Arrg.. fucktard alert! Napster's Spying On you!
Alan Kennedy
"As of Sunday March 4, 2001, at midnight, Napster began monitoring the file
names that its users put into the Napster database, for the purpose of
blocking certain file names. This is a serious invasion of your privacy as a
Napster user. The file names on your hard drive are your personal property
and should not be monitored by anyone without your permission. The Aimster
Pig Encoder makes it more difficult for anyone to monitor the file names on
your computer. "
From the Aimster page.
Figures.. if they can't take it from you, they gonna spy like crazy on you
to probably try to screw you over another way.
And I found this out via Portal Of Evil... Amazingly enough.
--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]
EMAIL : trigem@_REMOVEGIBBERISH_portalofevil.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052
Jarad
"Alan Kennedy" <tri...@portalofevil.com_REMOVEGIBBERISH> wrote in message
news:982udb$nid$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> http://www.aimster.com/pigencoder.phtml
>
> "As of Sunday March 4, 2001, at midnight, Napster began monitoring the
file
> names that its users put into the Napster database, for the purpose of
> blocking certain file names. This is a serious invasion of your privacy as
a
> Napster user. The file names on your hard drive are your personal property
> and should not be monitored by anyone without your permission. The Aimster
> Pig Encoder makes it more difficult for anyone to monitor the file names
on
> your computer. "
Not strictly true. It monitors the filenames that you put up for sharing
with other people. You are making said files available to the public,
through Napster, so it's not an invasion of privacy. It's like uploading a
website and then claiming people are breaking privacy by looking at your
files.
--
Jarad
Atara
<982udb$nid$1...@raccoon.fur.com>:
[snip]
Um - how do you think that the Napster system knows which files you're sharing?
How do you think you can browse the files that others are sharing?
The "monitoring" only monitors the files that are in the folders you designate
for sharing on Napster. That's how it's always worked; it's just that they're
LOOKING at what people are sharing on their servers now.
--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Charles Melville
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> http://www.aimster.com/pigencoder.phtml
>
> "As of Sunday March 4, 2001, at midnight, Napster began monitoring the file
> names that its users put into the Napster database, for the purpose of
> blocking certain file names. This is a serious invasion of your privacy as a
> Napster user.
Perhaps the best solution would be to -stop- using Napster?
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Brian Henderson
wrote:
> Perhaps the best solution would be to -stop- using Napster?
Or, like I did... never used Napster to begin with.
-Brian
DishRoom1
>Alan Kennedy wrote:
>http://www.aimster.com/pigencoder.phtml
>>
>> "As of Sunday March 4, 2001, at midnight, Napster began monitoring the file
>> names that its users put into the Napster database, for the purpose of
>> blocking certain file names. This is a serious invasion of your privacy as
>a
>> Napster user.
>
> Perhaps the best solution would be to -stop- using Napster?
Don't worry, I never have to use Napster. I get music the old-fashioned,
law-abiding way: I pick up an album at a music store and pay for it. ;x)
By the way, isn't it an irony for people not to respect intellectual copyrights
and yet scream on about their right to privatcy treaded on?
J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't worry, I never have to use Napster. I get music the old-fashioned,
> > law-abiding way: I pick up an album at a music store and pay for it. ;x)
>
> So you let RIAA skim $11 off the top?
Frankly, I have no idea what you're referring to here (What is RIAA and
what is this $11 they're supposedly skimming? If this sounds like ignorance
on my part, well it is; I seldom buy records or CDS at all as it is.), but I
as an individual am not responsible for someone else's dishonesty; I am
responsible only for my own honesty.
> > By the way, isn't it an irony for people not to respect intellectual
> > copyrights and yet scream on about their right to privatcy treaded on?
>
> I have no respect for American or British IP law. It makes it impossible
> for anything to go into the public domain within any reasonable length of
> time.
>
I fail to understand the problem, if there is one.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>> I have no respect for American or British IP law. It makes it impossible
>> for anything to go into the public domain within any reasonable length of
>> time.
>
>public domain?
Because then other artists can use them to create new art. At the
moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Atara
<slrn9alkvq....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>:
>>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>>
>>> I have no respect for American or British IP law. It makes it
>>> impossible for anything to go into the public domain within any
>>> reasonable length of time.
>>
>> I guess I don't understand your 'need' for them to quickly become
>>public domain?
>
>Because then other artists can use them to create new art. At the
>moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
>happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
So? Do artists not have the right to retain copyright of their work? Does the
company that created the art (for the PUROSE of profit) in the first place also
not have the right to retain their copyright?
And as for using art to create art... I'm a big fan of originality, something
that I find severely lacking in 85% of the furry art on the archives these
days.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote in
[...]
>>Because then other artists can use them to create new art. At the
>>moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
>>happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
>
>So? Do artists not have the right to retain copyright of their work?
No they don't. They have a right to retain copyright for a limmited
period of time. Copyright is supposed to be a carefull balence
between the creator and everyonelse.
> Does the
>company that created the art (for the PUROSE of profit) in the first
>place also not have the right to retain their copyright?
No the right is suppose to be balenced by public domain expiry.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:45:00 GMT, Mathue <mathu/e...@my-doja.com> wrote:
> >Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> >
> >> I have no respect for American or British IP law. It makes it impossible
> >> for anything to go into the public domain within any reasonable length of
> >> time.
> >
> > I guess I don't understand your 'need' for them to quickly become
> >public domain?
>
> Because then other artists can use them to create new art.
You're saying that other artists aren't capable of creating their -own- art,
and that they need other people's creations in order to -be- creative!?!?
If they're -that- incompetent or inable to be creative, I say let 'em burn.
> At the
> moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
> happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
Whatever Disney's reasons for doing so, I can only see it as a benefit where
it applies to my retaining my own copyrights. What applies to Disney, in other
words, applies to me as well.
So far, I don't see a problem.
Atara
>No they don't. They have a right to retain copyright for a limmited
>period of time. Copyright is supposed to be a carefull balence
>between the creator and everyonelse.
Where did you get this idea? Basically what you're saying is that artists and
other creators are slaves of the state, creating art for public consumption and
use. They'll get their reward for creating it for a limited time, and after
that their creation is ripped from their control and handed over to the public,
so that the public can do with it what they wish.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote in
><slrn9am6j1....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>:
>
>>No they don't. They have a right to retain copyright for a limmited
>>period of time. Copyright is supposed to be a carefull balence
>>between the creator and everyonelse.
>
>Where did you get this idea?
Well in your case the copyright clase of the US constition.
> Basically what you're saying is that artists and
>other creators are slaves of the state, creating art for public
>consumption and use.
]To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
]limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
]respective writings and discoveries;
You amend the clause then.
> They'll get their reward for creating it for a
>limited time, and after that their creation is ripped from their
>control and handed over to the public, so that the public can do
>with it what they wish.
Bingo.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>> At the
>> moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
>> happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
>
> Whatever Disney's reasons for doing so, I can only see it as a
> benefit where it applies to my retaining my own copyrights.
What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones
have rotted in the ground.
LncrAdvncd
>moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
>happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
Aww.. the poor samplers and cut and pasters have to be -original- I feel, so
so sorry for them..
>What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones have
rotted in the ground.
That's debateable but I think life of the spouse (if any) +25 years would be
pretty fair.. Some consideration for support of the immediate heirs is
justifiable ...
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Darren Hanson
> So you let RIAA skim $11 off the top?
Funny, but a lot of the CD's I buy cost less than that, and virtually
all of the cassettes. I think you're confusing royalties to the original
artist (pennies/copy if that), manufacturing costs (a couple
bucks/copy), and the multiple layers of profits (label, manufacturing
house, primary distributor, secondary distributors, sometimes even
tertiary distributors, and finally the retailer who can mark up as much
as 30%!)
> I have no respect for American or British IP law. It makes it impossible
> for anything to go into the public domain within any reasonable length of
> time.
So the day I create something it being placed into the public domain
isn't fast enough for you? By default, and as a matter of international
law, anything I create is mine by default for my entire lifetime.
HOWEVER, I can sell or assign those rights to another party, or even
waive them and turn the material over to the public domain at any time.
BadCub
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <slrn9alkvq....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>, David
>Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
[...]
>> Because then other artists can use them to create new art. At the
>> moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
>> happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
>
> Okay. I still don't see the point. If the artist or their siblings
>wish to retail copyright control over a personal creation this is
>somehow bad? Seems they have every right to.
Copyright restricts the free flow of infomation, it prevents free
speech. For example the only reson that a siquil to gone with the
wind cold be created was because it expired from copyright.
>How exactly has Disney in it's lonesome
>extended copyright control over the entirety of art over the globe?
Disney in co-operation with the other big movie compernies (like time
warner) have lobbied parlements to extend the copyright. This
basically amounts to a massive increese in the worth of there assests
without thenm needing to do any additional work. There basicly
getting free money from this.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>>What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones have
>rotted in the ground.
>
>That's debateable but I think life of the spouse (if any) +25 years would be
>pretty fair.. Some consideration for support of the immediate heirs is
>justifiable ...
I don't think +90 years as the law current stands in come cases is
fair. Do you?
Nebulous
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote in message
> >
> > Whatever Disney's reasons for doing so, I can only see it as a
> > benefit where it applies to my retaining my own copyrights.
>
> What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones
> have rotted in the ground.
>
>
John Q. Writer is a best selling author. Six months after his wife has
sextuplets, he dies of a heart attack.
If copyright expired at the author's death, then Mr. Writer's life's work
is suddenly worthless. There is no longer any income for his family,
despite the fact that his books are still selling and providing income for
the publishers. Soon the Writer family is homeless, just because copyright
ceased with the authors' death.
IMO, copyrights in an individual's name should last enough beyond the
artist's death to support any minor children. The current 'lifespan plus
50 years' is rather longer than this, but a timeframe had to be decided on.
Copyrights in the name of a corporation are more difficult to argue. As
far as I can tell, a corporation must renew a copyright after a certain
amount of time (how long? "???") or the work becomes public domain.
There is a question about whether the Disney corporation renewed the
copyrights on some early Mickey Mouse comic strips. Disney apparently
wants to hide these strips because of some politically incorrect content,
while some publishers are trying to acquire them for republication (can you
say "Famous comic strips for free."?).
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
LncrAdvncd
you?
I stated what I thought was fair, I sugest you talk to your congressman about
current law... I however will be putting my voice against anything less than
50 years after date of creation..
DishRoom1
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>> So you let RIAA skim $11 off the top?
>
>Funny, but a lot of the CD's I buy cost less than that, and virtually
>all of the cassettes. I think you're confusing royalties to the original
>artist (pennies/copy if that), manufacturing costs (a couple
>bucks/copy), and the multiple layers of profits (label, manufacturing
>house, primary distributor, secondary distributors, sometimes even
>tertiary distributors, and finally the retailer who can mark up as much
>as 30%!)
That's intresting to hear how the profits for making recorded music or such,
thanks. :x)
By the way, when I walk into a music store, I always buy audiocassette versions
of the albums because: 1. I have a radio/tapeplayer, but no CD or record
players, and 2. I've found audiocassettes to be cheaper than the CDs.
Shadowspawn
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>> No they don't. They have a right to retain copyright for a limmited
>> period of time. Copyright is supposed to be a carefull balence
>> between the creator and everyonelse.
>
>As opposed to what is going on now, where the creators (though more likely
>the corporation they work for) hold the copyright nearly
>infinately. Ironic how this is happening in the United States, because
>escape from copyright absurdities is one of the things the US was founded
>on.
As Eli Whitney could attest. :)
LncrAdvncd
of rights expires after 20 years, after which the rights to the work would
would revert back to the artist. (if the company would still like the rights,
they can allways re-negociate)
It would prevent companies just sitting on works, give the artists incentive to
republish works, and mebbe help stuff get into the public domain...
DishRoom1
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:30:36 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> At the
>> >> moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
>> >> happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
>> >
>> > Whatever Disney's reasons for doing so, I can only see it as a
>> > benefit where it applies to my retaining my own copyrights.
>>
>> What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones
>> have rotted in the ground.
>
> They would then pass on to my heirs. If the copyrighted material is
>actually
>worth anything still, then they will be able to benefit from my works. You
>don't
>really have an objection to my continuing to support my heirs even from
>beyond
>the grave, do you?
>--
>-Chuck Melville-
>http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
>
>
I once read an article on Dr.Suess that is a good example of this in a Sunday
newspaper. It interviewed his widow who retained the rights to his work and
characters after he died. Ther were these bootlegers copying Dr. Suess'
characters at this time and the widow (can't remember her name) was given the
chance to seize the intellectual rights to her husband's work so to keep
providing bread for his heirs.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:10:43 GMT, Mathue <mathu/e...@my-doja.com> wrote:
> >In article <slrn9alkvq....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>, David
> >Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Because then other artists can use them to create new art. At the
> >> moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
> >> happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
> >
> > Okay. I still don't see the point. If the artist or their siblings
> >wish to retail copyright control over a personal creation this is
> >somehow bad? Seems they have every right to.
>
> Copyright restricts the free flow of infomation, it prevents free
> speech. For example the only reson that a siquil to gone with the
> wind cold be created was because it expired from copyright.
Boy, if ever I heard a good argument for -not- allowing copyrights to
expire, this was it. Some books should never have sequels made, and
certainly not by anyone -other- than the original author. Not only does
it generally result in a work far inferior to the original, but it also
makes assumptions on the original author's intents. And some stories
simply need to be left where they ended.
>
> >How exactly has Disney in it's lonesome
> >extended copyright control over the entirety of art over the globe?
>
> Disney in co-operation with the other big movie compernies (like time
> warner) have lobbied parlements to extend the copyright. This
> basically amounts to a massive increese in the worth of there assests
> without thenm needing to do any additional work. There basicly
> getting free money from this.
>
Actually, on this -one- point I can offer some agreement. Once an
expiration point had been decided on, it should have been left alone. But
Disney (and some other corporations) have been realizing that several of
their copyrighted films and stories are nearing their expiration points,
and they are afraid of upstart companies taking the material and
publishing them in direct competition with Disney, etc. I think this is
something of a legitimate concern, but even I'm not wholly convinced that
there is anything fair in trying to retroactively extend the expiration
period.
If anything, I find this an excellent argument for not selling
copyrights of works to -any- corporation, but rather to lease them out.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:30:36 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> At the
> >> moment no art has fallen into public domain since the war, all that
> >> happens is that the copyright gets extended by Disney lobbiests.
> >
> > Whatever Disney's reasons for doing so, I can only see it as a
> > benefit where it applies to my retaining my own copyrights.
>
> What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones
> have rotted in the ground.
They would then pass on to my heirs. If the copyrighted material is actually
worth anything still, then they will be able to benefit from my works. You don't
really have an objection to my continuing to support my heirs even from beyond
the grave, do you?
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2001 20:41:16 GMT, LncrAdvncd <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones have
> >rotted in the ground.
> >
> >That's debateable but I think life of the spouse (if any) +25 years would be
> >pretty fair.. Some consideration for support of the immediate heirs is
> >justifiable ...
>
> I don't think +90 years as the law current stands in come cases is
> fair. Do you?
>
If it's -my- work and -I- hold the copyrights? Yeah, I'd consider that more
than fair.
DishRoom1
I do find the Disney situation sticky IMO. It's reasonable enough to extend the
rights of individually copyrighted work to the heirs of the copyright holder.
But whoever authored those copyright laws perhaps never foresaw
entertainment-producing megacoperations and how they should fit into the
copyright scheme of things. Such is the case of Walt Disney, who lead the
creation of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, the Silly Sympthanies (sp?), ect.
When he died the big coperation took over the rights of the Disney name and
characters. It would be intrest to see how it would play out.
DishRoom1
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>> Its A Wonderful Life went public domain a few years ago because some
>> company forgot to renew the copyright. Then everybody started
>> merchandising that crap movie. That annoying movie, plus the hype around
>> that annoying movie, plus the fact I already was not feeling all that
>> great, was almost enough to make me make a no-look lanechange on the
>> expressway (deadly).
>
> 'Crap movie"!? Boy, you -are- disturbed...
He has a right to his opinion. To this day I don't understand why some film
critics bashed "Oliver and Co". It may not be like "Snow White", but it still
was a fine movie with its cool animation, songs and voice acting. Goegette is
very likable even if her self-centerness and vanity keeps her from being a role
model for kids. ;x)
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Its A Wonderful Life went public domain a few years ago because some
> company forgot to renew the copyright. Then everybody started
> merchandising that crap movie. That annoying movie, plus the hype around
> that annoying movie, plus the fact I already was not feeling all that
> great, was almost enough to make me make a no-look lanechange on the
> expressway (deadly).
'Crap movie"!? Boy, you -are- disturbed...
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Dr. Cat
Do you think that society is at all better off because people can freely
reuse parts from, create derivative works from, or insert cultural
references to Alice in Wonderland, the Three Musketeers, or the works of
Dickens, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.? Or do you think we
would be better off if those works were copyrighted by the heirs of those
folks rather than being in the public domain?
I think society is better off because there is a rich body of our shared
cultural context in the public domain, which can be drawn upon without
licensing fees or tricky negotiations with the hundreds of people claiming
to be descendants of some long dead famous creator dude. From Cyrano De
Bergerac we have the modern movies Roxanne and The Truth About Cats and
Dogs, both charming works. In Austin, as in many cities, we have a "Free
Shakespeare Society" that puts on plays by the bard that anybody can come
watch without even paying so much as the price of a ticket. (I also hear
West Side Story was an interesting derivative work, though I've not seen
it.) Heck, my elementary school put on a small production of a classic
19th century play, for free, would it be better if they'd had to pay a fee
or just skip the whole thing? Ironically, even the Disney that some of
you are so eager to protect has benefitted immensely from this sort of
thing, producing versions of many great classic tales that have passed
into the public domain - it's practically their bread and butter!
Isn't 50 years after the death of the creator more than enough time for a
copyright to endure? Even if you insist the money from their work must
benefit not only them but their heirs, 50 years is plenty of time to milk
dear dead dad's work if you ask me. After that if you haven't got a few
million socked away, get a job you hippie! Seriously, you look at a
classic work like Conan, which I believe would belong to the world by now
if it hadn't been for the two extensions. Robert E. Howard had no
children, his parents passed away long ago too, and I don't think he had
any brothers or sisters. I don't know WHO owns his copyrights now or how
they got 'em, but I have to wonder if it's someone he would have even
given a damn about supporting.
Thing is though, when a bunch of valuable copyrighted franchises were
approaching 50 years old, some big media companies lobbied congress to
extend it to life plus 70 years. They let that stand for - guess what,
about 20 years, then they lobbied to extend it to life plus 90 years.
So we haven't had ANY new classic parts of our shared cultural background
passing into the public domain for decades now. Is this a good thing?
Shall we extend this indefinitely, or is 90 years MORE than enough? Geez.
Big corporations are already protected by the notion that if a copyrighted
work is "corporate created", they own it until "90 years after the death
of the corporation", which is another issue people could debate whether
that's better or worse for society. But I don't think you have to shed
much of a tear for their ability to profit not being looked after by the
current laws, hmmm?
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: My own work has been copied by a whole lot of software
pirates, in blatant violation of copyright laws. I don't much care
though, I just go create the next work. My current project is a service
with a central server & we give the client software away anyway, so
there! Nyah!)
(Disclaimer disclaimer: However if you take any of our characters or
settings and make a hit movie out of them without paying me three bulging
sacks full of cash first, I will bite you on the ankle. Hard. :X)
LncrAdvncd
>hold a copyright on anything. I mean, how greedy do you want to be?
It's not -your- work. It's easy to say you cant justify a measure when as a
practical matter you really arn't affected by it.
I think 7 years is -way- too short. IIRC even at the begininging of the 20th
century it was longer than that and a LOT of artist publishs collections
including older work still bring them income. James Gurney's Dinotopia for
example was published 8 years ago, should the publishers be allowed to exploit
it now without any compensation? (Note, Gurney has not -revised the original
Dinotopia book, only expaned the universe w. more books, calling into question
what a "revision" is anyway)
In any case this debate is very much off the real point, as it affects things
here. Which is that people are redistrubiting the recent work of, living
artist's who are still trying to make money off of them...
The fact that you can't justify a law is not an defense for breaking it. When
engaging in civil disobeience it's not just breaking a law to make a statement,
it breaking the law to make a statement -and- accepting the concequences as a
demonstration of your principals. Too many activists today want their
motivations to excuze their actions, rather than explain them.
Felyne32k
dish...@aol.com says...
> I do find the Disney situation sticky IMO. It's reasonable enough to extend the
> rights of individually copyrighted work to the heirs of the copyright holder.
> But whoever authored those copyright laws perhaps never foresaw
> entertainment-producing megacoperations and how they should fit into the
> copyright scheme of things. Such is the case of Walt Disney, who lead the
> creation of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, the Silly Sympthanies (sp?), ect.
> When he died the big coperation took over the rights of the Disney name and
> characters. It would be intrest to see how it would play out.
Well, FORTUNE suggested that if the copyright expired, we might see
"Mickey Mousetraps" and "Donald DuckSauce"... which I actually think
would be pretty entertaining (if irreverent).
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation. Take note of posting
time: anything beyond 11:30 PM, Pacific Standard Time is
likely to be influenced by this condition.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones
>> have rotted in the ground.
>
> They would then pass on to my heirs. If the copyrighted material is actually
>worth anything still, then they will be able to benefit from my works. You don't
>really have an objection to my continuing to support my heirs even from beyond
>the grave, do you?
Why should you have any greater oppitunity to support them then a
ditch digger or a jewler. Copyright generators are unique that they
allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
work.
LncrAdvncd
>ditch digger or a jewler. Copyright generators are unique that they
>allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
>wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
>work.
Tell this to the DuPonts, or any of the rest of the congenitally rich...
LncrAdvncd
>still happening on the new books. The point of copyrights is to encourage
>people to create. This would.
Yes, but he's lost the revenue on the original work. which anyone can now
publish or make derivitive works from, making the artist's slice of the pie
that much thinner.
Actually the point of copyright (and patent) is to encourage people not to
create, but to -publish- and therefore benifit society, by protecting their
ability to profit from a work. On a moral level copyright issues have resonated
more as artists define it not so much for the public good of the distribution
of creative work, but as a more basic right to seek compensation for their
work.
I think your model would possibly encourage works to be created, but they'd be
leigon, and of little value, because people would find the rewards of investing
themselves in a work to be few.
In any case the entire concept of "revising" your works after x amount of time
to keep your rights is badly flawed. What a revision would be is a highly
arbitrary matter. How much do you have to change, before it becomes a
revision, and how far before it's declared a new work. Not to mention the
issues of what happens to the un-revised work.
Other problems with you model include the possibility of an artist wanting to
retire and the diminished values of the grant of rights.
Nebulous
Felyne32k wrote
> dish...@aol.com says...
>
> Well, FORTUNE suggested that if the copyright expired, we might see
> "Mickey Mousetraps" and "Donald DuckSauce"... which I actually think
> would be pretty entertaining (if irreverent).
>
other juice products)?
IIRC the juice company's name predated Disney's creation of the character,
so the Disney Corporation can do nothing about them. However, the juice
company does pay for the use of the *image* of Donald Duck on their
packaging.
Neko2
news:20010318083056...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> >Why should you have any greater oppitunity to support them then a
> >ditch digger or a jewler. Copyright generators are unique that they
> >allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
> >wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
> >work.
of alot doing it. For every walt disney there are tons of faceless
animators who will never make it big. Digging a ditch can be done by
anyone, and usually falls to those with no skills or aspirations (in other
words they don't deserve better if they will settle for that). Now the
jeweler could make enough money to leave for the family members. Artists
and such are poor schmucks, give em a break. The copyright law is there to
protect "intellectual" property. You have the right to protect your
property and especially that of an intellectual nature. Otherwise, you end
up with a bunch of people who can't think of anything original, but they can
steal other peoples ideas and make cheap rip offs. Remember that parody is
allowed and so is similar work. You just don't have a right to profit off
of another persons ideas. Stealing is bad.
Baloo Ursidae
> To everyone arguing against the work of creators becoming public domain...
> Do you think that society is at all better off because people can freely
> reuse parts from, create derivative works from, or insert cultural
> references to Alice in Wonderland, the Three Musketeers, or the works of
> Dickens, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.? Or do you think we
> would be better off if those works were copyrighted by the heirs of those
> folks rather than being in the public domain?
Intellectual property: Totally un-American.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/18/1339201&mode=nocomment
But for the record, would you say you're a "real American," Mr. Franklin?
Ovidius writes "Need a historical precedent to argue in favor of open
source and against the rash of insane technology patents? Tell people how
Ben Franklin valued innovation over profits--in 1742 he not only published
the details of his newly conceived Franklin Stove, but refused a patent on
it on the principle that "as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions
of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any
invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."
Even when a London entrepreneur took out a patent on a poorly modified
version of his stove, Franklin still did not pursue the matter, though
maybe he would have if he had known where the use of patents in business
would be headed 250 or so years later. The account is from chapter 10 of
his Autobiography (which is available at the esteemed Project Gutenberg) :
In order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742,
invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same
time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made
a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who,
having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a
profitable thing, as they were growing in demand.
To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An
Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their
Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their
Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all
Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and
obviated," etc.
This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the
construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me
a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd
it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions,
viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we
should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously.
An ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and
working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine,
which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I
was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of
patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the
same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by
patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very
many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is,
a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?"
--
Baloo
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>"LncrAdvncd" <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote in message
>news:20010318083056...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
>> >Why should you have any greater oppitunity to support them then a
>> >ditch digger or a jewler. Copyright generators are unique that they
>> >allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
>> >wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
>> >work.
>Because you are creating something, and usually you don't make a whole hell
>of alot doing it.
Teachers are low payed and they create something as well. Should your
teachers get a cut of your wages for the rest of your life because
they gave you the knowlige that allows you work.
Everybody who works creates something, my father was a builder and a
craftsmen. His houses will not pay my way, I have to work.
[...]
> Artists
>and such are poor schmucks, give em a break. The copyright law is there to
>protect "intellectual" property.
Copyright law is there to encourage the creation of art.
> You have the right to protect your property and especially that of
>an intellectual nature. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of people
>who can't think of anything original, but they can
>steal other peoples ideas and make cheap rip offs.
Like South African aids drug compernies.
> Remember that parody is allowed and so is similar work.
But fan fic isn't. Now given that there is by my estermation more TTA
fanfics then there are TTA epsods and that the fan fic writers where
doing the same thing as the staff writers, using existing characters
and settings to creat new work. Why should the fan fic be considered
less creative and less worthy of existing then the staff written
stuff?
> You just don't have a right to profit off of another persons ideas.
> Stealing is bad.
What if I'm not wishing to profit?
LncrAdvncd
Neither...
I notice a distinct lack in Franklin's commentary of any statement about how
his personal principles on this matter should be applied universally. Or any
statement that patents should be done away with, just that he doesn't want to
argue them, and has no desire to get rich by them.
I'd also note that this incident was in 1742, over thirty years before the
Revolutionary War, which was caused in part by imposed monopolies, and the
framers of the constitution -still- added the copyright clause.
Before slapping an "Un-American" label on your opponent in this debate, prehaps
you should take a good look at the others who have been free with that label,
and what history thinks of them.
Shadowspawn
>> You just don't have a right to profit off of another persons ideas.
>> Stealing is bad.
>
>What if I'm not wishing to profit?
Whether you steal for fun, or for profit, it's still sealing. Create
your own art, or buy it from the copyrite holder.
There are far too many Robin Hoods out there, and not nearly enough
creative people to supply the demand. Taking their intellectual
property away from them and giving it to the public may make the
non-creative types happy, but it will also make the creative people
say "screw you all" and just not bother creating. I would.
The world owes no one a living.
Shadowspawn
>So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?"
I highly doubt Ben Franklin missed too many meals, unlike some artists
who have to practicly sell their souls to make money on their art.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
><< So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?" >>
>Before slapping an "Un-American" label on your opponent in this
>debate, prehaps
>you should take a good look at the others who have been free with that label,
>and what history thinks of them.
Microspft called the Open Source/Free Software movment Un-American.
William Earl Haskell
> On 20 Mar 2001 23:03:08 GMT, LncrAdvncd <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> ><< So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?" >>
> [...]
>
> >Before slapping an "Un-American" label on your opponent in this
> >debate, prehaps
> >you should take a good look at the others who have been free with that label,
> >and what history thinks of them.
>
> Microspft called the Open Source/Free Software movment Un-American.
Linus Torvalds *is* from Finland. :P
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> Teachers are low payed and they create something as well. Should your
> teachers get a cut of your wages for the rest of your life because
> they gave you the knowlige that allows you work.
No, that is not a valid example. Creating well-taught students is not the
same thing as creating a sculpture or writing a play.
> Everybody who works creates something, my father was a builder and a
> craftsmen. His houses will not pay my way, I have to work.
He did not design the buildings, only followed the blueprints supplied by the
architect... who, I believe -does- get paid a royalty for the patent (or the
company he's employed by does).
> Copyright law is there to encourage the creation of art.
And it does so by protecting the artist's rights, including the right to
continue earning from his works.
> > You have the right to protect your property and especially that of
> >an intellectual nature. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of people
> >who can't think of anything original, but they can
> >steal other peoples ideas and make cheap rip offs.
>
> Like South African aids drug compernies.
But there's a special case, all the way around. For one thing, the patents
on those drugs -should- be suspended for the better of the world community,
specifically because of the major health crisis existing in that region. But I
think it should be done -only- as a special case, not as a general rule.
> > Remember that parody is allowed and so is similar work.
>
> But fan fic isn't. Now given that there is by my estermation more TTA
> fanfics then there are TTA epsods and that the fan fic writers where
> doing the same thing as the staff writers, using existing characters
> and settings to creat new work. Why should the fan fic be considered
> less creative and less worthy of existing then the staff written
> stuff?
Who says it doesn't exist? And it exists purely at the beneficence of the
corporations who own TTA (or other subjects of fan worship); usually they know
such things will happen and are a nuisance to police, but will do so if fans
start trying to make money off of their properties, or begin abusing them
publicly (as in using them for pornographic purposes).
>
>
> > You just don't have a right to profit off of another persons ideas.
> > Stealing is bad.
>
> What if I'm not wishing to profit?
Then one assumes that your useage would not result in taking profit away from
the copyright or patent owner... correct?
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:54:58 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> What benifit is it to you to retain copyrights long after your bones
> >> have rotted in the ground.
> >
> > They would then pass on to my heirs. If the copyrighted material is actually
> >worth anything still, then they will be able to benefit from my works. You don't
> >really have an objection to my continuing to support my heirs even from beyond
> >the grave, do you?
>
> Why should you have any greater oppitunity to support them then a
> ditch digger or a jewler.
Ditch digging is not an art but manual labor. And you don't think a jeweler would
have been able to squirrel away enough income for his heirs!? He has financial
advantages -I- don't have, especially considering his line of work.
> Copyright generators are unique that they
> allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
> wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
> work.
>
I agree that my heirs shouldn't become dependent upon what I leave them, but
there's no way to know now how old they would be or what sort of financial straits
they would be in at the time of my passing. Perhaps they would only be young
children; perhaps the job market will be rough, like the Great Depression -- what I
leave them may be their only resource for a long time. There's no way to really know,
and only one way to prepare.
Besides, if they don't really need it, I can always make provision for whatever
income made on my copyrights to go to whatever charity or special interest I might
instead prefer.
Either way: it's my work, my copyrights, my choice.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > 'Crap movie"!? Boy, you -are- disturbed...
>
> The movie sucked. The story was repetative and annoying, the
> cinematography was far behind the standard for the time, and all in all
> I'm pretty sure the only reason it's still aired is because they need
> something to replace a test pattern.
>
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Mine is that your assessment is 'way off-kilter. It's a bonafide
classic, it's a charming story with a salient point at it's core, and it
certainly resonates with its audience, which is why it's been so popular
for so many years. It's virtues offset it's shortcomings.
The only problem I had with its public domain release was the
over-saturation. Viewing it once or twice during the Christmas season is
just dandy; every hour on the hour is simply absurd.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think +90 years as the law current stands in come cases is
> >> fair. Do you?
>
> > If it's -my- work and -I- hold the copyrights? Yeah, I'd consider that more
> > than fair.
>
> I can't justify more than 7 years without a revision to be able to still
> hold a copyright on anything. I mean, how greedy do you want to be?
>
How presumptuous do -you- want to be, to tell -me- how long I should have the
right to own something I created with my own hands and skill!? Or to decide how long
my heirs should be able to benefit from that work in case of my passing? Or to be
telling me that by doing so that I'm greedy? What's mine is mine, and I call that
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>
> So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?
>
I say the question is irrelevant. Franklin opted to forego patent; fine.
Gates opts to keep his; fine. In each case, it was their prerogative. -That's-
the important factor.
LncrAdvncd
teachers get a cut of your wages for the rest of your life because they gave
you the knowlige that allows you work.
Guess what - they do.. it's called property and income taxes.. Though I do
agree, Teachers are woefully underpaid..
LncrAdvncd
Just goes to prove my point aboout calling people "Un-American", doesn't it...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> Teachers are low payed and they create something as well. Should your
>> teachers get a cut of your wages for the rest of your life because
>> they gave you the knowlige that allows you work.
>
> No, that is not a valid example. Creating well-taught students is not the
>same thing as creating a sculpture or writing a play.
Why not? There all infomation, one is stored on computer, the other
is stored inside the mind.
>> Everybody who works creates something, my father was a builder and a
>> craftsmen. His houses will not pay my way, I have to work.
>
> He did not design the buildings, only followed the blueprints supplied by the
>architect... who, I believe -does- get paid a royalty for the patent (or the
>company he's employed by does).
He infact was also responcable for the design proccess on meany of them.
>> Copyright law is there to encourage the creation of art.
>
> And it does so by protecting the artist's rights, including the right to
>continue earning from his works.
At some point that right starts to discourage the creation of new art,
and at that point it should be lost.
[...]
>> > Remember that parody is allowed and so is similar work.
>>
>> But fan fic isn't. Now given that there is by my estermation more TTA
>> fanfics then there are TTA epsods and that the fan fic writers where
>> doing the same thing as the staff writers, using existing characters
>> and settings to creat new work. Why should the fan fic be considered
>> less creative and less worthy of existing then the staff written
>> stuff?
>
> Who says it doesn't exist?
I didn't say it didn't exist, I said some feel that it shouldn't
exist. Fan sites get shut down.
[...]
>> > You just don't have a right to profit off of another persons ideas.
>> > Stealing is bad.
>>
>> What if I'm not wishing to profit?
>
> Then one assumes that your useage would not result in taking profit away from
>the copyright or patent owner... correct?
Yes it wouldn't take away profit.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:54:58 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >You don't
>> >really have an objection to my continuing to support my heirs even from beyond
>> >the grave, do you?
>>
>> Why should you have any greater oppitunity to support them then a
>> ditch digger or a jewler.
>
> Ditch digging is not an art but manual labor.
So? Why can't the ditch digger charge some sort of rent on the people
who used his ditch to support his heirs? You don't have an objection
to him continuing to support my heirs even from beyond the grave?
Why are you spacail.
> And you don't think a jeweler would
>have been able to squirrel away enough income for his heirs!? He has financial
>advantages -I- don't have, especially considering his line of work.
What about a movie maker? If isn't able to squirrel away enough
income for his heirs he is doing something very wrong.
>> Copyright generators are unique that they
>> allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
>> wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
>> work.
>
> I agree that my heirs shouldn't become dependent upon what I leave them, but
>there's no way to know now how old they would be or what sort of financial straits
>they would be in at the time of my passing.
Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
have spacal privligers?
[...]
> Either way: it's my work, my copyrights, my choice.
Your copyrights where given to you by society.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
[...]
>> I can't justify more than 7 years without a revision to be able to still
>> hold a copyright on anything. I mean, how greedy do you want to be?
>>
>
> How presumptuous do -you- want to be, to tell -me- how long I should have the
>right to own something I created with my own hands and skill!?
Copyright is granted by law, at some point people are going to be
telling you how long you should have the right to have an enforced
monpoly over that item.
Copyrights are the balence between the rights of the copyright creator
and rights of the consumer. If only the rights of the copyright
creator is take into account then the rules will give to much power to
the creator, and if its imbalanced then no one will respect them.
The current spate of copyright violations is because copyrights have
been allowed to become unfairly powerfull under the DMCA and the Sony
Bono Copyright extention act.
DishRoom1
Plus, it has a moral. You can't go on and on wishing what you didn't get and
punish yourself over how your life is turning out. Your life may already
contain things you treasure most. Or something like that.
J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre
LncrAdvncd
monopolistic is un-American or it wouldn't be fought over extensively in courts
as of late.
I don't see that that line of argumnt is "clear" at all.. American culture
includes a sufficent mix of views to encompass both ends of that philisophical
argument, and therefore -neither- of them are correct in labeling their
opponent as "Un-american".
Issues are fought over in the courts every day, and frankly the closest that
gets to labeling them "Un-American" is to say a law, or the interpretation of
law in question is -unconstitutional- and even that can remain a matter of
debate in some cases.
What I'm saying is that most people who call something "Un-American" tend to
be trying to tar their opponent as opposed to actually arguing their point.
William Earl Haskell
> William Earl Haskell <for...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> > Linus Torvalds *is* from Finland. :P
>
> He currently hails from California, where Transmeta pays him to hack the
> kernel all day, though he would do this without payment just as
> happily. I'm glad Transmeta's setting the example here.
One of Transmeta's backers is Paul Allen, Bill Gates' partner in crime.
Well, I'm sure Linus can look after himself there all right.
Felyne32k
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> So? Why can't the ditch digger charge some sort of rent on the people
> who used his ditch to support his heirs? You don't have an objection
> to him continuing to support my heirs even from beyond the grave?
>
> Why are you spacail.
Because, quite simply, that would be terminally stupid. He likely doesn't
own the land that the ditch was on, the ditch required no particular
creativity, etc etc etc. Why doesn't HE have to pay the descendants of
the inventor of the ditch royalties for its use? Why can't a grafitti
artist charge people when they come to paint over his work? He didn't own
the medium to begin with...
On top of that, as has been stated before, the ditch is something that
anybody can produce. How many people that you know could, say, write a
literary work on par with /Lord of the Rings/, /Catcher in the Rye/, or
/Brave New World/? How many could produce /Schindler's List/? How many
could paint like Boris Vallejo? How many could play the piano like
Vladimir Horowitz?
Think about that for a moment.
Now, how many people do you know that could dig a ditch?
*That's* why. Creative people are a rare thing in any society, and their
creativity should be protected and rewarded, because they are the people
who move society forward. They are special by virtue of creativity.
If you absolutely say that ditch-digging is some creative work (despite
the fact that an intelligence about on par with a large badger's could
produce it), then it can be assumed that the ditch was produced as work-
under-hire. A cop-out.
> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
> have spacal privligers?
What if you're talking about one of the many writers/artists who isn't
appreciated until after they die? HP Lovecraft, Emily Dickenson, etc etc
etc.
>
> > Either way: it's my work, my copyrights, my choice.
>
> Your copyrights where given to you by society.
>
He, of course, has the right to be like JD Salinger and hole up all his
work in a cabin. Then where would you be?
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation. Take note of posting
time: anything beyond 11:30 PM, Pacific Standard Time is
likely to be influenced by this condition.
Felyne32k
says...
>
> Felyne32k wrote
>
> > Well, FORTUNE suggested that if the copyright expired, we might see
> > "Mickey Mousetraps" and "Donald DuckSauce"... which I actually think
> > would be pretty entertaining (if irreverent).
> >
> Are you telling me that you've never heard of Donald Duck Orange Juice (and
> other juice products)?
>
> IIRC the juice company's name predated Disney's creation of the character,
> so the Disney Corporation can do nothing about them. However, the juice
> company does pay for the use of the *image* of Donald Duck on their
> packaging.
Forgot about that...
Felyne32k
says...
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not a valid example. Creating well-taught students is not the
> > same thing as creating a sculpture or writing a play.
>
> the way it works.
>
But creating a sculpture or writing a play, to continue the example, is
bringing something fresh and new into the world, or at the very least a
variation on something existing. For the most part, the teachers that
I've had regurgitate textbook information (I remember my sophomore year
History teacher actually lecturing less than any individual student in
the class, assigning practically nothing but copying word-for-word out of
the textbook - we eventually gave up and taught ourselves) - and the
textbook makers DO get paid for their use.
And, of course, it's arguable that the teachers are performing 'work
under hire'. The universal cop-out.
Felyne32k
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> >> I can't justify more than 7 years without a revision to be able to still
> >> hold a copyright on anything. I mean, how greedy do you want to be?
> >>
> >
> > How presumptuous do -you- want to be, to tell -me- how long I should have the
> >right to own something I created with my own hands and skill!?
>
> Copyright is granted by law, at some point people are going to be
> telling you how long you should have the right to have an enforced
> monpoly over that item.
>
> Copyrights are the balence between the rights of the copyright creator
> and rights of the consumer. If only the rights of the copyright
> creator is take into account then the rules will give to much power to
> the creator, and if its imbalanced then no one will respect them.
>
> The current spate of copyright violations is because copyrights have
> been allowed to become unfairly powerfull under the DMCA and the Sony
> Bono Copyright extention act.
>
I'd agree with that.
Personally, 30 or so years after the death of the creator or SO should be
about right. Enough to give publishers/children a chance to benefit (even
children born right around the time of death should be through college or
into laborforce), even in most cases of posthumous appreciation, but not
enough so that they become overly litigous and never have to do another
stich of work.
This, of course, is just a largely random-but-sounds-about-right
statement.
Felyne32k
> > Gates opts to keep his; fine. In each case, it was their prerogative. -That's-
> > the important factor.
>
>
Because it is a morally neutral issue. Giving up your copyrights/patents
completely or protecting them agressively is a matter of personal choice,
just like, say, wearing a red t-shirt or a blue one (Except for in
Crips V. Bloods neighborhoods, where wearing either is likely to get you
shot).
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > I say the question is irrelevant. Franklin opted to forego patent; fine.
> > Gates opts to keep his; fine. In each case, it was their prerogative. -That's-
> > the important factor.
>
> And the morality issue is completely dodged.
>
No, I consider that to have -been- the morality factor: the preogative of choice
in the matter of ownership of one's own creation. I consider it immoral for some
other interest to decide, without consultation with me, how, where, or in what fashion
a creation of mine is to be used.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 08:37:51 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> >
> >"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:54:58 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >You don't
> >> >really have an objection to my continuing to support my heirs even from beyond
> >> >the grave, do you?
> >>
> >> Why should you have any greater oppitunity to support them then a
> >> ditch digger or a jewler.
> >
> > Ditch digging is not an art but manual labor.
>
> So? Why can't the ditch digger charge some sort of rent on the people
> who used his ditch to support his heirs? You don't have an objection
> to him continuing to support my heirs even from beyond the grave?
If it's his land the ditch is on, I don't see why not. But otherwise the example
isn't a valid one. A ditch is not the same thing as a painting, a song, or a recipe.
> Why are you spacail.
It's not a matter of being special, so don't go trying to make a special case out
of it.
>
>
> > And you don't think a jeweler would
> >have been able to squirrel away enough income for his heirs!? He has financial
> >advantages -I- don't have, especially considering his line of work.
>
> What about a movie maker?
Be specific. Do you mean a producer, a mogul, a director, a screenwriter...?
> If isn't able to squirrel away enough
> income for his heirs he is doing something very wrong.
Depending on which of the above you mean, if he didn't retain his copyrights, then
yes, something went wrong.
> >> Copyright generators are unique that they
> >> allow there decendencts to gain money after there dead. If your heirs
> >> wish to become rich they should do it like everone else, by doing
> >> work.
> >
> > I agree that my heirs shouldn't become dependent upon what I leave them, but
> >there's no way to know now how old they would be or what sort of financial straits
> >they would be in at the time of my passing.
>
> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
> have spacal privligers?
What special priveleges!? I earned that copyright by creating a work of art. I'm
entitled to it, it's mine to do with as I wish. And if anyone else wants one, they can
do the same thing I did: create a work of art. You don't have to be 'special' to do
it.
> > Either way: it's my work, my copyrights, my choice.
>
> Your copyrights where given to you by society.
>
No, it's granted me by law. Guaranteed, in fact.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not a valid example. Creating well-taught students is not the
> > same thing as creating a sculpture or writing a play.
>
> Why not? It's all "intellectual property", is it not?
No, it is not. If you guys can't provide serious arguments, then don't even
try.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:29:04 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> >
> >> Teachers are low payed and they create something as well. Should your
> >> teachers get a cut of your wages for the rest of your life because
> >> they gave you the knowlige that allows you work.
> >
> > No, that is not a valid example. Creating well-taught students is not the
> >same thing as creating a sculpture or writing a play.
>
> Why not? There all infomation, one is stored on computer, the other
> is stored inside the mind.
Come on, let's get serious, shall we? Copyrights are specifically geared towards
the creation of arts, and patents towards inventions. How does a student fall under
either category!? Your argument is foolish and argumentative, and does not address
the issue.
>
> >> Everybody who works creates something, my father was a builder and a
> >> craftsmen. His houses will not pay my way, I have to work.
> >
> > He did not design the buildings, only followed the blueprints supplied by the
> >architect... who, I believe -does- get paid a royalty for the patent (or the
> >company he's employed by does).
>
> He infact was also responcable for the design proccess on meany of them.
If so, then why -doesn't- he have a patent or a copyright? Or was it done as
work-for-hire?
>
>
> >> Copyright law is there to encourage the creation of art.
> >
> > And it does so by protecting the artist's rights, including the right to
> >continue earning from his works.
>
> At some point that right starts to discourage the creation of new art,
> and at that point it should be lost.
>
As an artist, I have yet to see that proven; whereas I know the opposite to be
true.
>
> >> > Remember that parody is allowed and so is similar work.
> >>
> >> But fan fic isn't. Now given that there is by my estermation more TTA
> >> fanfics then there are TTA epsods and that the fan fic writers where
> >> doing the same thing as the staff writers, using existing characters
> >> and settings to creat new work. Why should the fan fic be considered
> >> less creative and less worthy of existing then the staff written
> >> stuff?
> >
> > Who says it doesn't exist?
>
> I didn't say it didn't exist, I said some feel that it shouldn't
> exist. Fan sites get shut down.
>
Depends on the circumstances.
>
>
> >> > You just don't have a right to profit off of another persons ideas.
> >> > Stealing is bad.
> >>
> >> What if I'm not wishing to profit?
> >
> > Then one assumes that your useage would not result in taking profit away from
> >the copyright or patent owner... correct?
>
> Yes it wouldn't take away profit.
My point is that you would be -assuming- that; not that you wouldn't be.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>
>> So? Why can't the ditch digger charge some sort of rent on the people
>> who used his ditch to support his heirs? You don't have an objection
>> to him continuing to support my heirs even from beyond the grave?
>>
>> Why are you spacail.
>
>Because, quite simply, that would be terminally stupid. He likely doesn't
>own the land that the ditch was on, the ditch required no particular
>creativity, etc etc etc.
So? Do only creative people have the right to support there heirs?
[...]
>On top of that, as has been stated before, the ditch is something that
>anybody can produce. How many people that you know could, say, write a
>literary work on par with /Lord of the Rings/, /Catcher in the Rye/, or
>/Brave New World/? How many could produce /Schindler's List/? How many
>could paint like Boris Vallejo? How many could play the piano like
>Vladimir Horowitz?
How meany can draw like Kelly STriker Price? Most people I know have
some deggry of creative talent. I mean its not all good
stuff, most of what is covered by copyright is total dross.
>Think about that for a moment.
>
>Now, how many people do you know that could dig a ditch?
Not many infact, most lack the streanth and stanima.
[...]
>> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
>> have spacal privligers?
>
>What if you're talking about one of the many writers/artists who isn't
>appreciated until after they die? HP Lovecraft, Emily Dickenson, etc etc
>etc.
Same thing about arcitects, there are meany great building that are
not considered grat untill after people have grown to love them.
Should these arcitects and engernears get the same post humourious
rewards?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> So? Why can't the ditch digger charge some sort of rent on the people
>> who used his ditch to support his heirs? You don't have an objection
>> to him continuing to support my heirs even from beyond the grave?
>
> If it's his land the ditch is on, I don't see why not. But
>otherwise the example
>isn't a valid one. A ditch is not the same thing as a painting, a
> song, or a recipe.
Recipes can't be copyrighted nor patented. You can't in any way own a
recipy (you can own copyrights in a recipy book though) interestingly
the world of cookery hasn't ground to a halt and people still devolope
new and interesting ways to turn stuff into food.
>> Why are you spacail.
>
> It's not a matter of being special, so don't go trying to make a
>special case out of it.
How isn't it spacail? IP is the only sit on your hands and let the
money roll in system I know of.
>> > And you don't think a jeweler would
>> >have been able to squirrel away enough income for his heirs!? He has financial
>> >advantages -I- don't have, especially considering his line of work.
>>
>> What about a movie maker?
>
> Be specific. Do you mean a producer, a mogul, a director, a
>screenwriter...?
I mogul, big media comperney. I don't think you could call them low
income.
[...]
>> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
>> have spacal privligers?
>
> What special priveleges!? I earned that copyright by creating a
> work of art.
The way you can countinue earning from IP after your dead. Your
ability to control the free flow of infomation. These things are unquie
to IP.
[...]
>> > Either way: it's my work, my copyrights, my choice.
>>
>> Your copyrights where given to you by society.
>
> No, it's granted me by law. Guaranteed, in fact.
In a democracy laws are created by society, and they can be removed by
society as well.
Felyne32k
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:25:16 -0800, Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net>
> wrote:
> >In article <slrn9bhtjg....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> >dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> >
> >> So? Why can't the ditch digger charge some sort of rent on the people
> >> who used his ditch to support his heirs? You don't have an objection
> >> to him continuing to support my heirs even from beyond the grave?
> >>
> >> Why are you spacail.
> >
> >Because, quite simply, that would be terminally stupid. He likely doesn't
> >own the land that the ditch was on, the ditch required no particular
> >creativity, etc etc etc.
>
> So? Do only creative people have the right to support there heirs?
that, his connection to it was broken. Work For Hire.
Creative people leave more valuable things to support their heirs with.
I believe it was you who said "What happened to just giving them cash and
property?" or something similar. I could be wrong. It's late. Anyways...
a mechanic leaves tools, a shop, and capital. A ditch-digger leaves a
shovel, and capital. An author leaves behind the rights to his work
(though my thought is that it should expire after, say, 30 years). It's
just another form of property.
> >On top of that, as has been stated before, the ditch is something that
> >anybody can produce. How many people that you know could, say, write a
> >literary work on par with /Lord of the Rings/, /Catcher in the Rye/, or
> >/Brave New World/? How many could produce /Schindler's List/? How many
> >could paint like Boris Vallejo? How many could play the piano like
> >Vladimir Horowitz?
>
> How meany can draw like Kelly STriker Price? Most people I know have
> some deggry of creative talent. I mean its not all good
> stuff, most of what is covered by copyright is total dross.
>
But the total dross doesn't generate any income (except maybe
/Titanic/...) and thus doesn't matter in your arguments about supporting
your heirs, one way or the other. Then you can consider it something like
that decrepit old bureau dresser that nobody really wants but you have to
keep anyways because Dad loved it so much.
And if it's total dross as you say, soci
> >Think about that for a moment.
> >
> >Now, how many people do you know that could dig a ditch?
>
> Not many infact, most lack the streanth and stanima.
>
Maybe to dig a ditch quickly, yes. But if you go out and move, say, ten
or twenty shovelfuls of dirt a day, eventually you have a ditch, and it's
as good as any other ditch. But
>
> >> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
> >> have spacal privligers?
> >
> >What if you're talking about one of the many writers/artists who isn't
> >appreciated until after they die? HP Lovecraft, Emily Dickenson, etc etc
> >etc.
>
> Same thing about arcitects, there are meany great building that are
> not considered grat untill after people have grown to love them.
> Should these arcitects and engernears get the same post humourious
> rewards?
>
Bad parallel for the issue at hand. It would, I grant, be great for the
engineers and architects to receive posthumous compensation. If a new
version of the building were created, then the descendants of the
engineer/architect WOULD get rewards. If one isn't, well, the descendants
don't get anything either. Like, for example, I have a first-edition copy
of Shogun that I picked up for a buck at a library booksale. It is in
great shape, and obviously worth much more than a buck. Does James
Clavell's family get money for it? No, because that first one was already
sold (and sold again and again, until eventually I got it). But do they
get money for new copies that sell?
Yes.
Gary Akins
>> Your copyrights where given to you by society.
>
> No, it's granted me by law. Guaranteed, in fact.
Yes, but those laws weren't handed down on stone tablets from a burning
bush, or written across a mountainside in thirty-foot-high letters of fire.
The laws you refer to were written by "society" (or it's leaders, anyway)
on the premise that such guarantees would benefit society as a whole. It
is, therefore, entirely reasonable to discuss _changing_ those laws if
society - or individual members thereof - believes it is no longer
benefited by them as they currently exist. (_Breaking_ those laws as they
exist _before_ they're changed is another matter.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no virtue in suffering fools gladly, for it only encourages them to
persist in their foolishness." --Kehlog Albran
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~solarfox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LncrAdvncd
not considered grat untill after people have grown to love them.
Should these arcitects and engernears get the same post humourious
rewards? >>
Actually, they are.. Frank Llyod Wright's furnature designs, unbuilt plans and
other works are protected and licenced out, I belive the money thereby raised
are used to support the Talisesn East and West Schools
LncrAdvncd
Mixed bag.. I agree with the ISP "safe harbor" provisions, I hate the hoops I
have to jump through to notify the ISP though to take down some site that
posting my work without credit.
The rest of it seems to mainly benefit the people (or companies) who can afford
to add acess controls to their work. And since if you lose some degree of
protection if don't -enforce- your copyright..
But on the whole it's not bad.. but it's being abused allready to extend
leverage to areas that are outside of copyright law.
All in all what's called for is not more or less protection of works, but a
greater sociatal respect for the creative effort..
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <slrn9bhu62....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
[...]
>> The current spate of copyright violations is because copyrights have
>> been allowed to become unfairly powerfull under the DMCA and the Sony
>> Bono Copyright extention act.
>>
>I'd agree with that.
Yah!
>Personally, 30 or so years after the death of the creator or SO should be
>about right.
I would agrgue that 30 years the creation of the art should be fair
enough.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net> wrote:
>Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
>>> Your copyrights where given to you by society.
>>
>> No, it's granted me by law. Guaranteed, in fact.
>
> Yes, but those laws weren't handed down on stone tablets from a burning
>bush, or written across a mountainside in thirty-foot-high letters of fire.
>The laws you refer to were written by "society" (or it's leaders, anyway)
>on the premise that such guarantees would benefit society as a whole. It
>is, therefore, entirely reasonable to discuss _changing_ those laws if
>society - or individual members thereof - believes it is no longer
>benefited by them as they currently exist. (_Breaking_ those laws as they
>exist _before_ they're changed is another matter.)
Some would argue that braking an immoral law is a legitimate form of
protest.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <slrn9blms3....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
[...]
>> So? Do only creative people have the right to support there heirs?
>NOTE: HE DOESN'T OWN THE LAND. Once he dug the ditch and was paid for
>that, his connection to it was broken. Work For Hire.
So if you don't own the paper that you drew on then the rights to the
artwork belongs to the paper owner?
>Creative people leave more valuable things to support their heirs
>with.
Yes and thouse valuable things should belong to the world, so that
future creators can make use of them, just like current creators make
use of the great works of shakesfere and others.
>I believe it was you who said "What happened to just giving them cash and
>property?" or something similar. I could be wrong. It's late. Anyways...
>a mechanic leaves tools, a shop, and capital. A ditch-digger leaves a
>shovel, and capital.
And an artists leaves behind his desk, and other tools (I note that
meany artists have invested a great deal of money in there tools).
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:29:04 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Teachers are low payed and they create something as well. Should your
>> >> teachers get a cut of your wages for the rest of your life because
>> >> they gave you the knowlige that allows you work.
>> >
>> > No, that is not a valid example. Creating well-taught students is not the
>> >same thing as creating a sculpture or writing a play.
>>
>> Why not? There all infomation, one is stored on computer, the other
>> is stored inside the mind.
>
> Come on, let's get serious, shall we? Copyrights are specifically geared towards
>the creation of arts, and patents towards inventions. How does a student fall under
>either category!? Your argument is foolish and argumentative, and does not address
>the issue.
If the teachers proformence was recorded it would be considered
copyrightable. To me there is no diffrence between infomation
whatever form it takes.
[...]
>> At some point that right starts to discourage the creation of new art,
>> and at that point it should be lost.
>>
>
> As an artist, I have yet to see that proven; whereas I know the opposite to be
>true.
The prevention of the creation of fan art, and the preventing of
interesting other new arts being crated. I also note that there was
only two epsods of Dragon Half due to some sort of copyright dispute.
[...]
>> > Who says it doesn't exist?
>>
>> I didn't say it didn't exist, I said some feel that it shouldn't
>> exist. Fan sites get shut down.
>>
>
> Depends on the circumstances.
Do you aggry with me that creation of fan art should be permitted?
Felyne32k
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:30:57 -0800, Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >In article <slrn9blms3....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> >dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>
> [...]
>
> >> So? Do only creative people have the right to support there heirs?
>
> >NOTE: HE DOESN'T OWN THE LAND. Once he dug the ditch and was paid for
> >that, his connection to it was broken. Work For Hire.
>
> So if you don't own the paper that you drew on then the rights to the
> artwork belongs to the paper owner?
>
The paper has no substantiable value. Even vellum (actual hide-vellum,
not just vellum-textured Bristol or something) isn't expensive enough to
outvalue the theoretical value of art drawn on it (unless, I suppose,
you're talking about stick-figures or similarly crappy work). There is no
way you can justify saying that the ditch is more valuable than the land
that it occupies.
Of course, you should provide reasonable compensation for the paper, if
you're using something as expensive as vellum...
Note: It should be fairly obvious what work will be worth more than the
paper it's drawn on... you have to be pretty bad to have less resale
value than that one sheet, and pretty poor not to be able to compensate
even if you're bad.
> >Creative people leave more valuable things to support their heirs
> >with.
>
> Yes and thouse valuable things should belong to the world, so that
> future creators can make use of them, just like current creators make
> use of the great works of shakesfere and others.
>
Yes. Copyright should expire. I have said this elsewhere (and you've
agreed with me).
The rest of the post has lapsed into irrelevance in light of this point.
Being totally sleep-deprived for the past four days or so, I will now bid
you good-night.
Felyne32k
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> Some would argue that braking an immoral law is a legitimate form of
> protest.
>
In the spirit of agreeing, yes... And some pretty high company you're
keeping if you do...
Thoreau (who really started the concept with /Civil Disobedience/,
Ghandi, MLK Jr, Rosa Parks, Mandela, and on and on and on...
DishRoom1
dforosa wrote--
>> Some would argue that braking an immoral law is a legitimate form of
>> protest.
>>
>In the spirit of agreeing, yes... And some pretty high company you're
>keeping if you do...
>
>Thoreau (who really started the concept with /Civil Disobedience/,
>Ghandi, MLK Jr, Rosa Parks, Mandela, and on and on and on..
I don't know... Civil disobedience may be OK for a response to discrimation or
independence for a nation, but copyright law does not hurt people's civil
rights in any way.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>But creating a sculpture or writing a play, to continue the example, is
>bringing something fresh and new into the world, or at the very least a
>variation on something existing. For the most part, the teachers that
>I've had regurgitate textbook information
Yet a recording of the teachers teaching would be copyrightable.
[...]
>And, of course, it's arguable that the teachers are performing 'work
>under hire'. The universal cop-out.
And then the teachers teaching would be owned by the school. Face
facts children of Artists have an unjustifiable privalige that is not
awarded to any other sector of the community.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>>Thoreau (who really started the concept with /Civil Disobedience/,
>>Ghandi, MLK Jr, Rosa Parks, Mandela, and on and on and on..
>
>I don't know... Civil disobedience may be OK for a response to discrimation or
>independence for a nation, but copyright law does not hurt people's civil
>rights in any way.
The right to free speech, artistic and Academic freedom are
threatended by the current over extention of the copyright laws.
Scintology uses Copyright to silence critics, its impossable to quote
a segment of a DVD without braking the law.
Doug Winger
dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au wrote:
[Huge Snip]
The point that everyone here has been dancing around is the simple fact that
there is such a thing as Intellectual Property.
To indulge in metaphor, if I build a house on my land, it does not fall into
common use after a certain period of time nor after my death. Just because I'm
gone and done did that Final Departure bit and shuffled off this mortal coil
does not mean that my heirs must now move out and turn it over to public use.
They've inherited my +property+.
That bit about the ditch digger was utterly specious. He was being _paid_
for his work, unless he happened to be doing a little property improvement for
himself. So were those teachers, a point you seem to have utterly missed, or
simply have ignored.
Someone writes a novel, or paints a picture, or comes up with a new
production method or invents something new and unique. They have NOT been paid
for their efforts. Without the protection of patent and copyright others in a
much better position to market the new thingie are then free to take the
oringator's hard work- and it is hard work- and go off and make a mint with it
if they can, or sell it to the highest bidder, or claim it as their own,
leaving the originator blinking in shock- UNLESS the creator keeps it a
secret, acting out of good ol' self interest. Unless they're also lucky enough
to already have the capability of manufacturing and/or marketing their
invention, you can bet that that Great New Thing they've come up with is not
going to be seeing a lot of use improving the lot of society in general, if at
all.
Now you know where patents and copyrights came from. It's their property,
and protection of property under the law is a good thing, right? They're given
a period where they can go out and try to get paid for their work, licensing
the patent or selling the rights of publication or whatever it takes to pay
the bills that have piled up while they were busy _creating_ that thing, to
try and make a profit off of the sale of their _property_ if they so desire.
They've even made a deal with society in exchange for that protection so that,
after a certain period, it passes into the public domain.
The determination of what is a fair period of protection is where the
argument should solely lie. Even the GNU people make use of copyright laws to
assure that their efforts are treated as they intend them to be. Your dancing
around the very idea of copyright as protection- with some truly spurious
reasons as justification- because it strikes you as inconvenient and annoying
to you is what's brought me to write this.
People keep tossing that old saw, "Information wants to be free," around as
justification for acts that, if physcial property was involved, would
constitute grand theft, if not wholesale pillage. I knew of one person whose
entire life savings went up in a large puff of warez when he was foolish
enough to try and manufacture and sell drive backup software on his own. He
trusted that the quality, ease of use and care he'd invested in it would
assure that everyone would want it, and a price well under what would have
been charged if he'd simply sold the rights to a distributor would assure him
of sales. He was half right. Luckily, he obtained a high paying job right
after that, but the experience soured him enough so that I doubt _very_ much
he'll ever try to develop high quality software at dirt cheap prices again.
Here's something you've probably never thought about. Even if "information
wants to be free" is true, nobody said that there'd be free shipping with no
handling, assembly or installation charges.
- Doug
LncrAdvncd
>they wouldn't have this problem.
I think the same can be said on the other end of the argument as well. Fair
use can be as abused as copyright law.
LncrAdvncd
>> protest.
>>
>In the spirit of agreeing, yes... And some pretty high company you're
>keeping if you do...
>Thoreau (who really started the concept with /Civil Disobedience/,
>Ghandi, MLK Jr, Rosa Parks, Mandela, and on and on and on...
I'm all for civil disobedience, but I must also point out that all the people
you have mentiond accepted responsibliity for breaking those laws. Accepting
the concequences of breaking the laws is as much a part of civil disobedience
as is breaking the law..
I belive when a visiting friend asked Thoreau what he was doing in jail,
Thoreau responded by asking what his friend was doing outside.
The modern protest movements have some how managed to forget this.
LncrAdvncd
>interesting other new arts being crated. I also note that there was
>only two epsods of Dragon Half due to some sort of copyright dispute.
I think you vastly overrate the value of "fan art" and other derivitave work
to society. Copyright is a balance between the rights of the authors and the
interests -not the rights- of society, and fan art has long since been weighed
in the balance and found wanting. In any case it is not a total ban, there
are exceptions (such as parody) and you can allways make deals for the rights
w. the owner. Anime companies sell "one day" licences for Garage Kits at cons
in japan for example.
LncrAdvncd
I hate to say it, I'd disagre with -anything- less than the the life time of
the author. In addition to limiting the length of time a artist can profit
from a work, shortened terms also reduce the value of the work within that
period.
This is if all the diffrent rights are tied together, perhaps changing the law
to allow derivitive works after a given period would be a solution. Another
possible solution is to add a compulsory licencing scheme 10-20, where payment
is still required, but permission is not.
There are many diffrent ways that the laws can be reworked to make the
copyright situation more balenced, without throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
The real problem with releasing the rights to the public isn't the public's use
of the work to creatite derivitive works, but the proven tendancy of publishers
and the like to exploit an artist's work the instant the rights expire.
In any case the solution you propose would have no effect whatsoever to the
problems plaguing the situation now where works are redistributed, exploited,
and the like within weeks or months of their release..
LncrAdvncd
>tradition in the US before the MPAA and RIAA lobbied for the DMCA and won.
Yes, but I'm not to sure that the degree of error is as great as some claim..
Things will seesaw for a while now till it settles out. The RIAA and to a
lesser extent the MPAA will prob lose some clout as the artists move to more
independant buisness models. But the indy artists will still need protection,
mebbe even more (greater need, not greater protection) since they won't have
the bottemless coffers of the industry to fight with..
DishRoom1
>>The prevention of the creation of fan art, and the preventing of
>>interesting other new arts being crated. I also note that there was
>>only two epsods of Dragon Half due to some sort of copyright dispute.
>
>I think you vastly overrate the value of "fan art" and other derivitave
>work
>to society. Copyright is a balance between the rights of the authors and the
>interests -not the rights- of society, and fan art has long since been
>weighed
>in the balance and found wanting. In any case it is not a total ban, there
>are exceptions (such as parody) and you can allways make deals for the
>rights
>w. the owner. Anime companies sell "one day" licences for Garage Kits at
>cons
>in japan for example.
May I lend another example: Our favorite characters in our own fandom are
copyrighted by their artists or authors. I like to draw some fan art for some
of them,then send it publicly to the creators. but first I must get permission
from the creators to do so.
I like playing nice. :x) Furry artists' honor.
Felyne32k
dish...@aol.com says...
> I don't know... Civil disobedience may be OK for a response to discrimation or
> independence for a nation, but copyright law does not hurt people's civil
> rights in any way.
Neither, really, did the Mexican-American War (or at least not directly),
which Thoreau went to jail for, by not paying his poll tax, which he felt
was going towards funding said war. HD Thoreau didn't say anything about
civil rights specifically in his essay (or at least not that I remember).
He was saying that one should break morally unjust laws (and, yes, accept
the consequences for that).
Felyne32k
just...@speakeasy.net says...
> In article <slrn9bp1ab....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au wrote:
>
> [Huge Snip]
>
> The point that everyone here has been dancing around is the simple fact that
> there is such a thing as Intellectual Property.
<large snip>
Thank you for making the point that I've been trying to (but haven't been
able to articulate, probably on account of staying up entirely too late
doing calculus homework and watching Godzilla tapes, waking up too early
to watch Loony Toons reruns, and assorted garbage)
>
> Here's something you've probably never thought about. Even if "information
> wants to be free" is true, nobody said that there'd be free shipping with no
Well, as Bruce Sterling said... "Information wants you to gimme a hundred
dollars."
Felyne32k
lncra...@aol.comstar says...
> I'm all for civil disobedience, but I must also point out that all the people
> you have mentiond accepted responsibliity for breaking those laws. Accepting
> the concequences of breaking the laws is as much a part of civil disobedience
> as is breaking the law..
Of course. Did I say it wasn't?
>
> I belive when a visiting friend asked Thoreau what he was doing in jail,
> Thoreau responded by asking what his friend was doing outside.
Emerson, it was.
Felyne32k
lncra...@aol.comstar says...
> >I would agrgue that 30 years the creation of the art should be fair enough.
>
> I hate to say it, I'd disagre with -anything- less than the the life time of
> the author. In addition to limiting the length of time a artist can profit
> from a work, shortened terms also reduce the value of the work within that
> period.
Well, my original proposal was 30 years after the *death of the creator
or the creator's SO, whichever is later*. DFormosa might have misread it,
or mistyped what he meant... <shrug> Outside of that... pretty well
thought-out.
Or I'm too tired to argue. Not sure.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <slrn9bp1ab....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au wrote:
>
>[Huge Snip]
>
> The point that everyone here has been dancing around is the simple fact that
>there is such a thing as Intellectual Property.
Um, there isn't. Intellectual property is a legal fiction. The most
you have is a limited goverment granted montopoly.
> To indulge in metaphor, if I build a house on my land, it does not fall into
>common use after a certain period of time nor after my death.
True, but interlectal property is supposed to expire in this way.
[...]
> The determination of what is a fair period of protection is where the
>argument should solely lie. Even the GNU people make use of copyright laws to
>assure that their efforts are treated as they intend them to be.
If you read the GNU properganda they use copyright only as a tempory
mesure, they wouldn't need to use copyright unless copyright existed.
[...]
> People keep tossing that old saw, "Information wants to be free," around as
>justification for acts that, if physcial property was involved, would
>constitute grand theft, if not wholesale pillage.
Its not "Information wants to be free," but "I wish to free(liberate)
information"
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>>The prevention of the creation of fan art, and the preventing of
>>interesting other new arts being crated. I also note that there was
>>only two epsods of Dragon Half due to some sort of copyright dispute.
>
>I think you vastly overrate the value of "fan art" and other derivitave work
>to society.
I point to Negative Land as an example, even though what they where
doing was parody and most likely protected under the current copyright
laws they still couldn't afford to fight U2 and the RIAA.
> Copyright is a balance between the rights of the authors and the
>interests -not the rights- of society, and fan art has long since been weighed
>in the balance and found wanting.
The only reson that fan art has been found wanting is that it isn't a
powerfull corporation.
> In any case it is not a total ban, there
>are exceptions (such as parody) and you can allways make deals for the rights
>w. the owner.
Ever tried to get a licence for fan art from say warner brothers?
Some fans tried it and where flatly rejected.
> Anime companies sell "one day" licences for Garage Kits at cons
>in japan for example.
The Japanise seem to have a diffrent view re fan art.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:15:22 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> >> Why are you spacail.
> >
> > It's not a matter of being special, so don't go trying to make a
> >special case out of it.
>
> How isn't it spacail? IP is the only sit on your hands and let the
> money roll in system I know of.
What the hell are you talking about!? I sure as hell wasn't sitting on my hands
when I first created the artwork. (And if I have input to later reproductions, then I
may not be sitting on them later either.) If the work still has a monetary value years
after I first create it, then why shouldn't I continue to profit on it if I so wish?
Most works bring in very little monetary return to begin with, and take a long time to
really reap a worthwhile profit for the work put into it.
>
> >> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
> >> have spacal privligers?
> >
> > What special priveleges!? I earned that copyright by creating a
> > work of art.
>
> The way you can countinue earning from IP after your dead. Your
> ability to control the free flow of infomation. These things are unquie
> to IP.
>
What free flow of information? If I didn't create that specific information, it
wouldn't be there to flow in the first place. At any rate, this is a specious
argument; this isn't information as in the sense of hard data, as in science or
mathematical or historical references; I wouldn't be impacting on any of that at all.
Only on those works that I created.
>
> [...]
>
> >> > Either way: it's my work, my copyrights, my choice.
> >>
> >> Your copyrights where given to you by society.
> >
> > No, it's granted me by law. Guaranteed, in fact.
>
> In a democracy laws are created by society, and they can be removed by
> society as well.
>
Possible, but not very likely. And if such an occurence threatens to come to pass,
I will excercise my democratic right to fight to retain the copyright laws.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:30:57 -0800, Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >In article <slrn9blms3....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> >dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
>
> [...]
>
> >> So? Do only creative people have the right to support there heirs?
>
> >NOTE: HE DOESN'T OWN THE LAND. Once he dug the ditch and was paid for
> >that, his connection to it was broken. Work For Hire.
>
> So if you don't own the paper that you drew on then the rights to the
> artwork belongs to the paper owner?
Another foolish argument. The two examples are not compatible.
> >Creative people leave more valuable things to support their heirs
> >with.
>
> Yes and thouse valuable things should belong to the world, so that
> future creators can make use of them, just like current creators make
> use of the great works of shakesfere and others.
Who -says- they should belong to the world!? The world had no direct input
on what I draw or write; in most cases I write or draw what -I- want, not
specifically what the world wants. And any future creators who want to make use
of my efforts are guilty of being uncreative leaches; let them learn how to write
and draw their own artworks. I don't mind that they may want to use my work as
inspiration if they so desire, but they have no -right- to expect me to simply
create and turn it freely over to them on demand.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> >On top of that, as has been stated before, the ditch is something that
> >anybody can produce. How many people that you know could, say, write a
> >literary work on par with /Lord of the Rings/, /Catcher in the Rye/, or
> >/Brave New World/? How many could produce /Schindler's List/? How many
> >could paint like Boris Vallejo? How many could play the piano like
> >Vladimir Horowitz?
>
> How meany can draw like Kelly STriker Price? Most people I know have
> some deggry of creative talent. I mean its not all good
> stuff, most of what is covered by copyright is total dross.
Irrelevant.
> >> Why not do it like other people and leave them money? Why should you
> >> have spacal privligers?
> >
> >What if you're talking about one of the many writers/artists who isn't
> >appreciated until after they die? HP Lovecraft, Emily Dickenson, etc etc
> >etc.
>
> Same thing about arcitects, there are meany great building that are
> not considered grat untill after people have grown to love them.
> Should these arcitects and engernears get the same post humourious
> rewards?
>
So far as I know, they do. Architecture is copyrightable. Inventions are
patentable.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2001 10:26:07 GMT, DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>Thoreau (who really started the concept with /Civil Disobedience/,
> >>Ghandi, MLK Jr, Rosa Parks, Mandela, and on and on and on..
> >
> >I don't know... Civil disobedience may be OK for a response to discrimation or
> >independence for a nation, but copyright law does not hurt people's civil
> >rights in any way.
>
> The right to free speech, artistic and Academic freedom are
> threatended by the current over extention of the copyright laws.
Bullshit. My wanting to retain control over my works does not threaten any
artistic freedoms whatsoever. In fact, just the opposite is true, because if any
work I do automatically becomes public domain and I'm not able to make so much as a
nickel off of it, what real motivation do I have for continuing with it?
Might as well dig a ditch.
> Scintology uses Copyright to silence critics, its impossable to quote
> a segment of a DVD without braking the law.
You're going to have to give some sort of concrete example on the Scientology
thing. I've heard that they hound their critics, but I simply don't see where they
can use Copyright to silence criticism; in fact, it would be a violation of Federal
Law for them to silence outright criticism. (Interference with the the First
Amendment Right to Free Speech.)
And it's not impossible at all to quote a DVD without breaking the law; that's
what the Fair Use clause is specifically for.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it is not. If you guys can't provide serious arguments, then don't even
> > try.
>
> I'm curious to hear what you have to say on the DMCA...
>
Frankly, I'd be curious to know what the DMCA -is-.