the > pie. Well .. the court isn’t going to buy that. You > made an implicit contract when you went through > the socially conventional mechanisms for eating > at a restaurant, thereby accepting the socially > conventional, implied contract for doing so. [http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-June/000537.html](http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-June/000537.html) > **[Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_%26_Ohio_R._Co._v._United_States)** > > Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923), is a US Supreme Court case on contract law. The Supreme Court held that an implied in fact contract exists as, “an agreement … founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.” > The railway company owned 8 piers in Locust Point, Baltimore, Maryland. In Oc... Typically, these are formed when someone accepts something knowing that the other party expects compensation, but as we have already demonstrated, it is quite possible to form an explicit contract for stuff you distribute for free, and there seems to be nothing whatsoever to prevent an implicit contract along the same lines … it is _obvious_ that the Gideons are not distributing the Bibles for pointless destruction; no-one could reasonably be confused on that score. Similarly to the above case, the “terms” of such an implicit contract are pretty obvious: you may take a bible for the purpose intended - not to simply throw it out. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/223 "2009-03-19T16:37:45Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > So we’re back to “Probably legal, also probably kinda a dick move in the eyes of many people and a worthwhile fight against ignorance in the eyes of many others.” A worthy summary! ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/224 "2009-03-19T17:03:22Z")
I know I’m wasting all your time with mere cheerleading, but I’d just like to say that this is a fascinating thread. Well-reasoned, never vicious, arguments from both sides, and I find mysef agreeing with just about everyone…which means I need to give it more thought. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/225 "2009-03-19T17:16:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Untrue. All sorts of “implicit contracts” exist and are enforceable. > > [http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-June/000537.html](http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-June/000537.html) > > [Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_%26_Ohio_R._Co._v._United_States) > > Typically, these are formed when someone accepts something knowing that the other party expects compensation, but as we have already demonstrated, it is quite possible to form an explicit contract for stuff you distribute for free, and there seems to be nothing whatsoever to prevent an implicit contract along the same lines … it is _obvious_ that the Gideons are not distributing the Bibles for pointless destruction; no-one could reasonably be confused on that score. > > Similarly to the above case, the “terms” of such an implicit contract are pretty obvious: you may take a bible for the purpose intended - not to simply throw it out. Good luck taking that to court. I don’t think there is ny implicit contract with regrd to Gideon Bibles and no legal standing for the Gideons to do anything about it anyway. Of course they don’t want people to trash them, but they accept that as a possible outcome when they choose to make the donation. If I make a donation to a food drive, I can say that I prefer for the food to be eaten rather than thrown away. I can even say that the people receiving the donations understand that implication. That doesn’t mean there’s any legal contract. I don’t think the restaurant analogy is really very applicable. There is no normal expectation of compensation for receiving Gideon Bibles. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/226 "2009-03-19T17:21:40Z")
To **DtC** ’s excellent argument, I’d like to add that no contract is created in this situation because there is no consideration. The person taking the Bible–whether to read in the hotel room, read backwards for a Satanic ritual, or shoot holes in with his shotgun – is not giving anything to the Gideons. The Gideons are making a gift, and once they surrender their title to the Bibles can no longer do anything to prevent anyone from using it however they wish. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/227 "2009-03-19T19:29:17Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > To **DtC** ’s excellent argument, I’d like to add that no contract is created in this situation because there is no consideration. The person taking the Bible–whether to read in the hotel room, read backwards for a Satanic ritual, or shoot holes in with his shotgun – is not giving anything to the Gideons. The Gideons are making a gift, and once they surrender their title to the Bibles can no longer do anything to prevent anyone from using it however they wish. What “consideration” exists for downloading free software? Yet that is subject to apparently enforcable licensing rights. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/228 "2009-03-19T19:51:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Good luck taking that to court. I don’t think there is ny implicit contract with regrd to Gideon Bibles and no legal standing for the Gideons to do anything about it anyway. > > Of course they don’t want people to trash them, but they accept that as a possible outcome when they choose to make the donation. > > If I make a donation to a food drive, I can say that I prefer for the food to be eaten rather than thrown away. I can even say that the people receiving the donations understand that implication. That doesn’t mean there’s any legal contract. > > I don’t think the restaurant analogy is really very applicable. There is no normal expectation of compensation for receiving Gideon Bibles. Actually, should a bible-throwing-out case came to court, I’d be amazed if the thrower-out won on these grounds. There is no expectation for compensation in any of the freeware agreements noted above. How do you explain their existence? Are they simply meaningless verbiage? Social convention is a useful guide here - and the convention is, as well understood, that you not take the thing just to destroy it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/229 "2009-03-19T19:59:26Z")
The software thing isn’t understood as a donation. My food bank analogy is better. All you have is “social convention,” which is pretty toothless. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/230 "2009-03-19T20:08:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The software thing isn’t understood as a donation. My food bank analogy is better. > > All you have is “social convention,” which is pretty toothless. All you have is “understood as a donation”, which is likewise a claim based on convention. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/231 "2009-03-19T20:37:55Z")
Way I see it is this: assume you are totally unfamiliar with the concept of hotels. You understand that you pay and get the use of a room, but not what your rights are in respect to the various objects that come with the room - the towels, the bed, the lamp, the soap, the ashtray. In one drawer there is a book as well - a Gideon Bible. What would be the reasonable thing to do? Probably ask the hotel manager. What is he or she likely to say? Most likely ‘going by social convention’, this person would explain _if asked_ that the towels may be used but not taken or destroyed, the bed may be slept in, the lamps may be used but not taken, the soap may be consumed but not pointlessly destroyed, and the Bible may be taken if you want to read it - but not pointlessly destroyed. When you sign in to rent a room you are agreeing to all sorts of implicit if not explicit contractual terms, dealing with how you are to behave in a hotel room. I usually do not remember signing a written agreement containing particular detailed terms, but nonetheless I fully understand - again, through “convention” - that I am not to (say) smear feces on the ceiling, or flush fifty rolls of toilet paper down the toilet for fun – even though these things (toilets and paper) are left for “my use”, it is a “use” subject to a term of reasonableness as established by social convention and well understood by most people. Nor am I to just destroy the bible, though I am free to take it to read if I want. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/232 "2009-03-19T20:51:32Z")
The Bibles are not hotel property. There’s no way you can finesse this so that something all parties agree is free for the guests to take is not free for them to throw away after they take it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/233 "2009-03-19T20:52:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Bibles are not hotel property. There’s no way you can finesse this so that something all parties agree is free for the guests to take is not free for them to throw away after they take it. I don’t need to “finesse” anything. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/234 "2009-03-19T20:57:46Z")
You have to either agree that it’s free to take or not free to take. If you accept that the Bibles are free for the guests to take (and it’s been confirmed both hotel workers and the Gideons that such is the case), then you have to agree that they are free to do what they want with them after they take them. It’s not comparable to freware because that’s a use of intellecrual property. The Bibles are only physical objects. The freeware analogy would be more akin to copying something to a disc and then breaking the disc. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/235 "2009-03-19T21:19:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You have to either agree that it’s free to take or not free to take. If you accept that the Bibles are free for the guests to take (and it’s been confirmed both hotel workers and the Gideons that such is the case), then you have to agree that they are free to do what they want with them after they take them. It’s not comparable to freware because that’s a use of intellecrual property. The Bibles are only physical objects. The freeware analogy would be more akin to copying something to a disc and then breaking the disc. I don’t have to agree with any of that. As I’ve said before, lots of things are free to take, and yet not free to wantonly destroy - in fact, that goes for every other consumable in the room, such as soap, toilet paper and the like. The distinction you make between software and physical objects doesn’t exist. See my previous link: > **[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation LicenseHow to use this License for your documents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License)** > > Version 1.3, 3 November 2008 > Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. \ > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. > The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or no... > [@](#): > > We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License **is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference**. [Emphasis added] There is no reason the license could not apply to a Gideon Bible. Is it not a “texual work” whose “purpose is instruction or reference”? If the argument is that, to paraphrase, ‘a free physical work such as a bible cannot be given free without restrictions to the end user’, that is quite clearly not the case - unless the good folks who drafted this license are wasting their time. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/236 "2009-03-19T21:49:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t have to agree with any of that. As I’ve said before, lots of things are free to take, and yet not free to wantonly destroy - in fact, that goes for every other consumable in the room, such as soap, toilet paper and the like. > > The distinction you make between software and physical objects doesn’t exist. See my previous link: > > [Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) > > [Emphasis added] > > There is no reason the license could not apply to a Gideon Bible. Is it not a “texual work” whose “purpose is instruction or reference”? > > If the argument is that, to paraphrase, ‘a free physical work such as a bible cannot be given free without restrictions to the end user’, that is quite clearly not the case - unless the good folks who drafted this license are wasting their time. Actually, you’re in the wrong here–licenses such as this and the freeware stuff you discussed earlier apply to the text but not the physical media in which the text is embedded–the Gnu Free Documentation License can force me (legally) to include the invariant texts when I copy or modify the text of the work, but it cannot legally compel or prevent me from doing anything physical to a book published under said license. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/237 "2009-03-19T22:19:17Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Actually, you’re in the wrong here–licenses such as this and the freeware stuff you discussed earlier apply to the text but not the physical media in which the text is embedded–the Gnu Free Documentation License can force me (legally) to include the invariant texts when I copy or modify the text of the work, but it cannot legally compel or prevent me from doing anything physical to a book published under said license. I disagree. From the above-noted agreement I linked to: > [@](#): > > You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies. How is “lending copies” and “publicly displaying copies” **not** “anything physical” with a book published under license? Logically, if they can give permission for “lending” and “publicly displaying”, they can refuse it. I’m trying to come up with some explaination as to why there should be a bright-line distinction between (say) giving or witholding permission to display a text, giving or witholding permission to lend a text, and giving or witholding permission to destroy a text - such that you _can_ legally compel the former in respect of a physical copy of a book but _cannot_ legally compel the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/238 "2009-03-19T22:24:41Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I disagree. From the above-noted agreement I linked to: > > How is “lending copies” and “publicly displaying copies” **not** “anything physical” with a book published under license? > > Logically, if they can give permission for “lending” and “publicly displaying”, they can refuse it. > > I’m trying to come up with some explaination as to why there should be a bright-line distinction between (say) giving or witholding permission to display a text, giving or witholding permission to lend a text, and giving or witholding permission to destroy a text - such that you _can_ legally compel the former in respect of a physical copy of a book but _cannot_ legally compel the latter. Display and lending both (in theory) fall under copyright law and have nothing to do with the physical copy of the item in question. (many copyright holders are attempting to make lending something that requires licensing, which is why the GFDL explicitly allows it in anticipation of future regulation) Almost no copyrighted works are licensed for public performance (aka “display” in this context) but again, this right applies to the content and not the media – the MPAA might well sue you for playing your VHS copy of Robin Hood in a stadium without paying performance rights, but they can’t sue you for displaying the actual VHS tape media. That is, both the “lending” and “public display” rights are STILL tied to the text itself and not the media upon which the text is printed. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/239 "2009-03-19T22:56:32Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Display and lending both (in theory) fall under copyright law and have nothing to do with the physical copy of the item in question. (many copyright holders are attempting to make lending something that requires licensing, which is why the GFDL explicitly allows it in anticipation of future regulation) Almost no copyrighted works are licensed for public performance (aka “display” in this context) but again, this right applies to the content and not the media – the MPAA might well sue you for playing your VHS copy of Robin Hood in a stadium without paying performance rights, but they can’t sue you for displaying the actual VHS tape media. How can a book give a “public performance”? This licence expressly applies to _books_, remember. It is not an item of media that is suited to the sort of “display” you suggest. The only way to “display” a book is to physically handle the actual object, so the distinction you make - between playing a VHS and looking at the actual VHS tape media - does not exist. Whether or not this agreement falls entirely under copyright law is not the point; clearly you are correct in that the intent is mainly dealing with copyright. This does not mean that the agreement cannot by nature include conditions concerning physically dealing with the item in question. Clearly in some cases it can, as certain **acts** - i.e., lending, displaying - are physical acts dealing with the object in qestion. Is your assertion that such agreements must _only_ relate to specific copyright rights, whether such rights actually exist or are merely anticipated? If so, why? So far, aside from bald assertion, I have seen noting to suggest that one _cannot_ craft conditions detailing restrictions on _other physical acts dealing with the object_ if one so wished. Indeed, “destruction of a work” is not a concept unknown to copyright law. So-called “moral rights” deal with the physical object of a copyright work, not merely the information content thereof, and in some cases expressly prevent the unauthorized destruction of a work: > **[Waiver of Moral Right in Visual Artworks | U.S. Copyright Office](https://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html)** > > Waiver of Moral Right in Visual Artworks > [@](#): > > An early step in the Office’s research was to review state statutes to learn which, if any, afford moral rights protection. It found that nine states had enacted legislation before VARA to protect, to varying degrees, authors’ moral rights. Those following a so-called preservation model protect an author’s rights of attribution and integrity and **generally protect artistic works against unauthorized destruction**. The moral rights statutes do not protect against destruction but do ensure an author’s rights of attribution and integrity in a class of works that is sometimes limited to visual or graphic works of recognized quality. A tenth state’s law, enacted after VARA, follows a third model that protects against alteration or destruction and ensures proper attribution but applies only to works publicly displayed in state buildings. Now, clearly this applies to original artistic works and not bibles per se, but it does indicate that the distinction you seek to make- that “copyright law” has “nothing to do with the physical copy of the item in question” – is not 100% correct. In some cases, copyright law _does_ have to do with the “physical object in question” and there is no ‘bright line’ distinction between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055/240 "2009-03-20T03:08:31Z")
Hmm, every expert opinion I’ve ever heard of the GFDL (I’m an IT guy, I ask IP lawyers about this kind of stuff admittedly) is that “many of the clauses are Richard Stallman being paranoid about book licenses” and “many of the clauses are only legally applicable in the current legal climate in the case of electronic/software texts and not necessarily for physical books.” I’d call a reading of a book a “public display or performance”–so a author could likely sue you for a book reading, but not for having the book sitting on a pedestal somewhere. Basically, I’ve never heard of a law or license agreement, pertaining to copyright, that prevents or punishes the destruction of mass-produced works. We’d have to get an IP law doper in here for any better than that. The limit of my knowledge, as imparted to me by an IP lawyer I was working for in 2005-2006, is as follows: 1. You can attach pretty much any license restriction you want on anything that manipulates the text of a copyrighted property. 2. You can almost never attach any restriction to the physical media that text is contained on. The sole exception seems to be in the case of software media that often have (legally as yet seriously uncontested) clauses forbidding resale of the license to use the software. Even in the latter case, it’s perfectly legal for me to sell you a software disc, just not necessarily the right to use it–and even that is fundamentally tied up in the fact that software, last case law I’d heard, was held to be “copied” in the act of using it. I’m sorry I don’t have any further cites than this, but it’s going to be hard to convince me otherwise–my know-how is pretty much solely based on working indirectly with IP law as part of my living. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ever-get-the-urge-to-deface-or-destroy-religious-propoganda-in-a-public-place/489055.md?page=13)