Your property is the copy on your computer(s) and the right to control who can make more copies. Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Your property rights end at the first sale[1]. If you don't want someone to own a copy of your article, don't give it to them or get them to agree to a contract[2].
[2] A TOS is not a contract. If you want to use a contract, make your offer, wait for someone to understand and accept it before you send them a copy of your article.
>>Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property.
Has anyone tried your argument in a copyright case? Say, I access a NYT article, and according to your reasoning it becomes mine the moment their site show it to me. If it's mine I can publish and monetize it.
Yes, you can[1][2] monetize (resell) your copy. You do not have the right to make new copies. This ability is granted explicitly[3] in 17 U.S. Code § 109 (a):
>> [...] the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. [...]
[1] In some situations there may be additional limitations of your rights. (e.g. performance of a copyright-protected work, which technically creates a new derivative work)
[2] I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Consult a real lawyer for actual legal advice.
You are not a lawyer and that's obvious, too bad you try to act like one with citations and outlandish statements.
If I post an article on mysite.org on "free trade" and you think you can archive it and copy and re-distribute it for eternity, you better think it again. The implied license is to read the article from my site, for as long as it is posted there--in MY site. Now, if I become a US President and someone has a copy from 45 years ago, that's different.
> you think you can archive it and copy and re-distribute it for eternity
Did you read my post? I specifically said you couldn't.
>> You do not have the right to make new copies.
Copy rights are separate from your property rights related to your copy of a work.
> You are not a lawyer
Yes, although I have been studying copyright issues since the early 1990s. I'm not saying anything remotely controversial in current interpretations of copyright law.
Incidentally, a new interpretation that is slowly being accepted by courts is misuse of copyright[1]. Based on the older patent misuse, the idea is having a copyright only grants rights related to creating new copies of a work. Claiming that copyright somehow also grants you other totally unrelated right can result in the court preventing the copyright holder from enforcing their copyright[2]. Relying on misinformation about copyright can have serious consequences.
> too bad you try to act like one
You're seeing what you want to see. Providing references to what you're talking about is encouraged on HN.
