<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: 69	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/69/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/69/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Simple)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/69/#comment-3509</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4729#comment-3509</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 69: The right of authors and inventors

If you buy a book, this one book belongs wholly to you. You may read it, lend it, give it away or sell it. You are its full owner.

But the right to make copies of the book stays with the author. In the same way, the right to build his machine in series stays with the inventor. Why?

Not because the author simply decides so. It lies in the matter itself. The single book serves for reading. Reprinting is a quite different use. It is a source of income, a resource. You can separate these two kinds of use. That is why the buyer still remains the full owner of his book. There is no empty lord here, as with the usufruct.

The first protection for science and art:

The first help for scholars and artists is quite simple. We must protect them from theft. It was the same with trade. The first help for merchants was to free the highways from robbers.

The problem with copying:

Whoever learns takes in other people’s thoughts. And whoever passes them on often gives them a new form. When is that one’s own work? And when is it plagiarism? No one can draw an exact line. That is why the law can hardly get a grip on plagiarism. It remains a question of honor.

Laws against reprinting therefore help only within limits. It is easy to change something in another person’s work. You move a few sentences around. You make up a small variation. At once it looks like something of your own. This is how many textbooks, extracts and collections come about.

A bitter observation at the end:

You hardly hear the word plagiarism anymore. There are three possible reasons for this. Perhaps honor has driven plagiarism out. Perhaps no one is ashamed of it anymore. Or people take every small change for a thought of their own.

Summary: The buyer owns his copy wholly. The right to make copies stays with the author. The law does little against plagiarism. Honor helps most.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 69: The right of authors and inventors</p>
<p>If you buy a book, this one book belongs wholly to you. You may read it, lend it, give it away or sell it. You are its full owner.</p>
<p>But the right to make copies of the book stays with the author. In the same way, the right to build his machine in series stays with the inventor. Why?</p>
<p>Not because the author simply decides so. It lies in the matter itself. The single book serves for reading. Reprinting is a quite different use. It is a source of income, a resource. You can separate these two kinds of use. That is why the buyer still remains the full owner of his book. There is no empty lord here, as with the usufruct.</p>
<p>The first protection for science and art:</p>
<p>The first help for scholars and artists is quite simple. We must protect them from theft. It was the same with trade. The first help for merchants was to free the highways from robbers.</p>
<p>The problem with copying:</p>
<p>Whoever learns takes in other people’s thoughts. And whoever passes them on often gives them a new form. When is that one’s own work? And when is it plagiarism? No one can draw an exact line. That is why the law can hardly get a grip on plagiarism. It remains a question of honor.</p>
<p>Laws against reprinting therefore help only within limits. It is easy to change something in another person’s work. You move a few sentences around. You make up a small variation. At once it looks like something of your own. This is how many textbooks, extracts and collections come about.</p>
<p>A bitter observation at the end:</p>
<p>You hardly hear the word plagiarism anymore. There are three possible reasons for this. Perhaps honor has driven plagiarism out. Perhaps no one is ashamed of it anymore. Or people take every small change for a thought of their own.</p>
<p>Summary: The buyer owns his copy wholly. The right to make copies stays with the author. The law does little against plagiarism. Honor helps most.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Notes)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/69/#comment-2021</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Notes)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 1822 08:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=4729#comment-2021</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[zu § 69] There is a twofold determination – use – what is the direct purpose of selling a copy? [One] sells only that which, and insofar as, it represents thoughts – this value – not the other value, which includes reproduction within itself – this value [is] a further asset –&lt;br /&gt;
My will belongs to it (not tacit, but) explicit – even when this aspect too is alienated –&lt;br /&gt;
Such production, in general, [stands] in &lt;em&gt;relation to the other&lt;/em&gt; –&lt;br /&gt;
In &lt;em&gt;taking possession&lt;/em&gt; there is my labor, my skill – I make this, which is mine, external – (essentially) in relation to the other, or it is immediately joined thereto –&lt;br /&gt;
When such a thing, which is a sign of representations, is produced, it stands absolutely in relation to others –&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Use – represents&lt;/em&gt; my will to have something, a thing, as property; – taking possession becomes representation. Finally (in literary production) the representations themselves [become] the thing. A mode of existence, of possession, that relates itself absolutely to others – What is [to] remain mine is the external [element], the value – for exchange – as an asset.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[zu § 69 Anm., (a)] Manner and mode of use – one kind of use is ceded – another kind not – hereditary lease, fief – also a kind of use – another, namely selling it, not – but this latter is not a kind of use – rather it is ownership of the value of the thing –&lt;br /&gt;
Laws against unauthorized reprinting – α) protection of writers and publishers – their agents jointly against unauthorized reprinting – β) [protection] of the publisher against reprinting as [protection] against the public. Common property of the nation – anyone can reprint it – privilege – provision, security for the publishing houses –&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[zu § 69 Anm., (b)] their, i.e., of those&lt;br /&gt;
The very greatest part of German literature has become a factory business, sheer industry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[zu § 69 Anm., (c)] Almanac of the Muses, geometry is no &lt;em&gt;particular&lt;/em&gt; idea – so everyone is permitted to exploit such an idea.&lt;br /&gt;
Learned newspapers – morning, evening papers. All gods and goddesses – muses, Minerva, Hermes – [mere] idea.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[zu § 69] There is a twofold determination – use – what is the direct purpose of selling a copy? [One] sells only that which, and insofar as, it represents thoughts – this value – not the other value, which includes reproduction within itself – this value [is] a further asset –<br />
My will belongs to it (not tacit, but) explicit – even when this aspect too is alienated –<br />
Such production, in general, [stands] in <em>relation to the other</em> –<br />
In <em>taking possession</em> there is my labor, my skill – I make this, which is mine, external – (essentially) in relation to the other, or it is immediately joined thereto –<br />
When such a thing, which is a sign of representations, is produced, it stands absolutely in relation to others –<br />
<em>Use – represents</em> my will to have something, a thing, as property; – taking possession becomes representation. Finally (in literary production) the representations themselves [become] the thing. A mode of existence, of possession, that relates itself absolutely to others – What is [to] remain mine is the external [element], the value – for exchange – as an asset.</p>
<p>[zu § 69 Anm., (a)] Manner and mode of use – one kind of use is ceded – another kind not – hereditary lease, fief – also a kind of use – another, namely selling it, not – but this latter is not a kind of use – rather it is ownership of the value of the thing –<br />
Laws against unauthorized reprinting – α) protection of writers and publishers – their agents jointly against unauthorized reprinting – β) [protection] of the publisher against reprinting as [protection] against the public. Common property of the nation – anyone can reprint it – privilege – provision, security for the publishing houses –</p>
<p>[zu § 69 Anm., (b)] their, i.e., of those<br />
The very greatest part of German literature has become a factory business, sheer industry.</p>
<p>[zu § 69 Anm., (c)] Almanac of the Muses, geometry is no <em>particular</em> idea – so everyone is permitted to exploit such an idea.<br />
Learned newspapers – morning, evening papers. All gods and goddesses – muses, Minerva, Hermes – [mere] idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
