When dealing with intellectual properties, or when borrowing somebody's item. Arose this managibility of meaning. Where authors want to keep some meaning unchanged, acts by the borrowers might cause the occurence of unwanted meanings.
For example: I have a pen, I its mine, I like it, It is always there when I need it.
When you borrow my pen, there's a risk that the pen would be taken away from me, would be damaged, or would be considered as my allowing of the pen to be used by you all the time.
In terms of softwares, or other types of relationship... there's always this volatility of meanings. But if we relate with people or forces that respect contracts, that respects regulations, we would have the opportunity of getting the support to maintain these meanings.
However, in order to be fair for the borrowers, the law could be better in acknowledging the risks of the jurisdiction. Within some jurisdictions, such meanings normally doesn't hold for too long. Whether its because the location is full of thieves, or there's this culture of casually borrow other people's belonging without telling first, or because people are fighting often. Then the law would measure the authors' power within the jurisdiction. Could he/she maintain the meanings given the circumstances, if the software or the products were kept to themselves rather than licensed or borrowed to another party? On the other hand, given the power had by the user... what responsibility do they have? What cards were put on the table...
So it would be better, imo, if the law could sense... or measure... the normal level of volatility of some meanings that were going to be put into contracts, so that parties could fairly allocate responsibilities. Whether or not the meaning changed due to negligence, or crime done by the borrower... or due to the way things are in the environment.
My purpose of saying this, not to play with the politics in the society (some must've known what I mean). But to present, that sometimes, expecting people to conform with the terms and conditions made in another jurisdiction, could be considered as lazy. And that I propose authors, to make special terms and conditions for jurisdictions where they want to market their licenses to.
For example: I have a pen, I its mine, I like it, It is always there when I need it.
When you borrow my pen, there's a risk that the pen would be taken away from me, would be damaged, or would be considered as my allowing of the pen to be used by you all the time.
In terms of softwares, or other types of relationship... there's always this volatility of meanings. But if we relate with people or forces that respect contracts, that respects regulations, we would have the opportunity of getting the support to maintain these meanings.
However, in order to be fair for the borrowers, the law could be better in acknowledging the risks of the jurisdiction. Within some jurisdictions, such meanings normally doesn't hold for too long. Whether its because the location is full of thieves, or there's this culture of casually borrow other people's belonging without telling first, or because people are fighting often. Then the law would measure the authors' power within the jurisdiction. Could he/she maintain the meanings given the circumstances, if the software or the products were kept to themselves rather than licensed or borrowed to another party? On the other hand, given the power had by the user... what responsibility do they have? What cards were put on the table...
So it would be better, imo, if the law could sense... or measure... the normal level of volatility of some meanings that were going to be put into contracts, so that parties could fairly allocate responsibilities. Whether or not the meaning changed due to negligence, or crime done by the borrower... or due to the way things are in the environment.
My purpose of saying this, not to play with the politics in the society (some must've known what I mean). But to present, that sometimes, expecting people to conform with the terms and conditions made in another jurisdiction, could be considered as lazy. And that I propose authors, to make special terms and conditions for jurisdictions where they want to market their licenses to.
No comments:
Post a Comment