Copyright Violations Plague the Net
t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> In article <37ek4j$4...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> gwan...@u.washington.edu (just another theatre geek) writes:
>>In article <37eh2t$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, <t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu> wrote:
>>>But the bottom line is that it's up to the owners of the copyright to
>>>pursue civil action against violators of the copyright. If they aren't
>>>willing to do that, there's no incentive for violators to stop.
>> Who says that Paramount isn't pursuing civil action?
> GOD I hope so.
One can hope, but don't hold your breath. PLAYBOY isn't rounding up all the
"evil" posters on ABPE who steal their material. Perhaps Paramount will
punish those who have stolen the Star Trek script and posted it into the
so called BIG SEVEN heirarchies. (Perhaps Karl Denninger can help out).
But you guys/gals do raise a good point. Copyright Violations are a major
problem for all newsgroups on the net, not just abpe.
Terry
just another theatre geek
The problem here is that it's possible that Paramount is
satisfied with issuing a stop-and-desist order; they're not necessarily
going after punitive damages if the copyright violater manages to stop
his violation. And from their point of view, this accomplishes their
purpose with a minimum of damage.
Note that this is the action of a corporation bending over
backwards to treat their fans NICELY, allowing violators of their
copyright to get off lightly without incurring court costs, etc. They may
not necessarily want to "make an example out of someone."
Naturally, net.bozos are going to interpret this as Paramount is
not defending their rights. And if Paramount DID decide to bring suit
against one person to "make an example", these bozos would scream bloody
murder about "money-grubbing, heartless corporations."
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> Naturally, net.bozos are going to interpret this as Paramount is
> not defending their rights. And if Paramount DID decide to bring suit
> against one person to "make an example", these bozos would scream bloody
> murder about "money-grubbing, heartless corporations."
You bet they would. They'd scream that they're being "censored" as well.
They'd hold their breath until they turned blue, as well.
It still wouldn't change the fact that those who steal copyrighted material
are responsible for their own actions.
This problem isn't just an isolated one, either. The entire net is entrenched
with this mentality.
Terry
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
Gosh, then let's just do away with all copyright law. Patent law, too.
Binesh thinks intellectual property is Bad; screw the Constitution. Begone!
There, that's taken care of.
Now, Binesh, kindly enlighten us as to how all the people who used to
create intellectual property for a living are supposed to support
themselves? Who is going to manufacture nifty gizmos that can no longer
be patented? Who is going to print books that can no longer be copyrighted?
And how are you going to entertain yourself, now that all the screenwriters
are doing something else to make ends meet and no longer have the time to
write?
>laws either. And, I don't think these laws will ever survive on the
>internet, where copying is essentially unstoppable. Something new will
>have to be thought of, as much as people don't like to hear this...
Something new is being thought of, and I'm quite sure you won't like it.
Take a peek at the Intellectual Property Working Group's report on the
NII. It's long (~120 pages), and available via anonymous ftp from
comments.uspto.gov in /pub/nii-ip. If anything, the copyright laws could
get _stronger_, not weaker, in the future.
Gina
Rytis Grybauskas
>GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu (Gina Goff) wrote:
>>bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>>>And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
>>Gosh, then let's just do away with all copyright law. Patent law, too.
>>Binesh thinks intellectual property is Bad; screw the Constitution. Begone!
>
>Now where does he make *that* conclusion?
>>There, that's taken care of.
>
>>Now, Binesh, kindly enlighten us as to how all the people who used to
>>create intellectual property for a living are supposed to support
>>themselves?
Ummm... what do we call a library then? Booksellers/Publishers should
be pulling their hair out that these government funded organizations
but ONE copy of a book/video/cd and then LEND THEM OUT FOR FREE!
NO ROYALTIES! Sounds like major pirating to me.
Yet they are totally accepted by society. I think these estimates you
occasionally hear about in the press about the billions of dollars lost
due to software piracy are a bunch of statistical bullshit. If these
people didn't get this software for FREE, THEY WOULDN'T BUY IT ANYWAY!
Binesh Bannerjee
: In article <37mg6k$a...@panix.com>
: bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
:
: >Did I ever say that BECAUSE the FSF exists, other people should
: >NOT charge for their programs? Nope, doesn't look like I said that...
: >What I said was, it is NOT true that if people were not paid for
: >programming, no one would ever program. Same goes for write, for
: >paint, for whatever the hell else you want to talk about...
:
: Then I don't understand why you entered this thread in the first place.
: The script was not given away freely; it was stolen. Or do you think
: it's okay for authors/programmers/whatever to charge for their work, as
: long as it's also okay for people to steal it?
:
I think you forgot that I said that it was wrong for the script to be posted
in the first place.
My only gripe is that I think ONCE posted, that everyone should be able
to see the script. It was posted on a public medium, perhaps criminally,
but just because someone viewed what was criminally posted, doesn't make
them a criminal, and if they decided well, I viewed it, and I'll take a
snapshot of it, well, that doesn't make them a criminal, and if they take
those snapshots and say OK, now I'll give them away to whomever wants to
see them, well, that shouldn't make them criminal either.
I have no problem with prosecuting the guy who made the initial posting...
Binesh
--
* Will sit by a pool and relax and have fun for money. *
Hey... it's going to work someday...
Binesh Bannerjee
Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain
By Alfie Kohn
Special to the Boston Globe
[reprinted with permission of the author
from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
In the laboratory, rats get Rice Krispies. In the classroom the top
students get A's, and in the factory or office the best workers get
raises. It's an article of faith for most of us that rewards promote
better performance.
But a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as
ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that
rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance
involves creativity.
A related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task -
the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake - typically
declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.
If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes to
be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity
will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right.
With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence
of intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted
among psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly
be squelching interest and discouraging innovation among workers,
students and artists.
The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is
based on a variety of studies, which have come up with such findings
as these: Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely
to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of
it. Teenagers offered rewards for playing word games enjoy the games
less and do not do as well as those who play with no rewards.
Employees who are praised for meeting a manager's expectations suffer
a drop in motivation.
Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed
by Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis
University. In a paper published early last year on her most recent
study, she reported on experiments involving elementary school and
college students. Both groups were asked to make "silly" collages.
The young children were also asked to invent stories.
The least-creative projects, as rated by several teachers, were done
by those students who had contracted for rewards. "It may be that
commissioned work will, in general, be less creative than work that is
done out of pure interest," Amabile said.
In 1985, Amabile asked 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston
University to write poetry. Some students then were given a list of
extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were
given a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with
words, satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group
was not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.
The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only
wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent
poets, but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards,
Amabile says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative
tasks, including higher-level problem-solving. "The more complex the
activity, the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward," she said.
But other research shows that artists are by no means the only ones
affected.
In one study, girls in the fifth and sixth grades tutored younger
children much less effectively if they were promised free movie
tickets for teaching well. The study, by James Gabarino, now
president of Chicago's Erikson Institute for Advanced Studies in Child
Development, showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to
communicate ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in
the end than those who were not rewarded.
Such findings call into question the widespread belief that money is
an effective and even necessary way to motivate people. They also
challenge the behaviorist assumption that any activity is more likely
to occur if it is rewarded. Amabile says her research "definitely
refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly conditioned."
But Kenneth McGraw, associate professor of psychology at the
University of Mississippi, cautions that this does not mean
behaviorism itself has been invalidated. "The basic principles of
reinforcement and rewards certainly work, but in a restricted context"
- restricted, that is, to tasks that are not especially interesting.
Researchers offer several explanations for their surprising findings
about rewards and performance.
First, rewards encourage people to focus narrowly on a task, to do it
as quickly as possible and to take few risks. "If they feel that
'this is something I hve to get through to get the prize,' the're
going to be less creative," Amabile said.
Second, people come to see themselves as being controlled by the
reward. They feel less autonomous, and this may interfere with
performance. "To the extent one's experience of being
self-determined is limited," said Richard Ryan, associate psychology
professor at the University of Rochester, "one's creativity will be
reduced as well."
Finally, extrinsic rewards can erode intrinsic interest. People who
see themselves as working for money, approval or competitive success
find their tasks less pleasurable, and therefore do not do them as
well.
The last explanation reflects 15 years of work by Ryan's mentor at the
University of Rochester, Edward Deci. In 1971, Deci showed that
"money may work to buy off one's intrinsic motivation for an activity"
on a long-term basis. Ten years later, Deci and his colleagues
demonstrated that trying to best others has the same effect. Students
who competed to solve a puzzle quickly were less likely than those who
were not competing to keep working at it once the experiment was over.
Control plays role
There is general agreement, however, that not all rewards have the
same effect. Offering a flat fee for participating in an experiment -
similar to an hourly wage in the workplace - usually does not reduce
intrinsic motivation. It is only when the rewards are based on
performing a given task or doing a good job at it - analogous to
piece-rate payment and bonuses, respectively - that the problem
develops.
The key, then, lies in how a reward is experienced. If we come to
view ourselves as working to get something, we will no longer find
that activity worth doing in its own right.
There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An
elderly man, harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally
devises a scheme. He offered to pay each child a dollar if they would
all return Tuesday and yell their insults again. They did so eagerly
and received the money, but he told them he could only pay 25 cents on
Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him again and collected their
quarters, he informed them that Thursday's rate would be just a penny.
"Forget it," they said - and never taunted him again.
Means to and end
In a 1982 study, Stanford psychologist Mark L. Lepper showed that any
task, no matter how enjoyable it once seemed, would be devalued if it
were presented as a means rather than an end. He told a group of
preschoolers they could not engage in one activity they liked until
they first took part in another. Although they had enjoyed both
activities equally, the children came to dislike the task that was a
prerequisite for the other.
It should not be surprising that when verbal feedback is experienced
as controlling, the effect on motivation can be similar to that of
payment. In a study of corporate employees, Ryan found that those who
were told, "Good, you're doing as you /should/" were "significantly
less intrinsically motivated than those who received feedback
informationally."
There's a difference, Ryan says, between saying, "I'm giving you this
reward because I recognize the value of your work" and "You're getting
this reward because you've lived up to my standards."
A different but related set of problems exists in the case of
creativity. Artists must make a living, of course, but Amabile
emphasizes that "the negative impact on creativity of working for
rewards can be minimized" by playing down the significance of these
rewards and trying not to use them in a controlling way. Creative
work, the research suggests, cannot be forced, but only allowed to
happen.
/Alfie Kohn, a Cambridge, MA writer, is the author of "No Contest: The
Case Against Competition," recently published by Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston, MA. ISBN 0-395-39387-6. /
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>Did I ever say that BECAUSE the FSF exists, other people should
>NOT charge for their programs? Nope, doesn't look like I said that...
>What I said was, it is NOT true that if people were not paid for
>programming, no one would ever program. Same goes for write, for
>paint, for whatever the hell else you want to talk about...
Then I don't understand why you entered this thread in the first place.
The script was not given away freely; it was stolen. Or do you think
it's okay for authors/programmers/whatever to charge for their work, as
long as it's also okay for people to steal it?
>of wealth, I consider yours a very sad existence indeed... And, I
A mountain of wealth? So either we give it away for free or we're
trying to accumulate a mountain of wealth? What about all those poor
schmoes in the middle ground, who create intellectual property to pay
the rent, buy groceries, fix the car, send their kids to college, etc.?
They love their work, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be paid
for it...
Gina
-D.WELLS
>bla...@du.edu (Blanche Cohen) wrote:
>>Freedom of information is one thing. Do NOT attempt to equate it with
>>intellectual property - they are in no way related.
>Really? Then how do you define information, and how intelectual property?
Johan makes an interesting point here. Where do we draw the line? I
completely agree that posting the script is a violation of copyright
laws. Is a long, detailed spoiler review of the movie with lots of
long quotations a violation? At what point is the line crossed?
The image of the Enterprise is supposedly copyrighted, but how high
does the quality of that image have to be before it becomes a violation?
Posting a GIF of the Enterprise taken from the TV show is probably a
violation. On the other hand, if someone makes an ASCII art drawing of the
Enterprise and posts it to the net, is that a violation?
If the net is to police itself and stay on the right side of the law,
we will need to know these things.
David R. Wells
"There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells
with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | Email: drw...@hogpa.att.com
DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for AT&T, and they don't speak for me.
Doug Checketts
This thread is very long, and I have read more than half of it.
Only the thieving, intellectually-devoid idiots who are used to
sucking off the creative efforts of other people who actually
produce something special, e.g., unique, would ever deign to
produce this communist drivel. I am pissed.
If an Edison-type person takes the time, money and effort (not to mention
the risk) to produce a light bulb, these same dweeboids now want in this
invention in the public domain. Why? 'Cause it benefits them with NO
EFFORT or EXPENSE, or RISK. Find a Communist country you liberal,
non-producing clam-heads. This is America. Effort and risk should be
rewarded, not pirated by blood-sucking parasites like you.
I'm a risk-taking programmer, BTW, who has a software company, and am just
trying to make a buck, like everyone else. My shit ain't ever gonna land
on the Net, and if it does, I will seek redress, provided the communists
like you bloodsucking-non-producing-idiots haven't taken over by then.
Fuck you losers, who won't pay, can't pay, and expect not to pay.
Cheers.
:)
--
Binesh Bannerjee
: In article <37mj7j$o...@panix.com>
: bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
:
: >
: >STUDIES FIND REWARD OFTEN NO MOTIVATOR
:
: Congratulations on continuing to miss the point. Things like copyrights
: and patents make it financially feasible for people to do the work they
: love; they enable, not reward.
Why congratulations to you too, for failing to miss my point.
Here, I'll enumerate them. And, then you can pick them apart.
I said A. That the initial posting of the script was WRONG.
B. That each EXTRA copy of the script produces no extra
damage to Paramount.
C. (Unrelated to the previous 2 statements)
Money is not necessarily the sole motivator of people
who create anything.
I only brought up point C, because Blanche said without copyrights
to protect the monetary interests of the people who write software,
nobody would write software. Nobody would support software etc.
And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
Paramount loses per each extra copy.
But, if you tell me that each copy is lost revenue because those
people would have bought the script otherwise, this is false,
because I for one, would NOT have bought the script if it wasn't
free. And, I'd bet that those who wanted the script and would have
paid for it, would still want a legitimate copy. Tho, I cant attest
to the second statement....
Binesh
:
: Gina
:
: P.S. If you'd like to insist that they're rewards, be my guest, but I'll
: laugh in your face. My dad's got forty-some-odd patents, and became _more_
: productive, not less, as his career progressed.
t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> Explain Dickens. He made more money selling his stories in America, without
> copyright, than he did in England, with copyright. The structure of the
> American market was such that there was high demand, which fell off
> rapidly after first publication.
Explain Stephen Foster. He died pennyless as disreputable publishers stole
his music and sold it to the public as fast as he could write it.
Terry
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>I said A. That the initial posting of the script was WRONG.
wallet stolen by someone, I don't assume it's okay to steal his watch, too.
> B. That each EXTRA copy of the script produces no extra
> damage to Paramount.
distributors months ago. Apparently, they don't share your opinion of
the situation.
> C. (Unrelated to the previous 2 statements)
> Money is not necessarily the sole motivator of people
> who create anything.
>
>I only brought up point C, because Blanche said without copyrights
>to protect the monetary interests of the people who write software,
>nobody would write software. Nobody would support software etc.
to do that on a full-time basis would have to be independently wealthy.
Yes, some scripts and some software would get written, but much, much
less because would-be creators would be flipping burgers at Joe's to
pay the rent.
>And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
>Paramount loses per each extra copy.
sure they'd be glad to talk to you.
>But, if you tell me that each copy is lost revenue because those
>people would have bought the script otherwise, this is false,
>because I for one, would NOT have bought the script if it wasn't
>free. And, I'd bet that those who wanted the script and would have
>paid for it, would still want a legitimate copy. Tho, I cant attest
>to the second statement....
prove actual loss, just potential loss. And there are statutory damages
unrelated to loss.
Gina
Binesh Bannerjee
: You bet they would. They'd scream that they're being "censored" as well.
: They'd hold their breath until they turned blue, as well.
: It still wouldn't change the fact that those who steal copyrighted material
: are responsible for their own actions.
: This problem isn't just an isolated one, either. The entire net is entrenched
: with this mentality.
Of course it is... Ask members of the FSF...
Copyleft! Copyleft! Copyleft!
As well it should be. Everything would go so much more smoothly
without the microsofts etc, preventing any free distribution of
information. Talk to Sun Microsystems.. they have the right idea...
And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
laws either. And, I don't think these laws will ever survive on the
internet, where copying is essentially unstoppable. Something new will
have to be thought of, as much as people don't like to hear this...
Copyright violations will become more and more prevalent as everyone
has better access to copying technology. And, all the bitching and moaning
in the world will never change that.
Take for example CDs... I have a large collection of CDs... I plan to
get a DAT... I think it's foolish for the recording industry to think
that there will not be people who won't copy the CDs... And, they weren't
which is why there's SCMS and why there isn't widespread acceptance of
DATs... But, even when I get a DAT, I will not be pirating CDs...
Why? because the cover, and the artwork surrounding the CD is important
to me. So, this is an effective means by the recording industry to prevent
me from copying CDs... Same goes for movies... I have a large collection
of tapes... I wouldn't copy them, even though I could, because the packaging
is important to me.
And, I'd guess those people who wouldn have bought the script anyway, are
probably still going to buy the script, because the legitimate script has
value, but the hundreds of thousands of illegitimate copies have no value,
at least to those who would have bought the script in the first place.
And, if you think that everyone who got a copy of the script WOULD have
bought the script, you're only kidding yourself.
Binesh
: Terry
Haakon Styri
: Haakon Styri (st...@balder.nta.no) wrote:
: Did I ever say that BECAUSE the FSF exists, other people should
: NOT charge for their programs? Nope, doesn't look like I said that...
Not word by word, no you didn't. But, there's a strong link between
the concept of intellectual property and being able to make a living
creating works.
: What I said was, it is NOT true that if people were not paid for
: programming, no one would ever program. Same goes for write, for
: paint, for whatever the hell else you want to talk about...
Sure, amateurs will always do their stuff. Their probably very
lucky getting their funds from something else. However, copyright
is, as I've mentioned, more than money.
: And, if you only do what you do, in order to accumulate a mountain
: of wealth, I consider yours a very sad existence indeed... And, I
: don't expect my pity to change anyone's mind either, so don't even
: bother with the stupid little "Oh no! Binesh feels sorry for me!
: what ever will I do?" lines...
No need for that. I enjoy what I do very much. Thus your "if" isn't
called for and I'll not bother you with the stupid lines.
---
Haakon Styri
Gina Goff
t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Gina Goff <GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I didn't say that authors wouldn't write. I said they'd have trouble
>>supporting themselves by writing. Shakespeare wrote plays to produce
>
>Explain Dickens. He made more money selling his stories in America, without
>copyright, than he did in England, with copyright. The structure of the
surprised. Or were whatever statistics you're using normalized for
population? And do they take into account whether the work was sold in
book form or serialized in the papers?
Gina
Binesh Bannerjee
: Binaresh:
: As well it should be. Everything would go so much more smoothly
: without the microsofts etc, preventing any free distribution of
: information. Talk to Sun Microsystems.. they have the right idea...
: And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
: laws either. And, I don't think these laws will ever survive on the
: internet, where copying is essentially unstoppable. Something new will
: have to be thought of, as much as people don't like to hear this...
: Response:
: Would you care to explain more about Sun's philosophy and methods?
Well, from what I've read, Sun was one of the only companies who
believed that reverse engineering, or decompiling an existing program
should be allowed by the Japanese... They claimed that allowing
decompilation of programs, would make products more ... forgot
the word they used, but basically they said it would make all
products kind of standard... They also didn't care too much for
"look and feel" type patents... From what I've read. I could
try and dig up the exact NYT article, from which I'm basing this
judgement.
: Until then, I'll withold comment on this topic.
: However, intellectual property laws are to protect the creator and to
: provide motivation to develop new things. If I write a really great
: piece of software (or write a book or compose a symphony) and it gets
: distributed without my permission and outside my control, what reason
: do I have to continue creating? I will have NO reason to fix bugs or
: improve the software. I will have NO reason to write another book. And
: neither will anyone else.
This is absolutely NOT true.
Well, maybe not ABSOLUTELY... But, definitely this is not
the whole truth.
Believe it or not, some people will continue creating whatever
it is they were creating even if there is free distribution of
their work. Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to
have their work distributed in this manner. As I said, ask the
FSF... Tell the FSF that they have no reason to fix bugs...
Gee, I wonder about the large base of freely distributed, or
shareware stuff that's out there... A lot of people actually
love what they do, and would do it even if they weren't getting
paid. And, the world would be a much better place that way.
Anyway, the real point is that all these laws, are quickly becoming
pointless... As an example, I'll point to whichever site it was
that used to scan the Billboard Top whatevers and put them up as
finger info... Billboard strongarmed them into no longer doing it
but, who's to stop me from posting it on the internet weekly via
an anonymous remailer? (And, thank god for those too!)
: Freedom of information is one thing. Do NOT attempt to equate it with
: intellectual property - they are in no way related.
Having a law with no means of enforcing the law, is just as good
as not having the law.
Binesh
: --
: bc
: "It might be interesting to explore useless for a while" [DS9]
: "Chocolate is a serious business" [TNG]
Blanche Cohen
As well it should be. Everything would go so much more smoothly
without the microsofts etc, preventing any free distribution of
information. Talk to Sun Microsystems.. they have the right idea...
And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
laws either. And, I don't think these laws will ever survive on the
internet, where copying is essentially unstoppable. Something new will
have to be thought of, as much as people don't like to hear this...
Response:
Would you care to explain more about Sun's philosophy and methods?
Until then, I'll withold comment on this topic.
However, intellectual property laws are to protect the creator and to
provide motivation to develop new things. If I write a really great
piece of software (or write a book or compose a symphony) and it gets
distributed without my permission and outside my control, what reason
do I have to continue creating? I will have NO reason to fix bugs or
improve the software. I will have NO reason to write another book. And
neither will anyone else.
Freedom of information is one thing. Do NOT attempt to equate it with
intellectual property - they are in no way related.
--
Binesh Bannerjee
johanw
>However, intellectual property laws are to protect the creator and to
>provide motivation to develop new things. If I write a really great
>piece of software (or write a book or compose a symphony) and it gets
>distributed without my permission and outside my control, what reason
>do I have to continue creating? I will have NO reason to fix bugs or
>improve the software. I will have NO reason to write another book. And
>neither will anyone else.
What reason had D.K. Knuth to write TeX? And Eberhard Mattes to implement
a really superb series of drivers for it? All public domain software.
Much superior to all the comercial trash of Wordpervert and so. Why does
the FSF exist? And Linux? And for comercial vendors: everyone knows that
the good old CBM 64 games were illegally copied as hell. But they were
still written in vast numbers, even when the machine was completely
outdated. This seemed a rather lucrative bussines to me.
The current trend in programming is that programs are getting more
complicated and more buggy because the writers have to circumvent all
nasty copyright nonsense from other vendors. Just see the Apple case
with it's interface look. Or watch the nonsense with the f*cking MIT
version of PGP.
>Freedom of information is one thing. Do NOT attempt to equate it with
>intellectual property - they are in no way related.
Really? Then how do you define information, and how intelectual property?
Johan Wevers.
johanw
>t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>: This problem isn't just an isolated one, either. The entire net is
>:entrenched with this mentality.
>Of course it is... Ask members of the FSF...
>Copyleft! Copyleft! Copyleft!
Yes, right. And see: the non-commercial software is usually *much* better
than the comercial crap. I'm not breaking software copyrights with my
word processor because I use emTeX: a good implementation of TeX and
excelent drivers, completly free. I've seen comercial versions wich were
not half as good.
>As well it should be. Everything would go so much more smoothly
>without the microsofts etc, preventing any free distribution of
>information. Talk to Sun Microsystems.. they have the right idea...
Not to mention the ridiculous claims Apple made on it's Macintoy interface.
This kind of "("intelectual" property)" (yes, recursive commas) really
stops all progress.
>And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
>laws either. And, I don't think these laws will ever survive on the
>internet, where copying is essentially unstoppable.
This does not only count for the internet. Modern copyshops gives sometimes
better quality than the original book.
>Copyright violations will become more and more prevalent as everyone
>has better access to copying technology. And, all the bitching and moaning
>in the world will never change that.
Right.
>And, if you think that everyone who got a copy of the script WOULD have
>bought the script, you're only kidding yourself.
Were have I heard that more... Oh yes, when they sued a 12yr old kid for
having $10,000 worth of computer games. He surely would have bought al
that...
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers | The only nature of reality
joh...@xs4all.nl | is physics.
johanw
>bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>>And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
>Gosh, then let's just do away with all copyright law. Patent law, too.
>Binesh thinks intellectual property is Bad; screw the Constitution. Begone!
Now where does he make *that* conclusion?
>There, that's taken care of.
>Now, Binesh, kindly enlighten us as to how all the people who used to
>create intellectual property for a living are supposed to support
>themselves?
>Who is going to manufacture nifty gizmos that can no longer
>be patented?
Enough people, although there are large copying industries in Asia. Some
competition increases quality. See the Rubik's cube for example. You
could choose between cheep crap cubes and expensive good ones. I bought
a good one (because I couldn't get a bad one back in 1:30 min).
>Who is going to print books that can no longer be copyrighted?
Who does write books now there's a copier on each street corner? A lot
of people, I think.
>And how are you going to entertain yourself, now that all the screenwriters
>are doing something else to make ends meet and no longer have the time to
>write?
Perhaps some people still want to see the movie after all. The copying of
videotapes has not have an measurable impact on the production of movies
as far as I can tell.
>Something new is being thought of, and I'm quite sure you won't like it.
>Take a peek at the Intellectual Property Working Group's report on the
>NII. It's long (~120 pages), and available via anonymous ftp from
>comments.uspto.gov in /pub/nii-ip.
And this may _freely_ be distributed? How ugly. :-)
>If anything, the copyright laws could
>get _stronger_, not weaker, in the future.
Mwa, laws without the possibility to enforce them are useless. Just see
the legislation in the USA. Alcohol consumption was even higher then.
Johan Wevers
Binesh Bannerjee
: Oops - I confused the FSF with the EFF. My mistake, beg pardon. You also
: mentioned:
: "And, yeah, I hear what you say about well, just because SOME people decide
: to give away their stuff, doesn't make it so that everyone should be able
: to take everyone elses stuff... I brought up the FSF in response to your
: saying that in essence every one who does anything, does it, because they're
: enslaved to the almighty dollar. It simply is not true."
: I agree - enslavement is not complete. But I only do software development
: when someone pays me. My hobbies do not pay the bills, wish they did.
: However, I still abide by my comment that without copyright protection and
: the protection it provides (if invoked) there would be much less new
: development and creativity in the arts, software, any area where intellectual
: property is the end product.
I don't know what your hobby is, but for me, my hobby IS software development.
And, obviously, in the area of software development, there are plenty of
people who would go on creating, even if you wouldn't without a monetary
incentive... Linux, FSF, PGP etc etc etc...
How about RSA technology? From what limited perspective I have, it seems
as though, this company has essentially patented an algorithm, simply
a more complicated version of patenting multiplication... Is this
beneficial to anyone BUT the company? And, if you think that knowledge
such as this should be patented, well, we disagree there. There are also
patents for DNA patterns, these days, which I consider equally ridiculous.
Anyway, people should be allowed to keep or not keep whatever secrets
of their own that they want... So, OK... Paramount should go after
whomever posted the script initially to the net. But, the secrets
already out. Until someone tells me EXACTLY what the incremental
damage is to Paramount is in my making more and more copies for people
who wouldn't have bought the script anyway is, I'll continue to do
so. (Thank God for anonymous remailers! And, NO I was NOT the one
who posted the story on the net AGAIN under the FAILED nick from
the anonymous remailer...) But, if someone tells me the exact
damage in tangible terms I'll stop. (Don't tell me that I'm hurting
Paramounts feelings, or of "potential loss")
: As for the NYT article, I'll go check on the journal citations at the
: library here. Sounds interesting.
OKee! tell us what you find!
Gina Goff
shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
>GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu (Gina Goff) writes:
>
>>and patents make it financially feasible for people to do the work they
>>love; they enable, not reward.
>
>cause reinvention of the wheel as people who are not allowed to build on
>the work of others must create yet more non-standard interfaces and API's.
>This is to say nothing of the thousands of users (who pay a far higher
>price than the creators of the software) who are forced to use software
>that is incompatible, inefficient, expensive, and massively duplicated.
I don't see how patents make software inherently incompatible, inefficient,
etc. Manufacturers sometimes make their stuff incompatible on purpose so
users won't switch to other brands. As for expense, the companies can
charge only what the traffic will bear -- intellectual property will not
alter the fact that if it's too expensive, many people won't buy.
>For every person like your father there are others who cannot get their
>work done because of his patents. What about people who might need to
>make use of one of them but cannot afford to license it? What options do
>they have?
They create their own, do without, or break the law.
>Each productive patent holder makes many more unproductive because those
>unfortunate people just waste their time duplicating the patent holder's
>effort instead of just being able to use it.
Suppose you were a software consultant. You put together a really nifty
package for company A. In fact, it's so popular with them that you decide
to market it. Unfortunately, company A has decided to sell it, too; why
shouldn't everyone be able to just use your effort? How would you feel
then?
>I read something interesting the other day about Thomas Jefferson where
>he said that it was a fine thing to profit from the creation of
>knowledge but once that knowledge exists it is criminal to profit from
>it's disclosure and restrict it to only those who can pay for it.
And here we get back into the "what is information and what is intellectual
property?" question again...
Gina
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
:Gina Goff (GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
:: In article <37mr6t$5...@panix.com>
:: bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
:: > B. That each EXTRA copy of the script produces no extra
:: > damage to Paramount.
::
:: That being the case, Paramount should have stopped contacting script
:: distributors months ago. Apparently, they don't share your opinion of
:: the situation.
:I don't understand this reasoning at all...
:I've said that to those for whom buying a legitimate script was important,
:well, a raw ascii dump of the script is not going to be what they are
:looking for, so they will buy the script anyway... So, of course
:Paramount will not stop contacting script distributors..
:
:What are you trying to say with that line above?
I'm saying that you can make "incremental" gosh-we're-not-really-hurting-
anyone arguments until the cows come home, and Paramount's legal department
will not be in the least convinced. Each copy of the script is one less
that might be sold (some folks who would have bought the final version may
decide not to, after reading an ASCII dump of the first draft).
:: >And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
:: >Paramount loses per each extra copy.
::
:: I've no idea. Why don't you call their legal department and ask? I'm
:: sure they'd be glad to talk to you.
:Because, I don't think that they lose any money, and I'm quite satisfied
:with my reasoning. But, you assume there is a incremental loss, when
:as you yourself say that you have no idea what that loss would be.
I meant that I don't know the amount of the loss. If you're so convinced
of your reasoning, Binesh, then please do call Paramount and ask to speak
to someone in the Legal Department. Perhaps you can convince them that
they're wrong, and they'll stop objecting to the script's circulation and
we can all move on to something else.
:and this broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape
:so, I should be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and
:give it to a friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do so.
:Or are you saying that the cops should break into everyone's house
:and order everyone to blank out any tapes they made?
Taping a broadcast for your personal use is legal. Photocopying a script
is not; I believe it has something to do with broadcasting things being a
quasi-public domain issue. I'm sure a misc.legal type could clarify.
Gina
Binesh Bannerjee
: Suppose you were a software consultant. You put together a really nifty
: package for company A. In fact, it's so popular with them that you decide
: to market it. Unfortunately, company A has decided to sell it, too; why
: shouldn't everyone be able to just use your effort? How would you feel
: then?
Incredible how you just described someone in real life...
Let me quote from an interview...
> BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.
>
> Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right
> to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making
> my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that
> other people wrote. Lots of people send in $150 for GNU EMACS, but now this
> money goes to the Free Software Foundation that I started. The foundation
> doesn't pay me a salary because it would be a conflict of interest.
> Instead, it hires other people to work on GNU. As long as I can go on
> making a living by consulting I think that's the best way.
Let's see.. Richard Stallman puts together GCC, it's very popular
(I'll attest to that...) And, it's free even... By the way, EMACS
is also, free in case you didn't know... 150 is just a contribution
you could make or not... And, everyone gets to use GCC and EMACS
and everyone's happy! Doesn't seem like such a hellish experience...
Oh, I better include this as well...
> Editorial Note: BYTE holds the right to provide this interview on BIX but
> will not interfere with its distribution.
>
> Richard Stallman, 545 Technology Square, Room 703, Cambridge, MA 02139.
> Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and
> distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice
> appear on all copies.
: Gina
Brian Mancuso
Gina Goff <GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu> wrote:
: In article <37mj7j$o...@panix.com>
: bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
:
: >
: >STUDIES FIND REWARD OFTEN NO MOTIVATOR
:
: Congratulations on continuing to miss the point. Things like copyrights
: love; they enable, not reward.
Correction: Things like copyrights and patents make it financially
feasible for *selfish* people to do the work they love. If they really
loved the work they were doing, they would be doing it for free.
Perhaps *you* are missing the point.
: Gina
:
: P.S. If you'd like to insist that they're rewards, be my guest, but I'll
: laugh in your face. My dad's got forty-some-odd patents, and became _more_
: productive, not less, as his career progressed.
hmmm.
Brian Mancuso
bri...@bu.edu
Binesh Bannerjee
: I'm saying that you can make "incremental" gosh-we're-not-really-hurting-
: anyone arguments until the cows come home, and Paramount's legal department
: will not be in the least convinced. Each copy of the script is one less
: that might be sold (some folks who would have bought the final version may
: decide not to, after reading an ASCII dump of the first draft).
I like the way you keep referring me to the Paramount legal department,
and how you just accept whatever they say as gospel. You keep saying
there IS an incremental damage associated with EACH copy, but you don't
even know what it is. Just because Paramount doesn't want the script to
be further redistributed, doesn't mean that they're losing money off the
extra distribution, it could just mean they're embarassed. And, I have
no intention of calling Paramount's legal department, because I'm
not a lawyer, and I would have no clue as to how to proceed with them.
So, since, you're the legal expert here, why not call them up yourself
and post a summary here? Or, maybe you just take it on blind faith that
since the "Paramount Legal Department" <ta da! Insert theme music!>
proclaims that further redistribution is Wrong, then it must be so.
Well, that's fine for your faith, but I don't share that faith, and
I have no intention of talking to a bunch of lawyers, and hearing the
lawyer-speak.. NO, I am NOT putting down lawyers, but it would be like
me with a group of surgeons, and I'm a programmer. I wouldn't get what
they're talking about. Again, being the apparent legal expert here,
why don't you call them up, and post a summary? I promise you, if you
tell me the incremental damage, I will never redistribute the script
ever again, and I will delete all copies, I may have.
And, you'll notice that none of my arguments had anything to do
with the legality or illegality of anything...
:
: :: >And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
: :: >Paramount loses per each extra copy.
: ::
: :: I've no idea. Why don't you call their legal department and ask? I'm
: :: sure they'd be glad to talk to you.
: :
: :Because, I don't think that they lose any money, and I'm quite satisfied
: :with my reasoning. But, you assume there is a incremental loss, when
: :as you yourself say that you have no idea what that loss would be.
:
: I meant that I don't know the amount of the loss. If you're so convinced
: of your reasoning, Binesh, then please do call Paramount and ask to speak
: to someone in the Legal Department. Perhaps you can convince them that
: they're wrong, and they'll stop objecting to the script's circulation and
: we can all move on to something else.
:
Ditto at the top.
Thanks for deleting the POINT of this second argument.
The broadcast that I mentioned was one where someone
STOLE a copy of a soon to be released movie, took over
a TV station and aired the movie in it's entirety...
And, ...
: :and this broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape
: :so, I should be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and
: :give it to a friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do so.
: :Or are you saying that the cops should break into everyone's house
: :and order everyone to blank out any tapes they made?
:
: Taping a broadcast for your personal use is legal. Photocopying a script
: is not; I believe it has something to do with broadcasting things being a
: quasi-public domain issue. I'm sure a misc.legal type could clarify.
You believe so? It's incredible all the things you take on blind faith...
And, I'm not discussing whether or not it is illegal, so much as whether
it should be or not, and whether IF it should be, how such a law would
be enforced... Someone just posted the entire script on r.a.s.misc
yet AGAIN through an anonymous remailer... (NO IT WAS NOT ME...)
Anyway, I never photocopied the script...
:
: Gina
Dale R. Worley
Gina Goff (GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
: Suppose you were a software consultant. You put together a really nifty
: package for company A. In fact, it's so popular with them that you decide
: to market it. Unfortunately, company A has decided to sell it, too; why
: shouldn't everyone be able to just use your effort? How would you feel
: then?
Incredible how you just described someone in real life...
Let me quote from an interview...
> BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.
>
> Stallman: From consulting. [etc.]
Though, of course, Stallman lives very frugally.
Dale
Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT d...@math.mit.edu
--
On the contrary, it is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, a
fourth power into two fourth powers, or generally any power above the
second into two powers of the same degree. I have discovered a truly
marvelous demonstration which this margin is too narrow to contain.
-- Pierre de Fermat, sometime in the late 1630's (translated from the Latin)
Blanche Cohen
What reason had D.K. Knuth to write TeX? And Eberhard Mattes to implement
Response:
Excuse me - but Don's life and income does NOT depend on TeX and never did.
He was very well established in the CS industry as well as being a tenured
professor at Stanford (and I think dept chair for a time). TeX grew from
him unhappiness at dealing with runoff, troff, etc.
I would recommend examining the history of TeX and how it was developed. If
Don was working on US Government grant funding, then TeX was REQUIRED to
be public domain. I don't know the answer, but will happily send a note
to him and ask. I've got his email address around here someplace....
Blanche Cohen
: Binaresh:
Oh, and it's Binesh!
Response:
My apologies. I have an unusual name also, and am annoyed when people
spell it wrong. All I can claim is minor dyslexia...sorry.
Tim Smith
>DATs... But, even when I get a DAT, I will not be pirating CDs...
>Why? because the cover, and the artwork surrounding the CD is important
>to me. So, this is an effective means by the recording industry to prevent
Actually, even if you copied the CDs, it probably would not be pirating,
assuming you do it in the United States. Consider this, from the
Copyright Act:
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions.
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manaufacture, importation, or distribution
of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording
medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording
medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such
a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or
analog musical recordings.
A lot of activity that used to be pirating seems to be authorized by
this.
(In case anyone is curious as to how the heck the recording industry let
that get into the law, it was part of the same bill that gave us SCMS
and the tax on blank DAT. They got their tax and SCMS, but had to
give up the right to go after consumers. Presumably, they get their
compensation from the DAT tax. This may have been a miscalculation on
their part--I'm guessing that they expected DAT or some other digital
recording format to kill off analog. However, digital recorders are
a miniscule pat of the consumer market, and since section 1008 authorized
both digital *AND* analog home taping, we consumers came out way ahead.
We get to tape, and we don't have a tax on analog tapes to pay for it!)
--Tim Smith
just another theatre geek
Rytis Grybauskas <ry...@charm.net> wrote:
>>>Now, Binesh, kindly enlighten us as to how all the people who used to
>>>create intellectual property for a living are supposed to support
>>>themselves?
>be pulling their hair out that these government funded organizations
>but ONE copy of a book/video/cd and then LEND THEM OUT FOR FREE!
>
>NO ROYALTIES!
Wrong.
Lending is figured into the price of the book.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Carl D. Perkins
}What reason had D.K. Knuth to write TeX? And Eberhard Mattes to implement
}a really superb series of drivers for it? All public domain software.
}Much superior to all the comercial trash of Wordpervert and so. Why does
}the FSF exist? And Linux? And for comercial vendors: everyone knows that
}the good old CBM 64 games were illegally copied as hell. But they were
}still written in vast numbers, even when the machine was completely
}outdated. This seemed a rather lucrative bussines to me.
}
How many of those were written by people who were trying to make a living off
of that? Is TeX distributed as stolen copies of a thing for which you would
have to pay money to get legally or did Knuth specifically decide to give
it away for free?
You are equating theft with the decision to give something away for free.
Knuth decided to give TeX away for free, so you say it is OK if I steal
any piece of software you ever write - and then distribute it over
the net to anyone who wants it. If someone gives their car away for
free, you think that it is OK for me to steal yours. I think everyone
should remember that...
-- Carl
Gina Goff
shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
(snip!)
>Recent events have pretty much proven that you can make money without
>heavily protecting your technology. It's also proven that freely
>available technology can advance much more rapidly than heavily guarded
>technology.
If this is true, then there will shortly be no incentive for businesses
to apply for patents, so this discussion is pointless.
G.
Binesh Bannerjee
: I'm following the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption
^^^
: that Paramount may have a legal basis for their objections. You, Binesh,
: are the one who's so convinced no further damage can be done by continuing
: to circulate the script. Until you call someone at the legal department at
: Paramount and convince them you're right, I'll continue to believe that you're
: just talking out your ass.
^^^
(We all know what happens when you make assumptions)
Well, I'm not the one making assumptions about an incremental damage
that may or may not exist, in the absence of any evidence that it
does (by your own admission). And, in the absence of evidence, and
if it makes no difference, my scientific conservatism, tells me that
I don't have to be concerned with it...
See the whole problem of the existence of aether to propagate light.
In the end it was proven, that light transmission can be explained
without talking about aether, so, it was irrelevant. Occams Razor.
And, I realize that Occams Razor flies in the face of anything one
would learn in law school...
I can't see any proof for incremental damage, despite your fervent
FAITH that there is such a thing. And, I have no intention of calling
the Paramount legal division, so either we can kill this thread, and
I'll continue on my merry way distributing the script, and you can
continue on your merry way calling me an ass for doing so... Or, you
could post a summary of what they tell you, in laymans terms.
The NSA wants escrowed keys for the Clipper chip... I'm going to follow
the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption that they have
a perfectly valid reason for wanting it.
Binesh
:
: (rest deleted)
Gina Goff
:(I'll attest to that...) And, it's free even... By the way, EMACS
:is also, free in case you didn't know... 150 is just a contribution
:you could make or not... And, everyone gets to use GCC and EMACS
:and everyone's happy! Doesn't seem like such a hellish experience...
:
:Oh, I better include this as well...
:
:> Editorial Note: BYTE holds the right to provide this interview on BIX but
:> will not interfere with its distribution.
:>
:> Richard Stallman, 545 Technology Square, Room 703, Cambridge, MA 02139.
:> Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and
:> distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice
:> appear on all copies.
no one ever can or should give away his work; I'm saying that others don't
get to make that choice for him.
Gina
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>I like the way you keep referring me to the Paramount legal department,
>and how you just accept whatever they say as gospel. You keep saying
>there IS an incremental damage associated with EACH copy, but you don't
>even know what it is. Just because Paramount doesn't want the script to
spouting this lovely argument that (if it convinced them) would make this
entire discussion disappear. I don't know what the "incremental damage"
is, but I also don't know how much they've spent on the movie or expect to
make on it or on script sales. Without those figures (among others), HOW
could I make an intelligent guess as to the incremental damage.
I'm following the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption
are the one who's so convinced no further damage can be done by continuing
to circulate the script. Until you call someone at the legal department at
Paramount and convince them you're right, I'll continue to believe that you're
just talking out your ass.
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>I can't see any proof for incremental damage, despite your fervent
>FAITH that there is such a thing. And, I have no intention of calling
>the Paramount legal division, so either we can kill this thread, and
>I'll continue on my merry way distributing the script, and you can
>continue on your merry way calling me an ass for doing so... Or, you
>could post a summary of what they tell you, in laymans terms.
material without the owner's permission is illegal _even if you weren't the
original violator_. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. Ignoring
that fact is foolish. Publicly advertising that you're ignoring it is even
more foolish.
>The NSA wants escrowed keys for the Clipper chip... I'm going to follow
>the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption that they have
>a perfectly valid reason for wanting it.
assumption, then you really ARE a fool.
Gina
Binesh Bannerjee
: We need to start defining things much more clearly here. Binesh and others
: have cited gnu, TeX, shareware, etc as examples of the spirit
: of the software community. However, most software is NOT written for small
: personal computers but for larger workstations and mainframes. True there is
: a great deal of "community" software for unix, but much of that is due to
: the original distribution philosophy of AT&T (before they realized they
: had a money-maker!)
: It's not completely valid to cite these examples. To wit - TeX may be freely
: distributed but a number of companies are now marketing new and improved
: versions of TeX for various platforms - and they're NOT free. XWindows is
: another example - the basic system is freely available here on the net, or
: pay a small service fee and have the X Consortium send you the tapes. On
: the other hand, there is an entire industry of X developers of toolkits,
: add-ons, consultants, etc. that are NOT shareware/freeware/whatever.
: And I have yet to hear of any shareware/freeware/whatever in the COBOL arena,
: nor in the US Dept of Defense (talk about proprietary and classified!) and
: so on. People just don't make shareware/freeware/whatever for high-end
: mainframes, Crays, etc.
Huh? I never said ALL software development follows this tradition.
I just said that it isn't true that nobody would do anything if
there wasn't a monetary incentive. Although, probably with COBOL
you might have a point... I doubt anyone would program in COBOL
unless they were paid...
Also, I just realized something else that I might not have made
clear to Gina, since she said that she assumes that Paramount
has a legal basis to their claims...
I would not dispute that they may or may not have a legal basis
to their claim, since, I know nothing about the legality of this
issue, and further, I don't care about the legality or illegality
of my actions. What I DO care about is the ethics of the thing.
Like I keep saying IF I can see that I am hurting Paramount in
some tangible way by distributing the script, then I would not do
it... You could trust it or not, but... So, again, please tell me
how I'm hurting Paramount by distributing the script to people who
would not have bought the script anyway... (I know that much for
a fact (That they wouldn't have bought the script had it not been
for free)) AND, everyone I gave it to, is going to see the movie
anyway...
And, again, I'll reiterate my claims.
I do NOT justify the initial posting of the script, and truthfully
I find posting the script AGAIN at this point is kind of silly,
All I'm asking is how exactly Paramount gets hurt by continued
distribution of the script. And noone has yet told me any tangible
way that Paramount is getting hurt... I've heard "potential loss"
I've heard "it's not the writers final draft" etc. etc, but no real
way that Paramounts wallet is hurting... Certainly not per EACH
copy that is made (cause I've heard about the 1% of the population
who reads the script and says "I ain't paying to see that", which
if Paramount counts that, they should bring libel suits against
every reviewer also... Unless people tell me that reviewers all
have to be registered with Paramount before they do a review.)
: If you take a look at the entire software development spectrum, I think you'll
: find that pc development is a small (altho growing) part of the industry.
(?)
Binesh
: --
: "It might be interesting to explore useless for a while" [DS9]
: "Chocolate is a serious business" [TNG]
: "Worst case of testosterone poisoning I've ever seen..." [B5]
Tom Tromey
>> In article <1994Oct16....@escape.widomaker.com>,
>> Shannon Hendrix <shen...@escape.widomaker.com> wrote:
>> There is no intellectual property. Most ideas are just old ideas recycled
>> and/or mixed with some new creation.
Ken> There is no creative writing. Most written material is just old
Ken> letters and words recycled, and most plots have been done
Ken> before.
Writing != Ideas. Writing is the expression of an idea. The
expression can be owned, but the idea cannot be. Suppose that E.A.Poe
had patented the idea of the mystery novel...
Tom
--
tro...@cns.caltech.edu Member, League for Programming Freedom
"Sadism and farce are always inexplicably linked"
-- Alexander Theroux
Andrew Tong
>We need to start defining things much more clearly here. Binesh and others
>have cited gnu, TeX, shareware, etc as examples of the spirit
>of the software community. However, most software is NOT written for small
>personal computers but for larger workstations and mainframes. True there is
>a great deal of "community" software for unix, but much of that is due to
>the original distribution philosophy of AT&T (before they realized they
>had a money-maker!)
This is precisely why I like the current setup for the UNIX software
marketing system. The kinds of software that >individuals< would use
(Perl, TeX, gnu, linux, pbmplus, X) are free. But the kinds of software
that >businesses< would use (software for larger workstations and mainframes)
are not. This retains the "spirit" of the software community, but still
provides for a (large!) source of income for the software creators. I'd
like to see this sort of arrangement for all software.
One very recent example is Mosaic Netscape, which you can grab at ftp.mcom.com.
Individuals can use the software for no price, but businesses must pay
to to use it. Wouldn't the world be a better place if this were how all
software was published? (well, game software probably would still have
to be priced.... And when we're talking about stuff like the Generations
script, game software would be the most accurate analogy in the computer
world, right?)
So the point here is: sure, information should be free to foster progress,
but the Generations script is a creative work of >fiction<, and much more
justification is needed before I'll believe that some sort of "progress"
can be had by freely distributing entertainment. I actually would prefer
to believe that it's best to have to *pay* for entertainment---otherwise
people would easily go overboard and spend abnormal amounts of time wallowing
in free entertainment.
-- Andrew
watch this space 11.18.94 :-)
Ben A. Mesander
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> writes:
>> In article <1994Oct16....@escape.widomaker.com>,
>> Shannon Hendrix <shen...@escape.widomaker.com> wrote:
>> There is no intellectual property. Most ideas are just old ideas recycled
>> and/or mixed with some new creation.
Ken> There is no creative writing. Most written material is just old
Ken> letters and words recycled, and most plots have been done
Ken> before.
Writing != Ideas. Writing is the expression of an idea. The
expression can be owned, but the idea cannot be. Suppose that E.A.Poe
had patented the idea of the mystery novel...
I find Star Trek mind-numbingly lame. I hope that they are able to
patent the idea of mind-numbingly lame television shows and movies.
--
Ben Mesander This is not official USGS policy, etc.
"Measurement of the vibrational response of porcine lungs to low-
frequency underwater sound", by Thomas N. Lewis, James S. Martin,
and Peter H. Rogers, "Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America", vol. 95, no. 5, Pt 2, p 2830.
Binesh Bannerjee
: Response:
: Please find the NYT article or whatever about Sun. I am most interested,
: or at least a pointer to issue, date, etc.
I'll do that...
: Back to your paragraph above. Who's paying the bills for FSF? Mitch Kapor
: walked out with a bundle, so he doesn't need to worry about income.
: On the other hand, if I don't get paid, I don't pay my rent. And my
: landlord would NOT understand the issue of free software. Nor would any
: of my other bills. Do I love what I do? Most of the time, but then
: I refuse to do work anyplace that offends me. So, if I only do what
: I enjoy doing, and not worry about protecting my efforts in order to
: maintain income, how do I pay the bills?
Who pays the bills for FSF? Mitch Kapor, first off, I didn't know
he was involved with FSF... I knew he was with the EFF, but not with
FSF... FSF was started by Richard Stallman, to the best of my knowledge,
after he was thoroughly disgusted by greed running rampant in the software
industry. He didn't have a big was of cash to begin with, he was NOT a
tenured professor when he started this either... Neither for that matter
was the guy who decided to start with Linux...
As for the NYT article about Sun's attitude towards decompiling, I can't
guarantee that I'll have the time to stop by the library, but as to
Richard Stallman's status when he started the FSF, I can get that back
to you as soon as I get home... I have it in a book...
: Altruism is fine, until it affects you.
And, yeah, I hear what you say about well, just because SOME people decide
to give away their stuff, doesn't make it so that everyone should be able
to take everyone elses stuff... I brought up the FSF in response to your
saying that in essence every one who does anything, does it, because they're
enslaved to the almighty dollar. It simply is not true.
And, I want to know what the incremental cost is in person N+1 getting a
copy of the script. Now, that the script has gotten out, you as a stock
holder, how much is your stock dropping per every EXTRA copy that has gotten
out? And, remember that everyone who gets a copy would NOT necessarily have
gotten it if it wasn't free...
Binesh
: --
: bc
: "It might be interesting to explore useless for a while" [DS9]
: "Chocolate is a serious business" [TNG]
Binesh Bannerjee
[ Author was Binesh Bannerjee ]
[ Posted on 14 Oct 1994 12:18:28 -0400 ]
Haakon Styri
: Believe it or not, some people will continue creating whatever
: it is they were creating even if there is free distribution of
: their work. Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to
: have their work distributed in this manner. As I said, ask the
: FSF... Tell the FSF that they have no reason to fix bugs...
: Gee, I wonder about the large base of freely distributed, or
: shareware stuff that's out there... A lot of people actually
: love what they do, and would do it even if they weren't getting
: paid. And, the world would be a much better place that way.
Your's a funny argumentation. FSF or any other producer of
stuff distributed in a similar manner have no legislation
against them, have they? However, why should the existence
FSF be any argument to ban people programming for food?
(Even if the product of the amateurs in some cases is far
better than the professional equivalent.)
Alse, copyright is about more than money. It does leave me
soem sort of control. FSF use that right to keep their
"copyleft" notice in their work. Others may try to keep
their music out of commercials, their software out of
military applications or to control the quality of any
reproductions of artwork.
However, strict enforcement or interpretation of the law
may not be a good thing. Summum ius summa iniuria.
---
Haakon Styri
just another theatre geek
>Gina Goff (GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
>: I'm following the perhaps conservative but undoubtedly safe assumption
> ^^^
>: that Paramount may have a legal basis for their objections. You, Binesh,
>: are the one who's so convinced no further damage can be done by continuing
>: to circulate the script. Until you call someone at the legal department at
>: Paramount and convince them you're right, I'll continue to believe that you're
>: just talking out your ass.
> ^^^
>
>(We all know what happens when you make assumptions)
Yes, which makes wonder why you continue to spout your drivel.
There aint no assumption about it; Paramount DEFINITELY has a
legal standing to protect there copyright.
>Well, I'm not the one making assumptions about an incremental damage
>that may or may not exist, in the absence of any evidence that it
>does (by your own admission).
Irrelevant. (You love to attend to irrelevancies, don't you).
>I can't see any proof for incremental damage, despite your fervent
>FAITH that there is such a thing.
This is simply because you have no WISH to see any.
just another theatre geek
>And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
>Paramount loses per each extra copy.
>
>people would have bought the script otherwise, this is false,
>because I for one, would NOT have bought the script if it wasn't
Irrelevant.
Generalization from a specific is a poor argumentation technique,
especially since you CAN measure losses such as this quite easily....by
pointing to PAST script sales.
Try again.
ron house
>Correction: Things like copyrights and patents make it financially
>feasible for *selfish* people to do the work they love. If they really
>loved the work they were doing, they would be doing it for free.
I don't know where to start. Why is intellectual work not deserving of
reward like any other sort of work? You don't have to be selfish to
want to receive a reasonable income from working 40 or more hours a
week, even if you do love it. Selfishness indicates an _unreasonable_
desire for payment. And I do think there is a gap of some sort between
where "free" ends and "unreasonable" begins. BTW: do you contribute
free software, or merely use it? Not flaming, just interested.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Taki Kogoma
<1994Oct14.1...@nntp.nta.no> in rec.arts.startrek.misc:
>Binesh Bannerjee (bin...@panix.com) wrote:
Gee. I thought you said you weren't going to say anything futher on
this topic.
>: Believe it or not, some people will continue creating whatever
>: it is they were creating even if there is free distribution of
>: their work. Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to
>: have their work distributed in this manner. As I said, ask the
>: FSF... Tell the FSF that they have no reason to fix bugs...
>: Gee, I wonder about the large base of freely distributed, or
>: shareware stuff that's out there... A lot of people actually
>: love what they do, and would do it even if they weren't getting
>: paid. And, the world would be a much better place that way.
>
>Your's a funny argumentation. FSF or any other producer of
>stuff distributed in a similar manner have no legislation
>against them, have they? However, why should the existence
>FSF be any argument to ban people programming for food?
>(Even if the product of the amateurs in some cases is far
>better than the professional equivalent.)
Indeed. The producer of a program/musical work/novel/script is
perfectly able to release that work into the public doman or copyleft
it *if they so desire*. Does this precious "Freedom of information"
override the rights of the creator to determine how/where the work may
be distributed (or not distributed)? Why should some freeloading fool
be able to make the determination instead of the person who spent
his/her time on it? If so, why?
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk - qu...@unm.edu | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
Shannon Hendrix
It's far from pointless. Even if no patents are applied for (a ridiculous
thought considering the current rate of application), existing ones are
damaging enough in themselves. I don't think you realize just how many
common-sense items and key technologies are patented. In fact, I would
not bet someone that I could write even "hello world" without violating
someone's patent. It may very well be impossible.
>
>G.
--
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shen...@escape.widomaker.com | Linux... that's it for the moment
-----------------------------------+
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>
>STUDIES FIND REWARD OFTEN NO MOTIVATOR
and patents make it financially feasible for people to do the work they
love; they enable, not reward.
Tim Smith
>>Anyway, the point is that blanket assertions that authors won't write
>>without copyright are clearly false. There can be other incentives
>>supplied by the market that will encourage writers to write, and
>>printers to print. To determine if copyright is needed, and to what
>>extent, you have to consider the market and the available technology.
>
>I didn't say that authors wouldn't write. I said they'd have trouble
>supporting themselves by writing. Shakespeare wrote plays to produce
Explain Dickens. He made more money selling his stories in America, without
copyright, than he did in England, with copyright. The structure of the
American market was such that there was high demand, which fell off
rapidly after first publication.
>You don't make your living by creating intellectual property, do you?
Currently, I make my living by getting student loans :-) Before that (from
1982 to 1992), I made it by writing computer programs, and I still do that
on a consulting basis as time permits.
Justifying intellectual property law is a lot more complicated than you
make it out to be. From an economic standpoint, you've got to balance the
added incentive to the produced against the anticompetive effects on the
market. For more information, see Posner's book on law and economics, and
track down that Breyer article I mentioned in the last post.
There's also some great philosophical stuff going on behind copyright,
especially when you compare the U.S. and Europe. A lot of the differences
in the two approaches come directly from the philosophers that influenced
the political systems. U.S. is Lockian, whereas Europe is Hegelian. That
has led to a difference in how these things are viewed.
--Tim Smith
Binesh Bannerjee
: Binesh Bannerjee (bin...@panix.com) wrote:
: : Believe it or not, some people will continue creating whatever
: : it is they were creating even if there is free distribution of
: : their work. Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to
: : have their work distributed in this manner. As I said, ask the
: : FSF... Tell the FSF that they have no reason to fix bugs...
: : Gee, I wonder about the large base of freely distributed, or
: : shareware stuff that's out there... A lot of people actually
: : love what they do, and would do it even if they weren't getting
: : paid. And, the world would be a much better place that way.
: Your's a funny argumentation. FSF or any other producer of
: stuff distributed in a similar manner have no legislation
: against them, have they? However, why should the existence
: FSF be any argument to ban people programming for food?
: (Even if the product of the amateurs in some cases is far
: better than the professional equivalent.)
Did I ever say that BECAUSE the FSF exists, other people should
NOT charge for their programs? Nope, doesn't look like I said that...
What I said was, it is NOT true that if people were not paid for
programming, no one would ever program. Same goes for write, for
paint, for whatever the hell else you want to talk about...
And, if you only do what you do, in order to accumulate a mountain
of wealth, I consider yours a very sad existence indeed... And, I
don't expect my pity to change anyone's mind either, so don't even
bother with the stupid little "Oh no! Binesh feels sorry for me!
what ever will I do?" lines...
Binesh
Binesh Bannerjee
: : and patents make it financially feasible for people to do the work they
: : love; they enable, not reward.
: Why congratulations to you too, for failing to miss my point.
^^^^^^^
Oopsie! I meant continuing! hehe...
Gina Goff
t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>Gina Goff <GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Gosh, then let's just do away with all copyright law. Patent law, too.
>>Binesh thinks intellectual property is Bad; screw the Constitution. Begone!
>
>Oh, pshaw. Being in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it's
>good.
Nor does it mean it's bad. It _does_ mean that the writers of the
Constitution thought that respecting intellectual property would encourage
progress in science and the arts.
(snip!)
>Anyway, the point is that blanket assertions that authors won't write
>without copyright are clearly false. There can be other incentives
>supplied by the market that will encourage writers to write, and
>printers to print. To determine if copyright is needed, and to what
>extent, you have to consider the market and the available technology.
I didn't say that authors wouldn't write. I said they'd have trouble
supporting themselves by writing. Shakespeare wrote plays to produce
job to pay the bills, how much time and energy will they have for
writing? The same goes for people who write software, design gadgets,
etc. If these people want to give their work away, fine; that's their
choice. It's not their obligation, however.
You don't make your living by creating intellectual property, do you?
Steersy
of Spoiler Protection. I cannot figure out which episode you are spoiling
below, but I know I have not seen it yet! It is common courtesy to warn people
when you are going to spoil an episode like you do below. Learn some
consideration and remember SPOILER PROTECTION and the name of the episode.
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civil-
ized world. Your message will cost _\|/_ the net hundreds if not thousands
of dollars to send everywhere. Please {@ @} be sure you know what you are doing
===================================ooO=(_)=Ooo=================================
Keep a cool and have a good Weekend!
Mark Wilson
[snip]
: Correction: Things like copyrights and patents make it financially
: feasible for *selfish* people to do the work they love. If they really
: loved the work they were doing, they would be doing it for free.
With all due respect, this may be _the_ dumbest thing I've ever
read in my life. I love my work; if I did it for free, my family
would be on welfare, we'd lose our house, and my wife's medical
problems would result in (a) unpaid bills [bad], or (b) untreated
conditions [worse]. Or, in order to make money, should people
do work they do _not_ love, so they can do what they _do_ love
for free???????
Jeez. As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I still find this sort of
claptrap amusing, and a bit embarrassing. (Since it seems like a
far-fetched expansion of what I feel to be valid liberal ideas.)
- Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, 410-796-4873 days
email: mwi...@hps.sso.loral.com
I am Loquacious of Borg. Prepared to be bored.
Binesh Bannerjee
: In article <37mr6t$5...@panix.com>
: bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
:
: >I said A. That the initial posting of the script was WRONG.
:
: Yet you seem to think it's okay now. If I see a man who's just had his
: wallet stolen by someone, I don't assume it's okay to steal his watch, too.
:
Stealing his watch produces an incremental loss to the man.
Wallet = 25 dollars,
so now if I steal his Watch=15 dollars, now the
man is out 40 dollars. Get it?
Tell me where the incremental loss is to paramount in me making
another copy of the script?
: > B. That each EXTRA copy of the script produces no extra
: > damage to Paramount.
:
: That being the case, Paramount should have stopped contacting script
: distributors months ago. Apparently, they don't share your opinion of
: the situation.
I don't understand this reasoning at all...
I've said that to those for whom buying a legitimate script was important,
well, a raw ascii dump of the script is not going to be what they are
looking for, so they will buy the script anyway... So, of course
Paramount will not stop contacting script distributors..
What are you trying to say with that line above?
:
: > C. (Unrelated to the previous 2 statements)
: > Money is not necessarily the sole motivator of people
: > who create anything.
: >
: >I only brought up point C, because Blanche said without copyrights
: >to protect the monetary interests of the people who write software,
: >nobody would write software. Nobody would support software etc.
:
: Blanche's point (and mine) is that the only people who could afford
: to do that on a full-time basis would have to be independently wealthy.
: Yes, some scripts and some software would get written, but much, much
: less because would-be creators would be flipping burgers at Joe's to
: pay the rent.
Again, explain the FSF...
I'm hoping Richard Stallman sees this, and tells us if he was rolling
in money when he decided to make the GNU project...
:
: >And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
: >Paramount loses per each extra copy.
:
: I've no idea. Why don't you call their legal department and ask? I'm
: sure they'd be glad to talk to you.
Because, I don't think that they lose any money, and I'm quite satisfied
with my reasoning. But, you assume there is a incremental loss, when
as you yourself say that you have no idea what that loss would be.
:
: >But, if you tell me that each copy is lost revenue because those
: >people would have bought the script otherwise, this is false,
: >because I for one, would NOT have bought the script if it wasn't
: >free. And, I'd bet that those who wanted the script and would have
: >paid for it, would still want a legitimate copy. Tho, I cant attest
: >to the second statement....
:
: Each copy is _potential_ lost revenue. I don't think Paramount has to
: prove actual loss, just potential loss. And there are statutory damages
: unrelated to loss.
Potential loss? There's a provable concept.
What the hell does potential loss mean?
As far as I see it the statutory damages (Somebody from misc.legal
clear up all these legal terms please!) and I have NO CLUE whatsoever
what statutory damages are, but any sort of damages incurred by
Paramount have already been incurred by the first posting of the script.
If somebody had decided to pirate the movie for Generations, and
capture one of the stations, and broadcast the movie illegally,
and I happened to have been taping at that particular moment,
and I came home and I saw the whole movie and I said HEY! great
I have the whole movie! Do I have a right to keep MY tape?
I think I should. I did nothing illegal. I was simply taping
and this broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape
so, I should be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and
give it to a friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do so.
Or are you saying that the cops should break into everyone's house
and order everyone to blank out any tapes they made?
This is the same argument I'm applying here.
:
: Gina
Haakon Styri
: It's far from pointless. Even if no patents are applied for (a ridiculous
: thought considering the current rate of application), existing ones are
: damaging enough in themselves. I don't think you realize just how many
: common-sense items and key technologies are patented. In fact, I would
: not bet someone that I could write even "hello world" without violating
: someone's patent. It may very well be impossible.
It's amazing how most things become "common-sense" the minute after
the patent is known. :-) Anyway, I don't know how US patent law
works, but from what I understand of European practice you only have
to publish and then it cannot be patented by somebody else. (Dunno
how much things will change due to the new GATT deal.)
With respect to the notion that copyrights and patents are slowing
down technological developement (not that I think that is a bad
thing, it's supposed to be good to stop and thing every now and then)
I'll just point out that: Progress is achieved by standing on the
shoulders of others, not on their toes.
---
Haakon Styri
-D.WELLS
Andrew Tong <wer...@lust.ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>bla...@du.edu (Blanche Cohen) writes:
>
>>We need to start defining things much more clearly here. Binesh and others
>>have cited gnu, TeX, shareware, etc as examples of the spirit
>>of the software community. However, most software is NOT written for small
>>personal computers but for larger workstations and mainframes. True there is
>>a great deal of "community" software for unix, but much of that is due to
>>the original distribution philosophy of AT&T (before they realized they
>>had a money-maker!)
Of course, if it were such a money maker, we wouldn't have sold the whole
UNIX operation to Novell...... I fear the real reason was that they didn't
want to compete against Microsoft in the OS market.
>This is precisely why I like the current setup for the UNIX software
>marketing system. The kinds of software that >individuals< would use
>(Perl, TeX, gnu, linux, pbmplus, X) are free. But the kinds of software
>that >businesses< would use (software for larger workstations and mainframes)
>are not. This retains the "spirit" of the software community, but still
>provides for a (large!) source of income for the software creators. I'd
>like to see this sort of arrangement for all software.
>
>One very recent example is Mosaic Netscape, which you can grab at ftp.mcom.com.
>Individuals can use the software for no price, but businesses must pay
>to to use it. Wouldn't the world be a better place if this were how all
>software was published? (well, game software probably would still have
>to be priced.... And when we're talking about stuff like the Generations
>script, game software would be the most accurate analogy in the computer
>world, right?)
What about an individual who is in business for himself? The line between
individuals and businesses gets awfully blurry in that case.
David R. Wells
"There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells
with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | Email: drw...@hogpa.att.com
DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for AT&T, and they don't speak for me.
Tim Smith
>bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>
>>And, to satisfy everyone here, I do not believe in intellectual property
>
>Gosh, then let's just do away with all copyright law. Patent law, too.
>Binesh thinks intellectual property is Bad; screw the Constitution. Begone!
Oh, pshaw. Being in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it's
good.
>Now, Binesh, kindly enlighten us as to how all the people who used to
>create intellectual property for a living are supposed to support
>themselves? Who is going to manufacture nifty gizmos that can no longer
>be patented? Who is going to print books that can no longer be copyrighted?
By your argument, I should not be able to find copies of Shakespear's
plays down at the bookstore. They are not copyrightable, and, therefore,
no one will print them.
You might also want to note that copyright law is only a couple hundred
years old or so (I don't recall when the Statute of Anne was enacted in
England, but I think it was sometime in the 18th century), yet books
were produced, and authors made money.
One of the reasons they made money is that most book sales took place
right after publication. By the time a second or subsequent publisher
could come out with an unauthorized edition, the first publisher would
have already sold to most people who want the book. Thus, whoever got
the book first made all the money, so publishers would bid for the
right to be the first to get the manuscript.
There is a fascinating article by Breyer on this matter, titled something
like "The Uneasy Case for Copyright". That's the same Breyer who is
now on the Supreme Court, I believe.
Anyway, the point is that blanket assertions that authors won't write
without copyright are clearly false. There can be other incentives
supplied by the market that will encourage writers to write, and
printers to print. To determine if copyright is needed, and to what
extent, you have to consider the market and the available technology.
--Tim Smith
Blanche Cohen
Believe it or not, some people will continue creating whatever
it is they were creating even if there is free distribution of
their work. Believe it or not, some people actually prefer to
have their work distributed in this manner. As I said, ask the
FSF... Tell the FSF that they have no reason to fix bugs...
Gee, I wonder about the large base of freely distributed, or
shareware stuff that's out there... A lot of people actually
love what they do, and would do it even if they weren't getting
paid. And, the world would be a much better place that way.
Response:
Please find the NYT article or whatever about Sun. I am most interested,
or at least a pointer to issue, date, etc.
Back to your paragraph above. Who's paying the bills for FSF? Mitch Kapor
walked out with a bundle, so he doesn't need to worry about income.
On the other hand, if I don't get paid, I don't pay my rent. And my
landlord would NOT understand the issue of free software. Nor would any
of my other bills. Do I love what I do? Most of the time, but then
I refuse to do work anyplace that offends me. So, if I only do what
I enjoy doing, and not worry about protecting my efforts in order to
maintain income, how do I pay the bills?
Altruism is fine, until it affects you.
--
Ted Goldblatt
>If somebody had decided to pirate the movie for Generations, and
>capture one of the stations, and broadcast the movie illegally,
>and I happened to have been taping at that particular moment,
>and I came home and I saw the whole movie and I said HEY! great
>I have the whole movie! Do I have a right to keep MY tape?
>I think I should. I did nothing illegal.
Only insofar as you were unaware that you were copying copyrighted
material without the copyright owner's permission.
> I was simply taping
>and this broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape
>so, I should be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and
>give it to a friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do
>so.
You are certainly free to give your blank tape to a friend. You
certainly _DO NOT_ have the _right_ to copy the copyrighted material
on the tape or distribute it. (My understanding of the Betamax
decision is that it does not apply to distribution (or even archival
saving) of copied material, and my understanding of the "DAT tape
copyright exemption" is that this applies _only_ to audio material,
and that it is unclear whether distribution is allowed (unclear
language in the law, and no case law (yet) one way or the other)).
>This is the same argument I'm applying here.
The fact that the argument is based on totally incorrect assumptions
makes your conclusions just a bit suspect :-).
ted
--
Ted Goldblatt Ted.Go...@telematics.com (305) 351-4367
Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Binesh Bannerjee
: I don't know where to start. Why is intellectual work not deserving of
: reward like any other sort of work? You don't have to be selfish to
: want to receive a reasonable income from working 40 or more hours a
: week, even if you do love it. Selfishness indicates an _unreasonable_
: desire for payment. And I do think there is a gap of some sort between
: where "free" ends and "unreasonable" begins. BTW: do you contribute
: free software, or merely use it? Not flaming, just interested.
I know this question was not addressed to me, but, I definitely DO
contribute to free software, the same way I contribute to musicians
who perform on the sidewalk etc, etc. The fact that they don't FORCE
their audience to pay, may make it so that they earn less than the
performers, or programmers who DO force you to pay, in many cases
before you ever hear or trial whatever, but they are still doing what
they love, and can still claim a living...
Binesh
: --
: Ron House. USQ
: (ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Blanche Cohen
>>Freedom of information is one thing. Do NOT attempt to equate it with
>>intellectual property - they are in no way related.
Johan:
>Really? Then how do you define information, and how intelectual property?
DWELLS:
Johan makes an interesting point here. Where do we draw the line? I
Response:
I agree - we need to define the difference between freedom of information,
and information. I'll provide my definition, everyone else can chime in
with their interpretation, and perhaps we can arrive at a concensus decision?
Freedom of information - this is a legal decision that pertains to material
held by Government organizations, such as Federal, State or local governments
in the US. One of the motivations for the Freedom of Information Act was to
identify personal information about individuals acquired by the FBI. The
question was what information was on file and how it was acquired. This
was extended to individual information such as medical and credit held by
private organizations such as credit bureaus.
From my POV there is no creativity (well, maybe at the FBI <*G*>) in
data collection, hence it's not subject to the copyright laws that pertain
to the distribution, display, etc of material. The distribution of this
material is subject to civil rights and privacy laws.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, is VERY well defined under US and
other countries' legal codes (eg the Berne Convention). Intellectual property
is defined along with real property (land, house, etc) and personal
property (tv, computer, etc). There are 3 types of intellectual property -
patents, copyrights and trade secrets.
I'm always willing to modify my definitions if someone provides a convincing
argument.
Blanche Cohen
PLEASE, when you post something with *SPOILERS* in it, please put in some sort
of Spoiler Protection. I cannot figure out which episode you are spoiling
below, but I know I have not seen it yet! It is common courtesy to warn people
when you are going to spoil an episode like you do below. Learn some
consideration and remember SPOILER PROTECTION and the name of the episode.
And cites most of a discussion that Binesh and I are having about
copyright law.
My response:
Yo, David! What episode? Or am I missing the satire? I know I can be
very dense at times....but this is really questionable.
Shannon Hendrix
>In article <37mj7j$o...@panix.com>
>bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>
>>
>>STUDIES FIND REWARD OFTEN NO MOTIVATOR
>
>Congratulations on continuing to miss the point. Things like copyrights
>and patents make it financially feasible for people to do the work they
>love; they enable, not reward.
They certainly reward the companies that hold them. At the same time they
cause reinvention of the wheel as people who are not allowed to build on
the work of others must create yet more non-standard interfaces and API's.
This is to say nothing of the thousands of users (who pay a far higher
price than the creators of the software) who are forced to use software
that is incompatible, inefficient, expensive, and massively duplicated.
>
>Gina
>
>P.S. If you'd like to insist that they're rewards, be my guest, but I'll
>laugh in your face. My dad's got forty-some-odd patents, and became _more_
>productive, not less, as his career progressed.
For every person like your father there are others who cannot get their
work done because of his patents. What about people who might need to
make use of one of them but cannot afford to license it? What options do
they have?
Each productive patent holder makes many more unproductive because those
unfortunate people just waste their time duplicating the patent holder's
effort instead of just being able to use it.
I read something interesting the other day about Thomas Jefferson where
he said that it was a fine thing to profit from the creation of
knowledge but once that knowledge exists it is criminal to profit from
it's disclosure and restrict it to only those who can pay for it.
Blanche Cohen
mentioned:
"And, yeah, I hear what you say about well, just because SOME people decide
to give away their stuff, doesn't make it so that everyone should be able
to take everyone elses stuff... I brought up the FSF in response to your
saying that in essence every one who does anything, does it, because they're
enslaved to the almighty dollar. It simply is not true."
I agree - enslavement is not complete. But I only do software development
when someone pays me. My hobbies do not pay the bills, wish they did.
However, I still abide by my comment that without copyright protection and
the protection it provides (if invoked) there would be much less new
development and creativity in the arts, software, any area where intellectual
property is the end product.
As for the NYT article, I'll go check on the journal citations at the
library here. Sounds interesting.
t...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>>>What I was saying was that EVERYONE who got a copy of the script
>>>would not have bought the script.
>> Irrelevant.
> Roger, you've been employing that specific one-word rejoinder a lot
> lately. Did you by chance get cast as a Borg? :-)
Humor is futile.
Terry
James Fraser
In a previous article, bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) says:
>Oh, but what if I copied my friends CDs? For free?
That would still be illegal. Every copy you make from SOMEONE ELSE's copy
is one less copy actually bought from the record company (via their
distributors, the record stores, etc.). And that that someone else is
your friend is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The record company
loses out on their revenue from that one copy. If this applied to just
you, the company would have a negligible loss to worry about. But it
doesn't.
That's the primary reason our local library stopped loaning LPs years
ago--too many people were making copies for themselves, and the library
eventually began to lose out on revenues from fines on overdue LPs. Why
loan out something you're not going to make a profit on anyway? (I have a
feeling that Ferengi librarians have a Rule of Acquisition just for them...)
--
. James Fraser, at...@freenet.carleton.ca "The land & .
/|\ Member, AFM, ENVY, the Bajoran Alliance the people /|\
|/^\| For ENVY info e-mail Bajor...@aol.com are one" |/^\|
\_/ FTP/shell access, open-end telnet not avail thru NCF \_/
Irish
A couple of things.
1). Every year Congress reviews various things, one of which is
the cable act. In 1992 (or thereabouts), they asked Cable (or rather,
their PACs) what they wanted changed to improve their service. Cable
responded that they would like the ability to do NO-KNOCK SEARCHES of
private residences with HIRED ARMED GUARDS (not cops). Why? "cable
thieves" was the response. That's right, Joe Schmoe hooks up that black
box he got from his buddy so he can watch Plaboy for free, and the next
thing he knows his door is broken down without warning, and armed men are
ripping apart his entertainment center. Fortunatly, Congress has a few
more brains than most people account for, and of course told them no
chance in hell.
By now you are asking "what's this got to do with copyright
violations?" Well, The essence here is that's exactly what ol' Joe was
doing: Violating Copyright. And there are people out there that take it
rather seriously, especially when they are losing money on it. And some
of them have some clout where it can do a LOT of damage to the freedoms
that are a basic part of America. So it boils down to respect; Respect
someones freedom to protect something (even second-hand), and you won't
force these people with (probably far too much) power to take action
against EVERYONES freedom.
2). (Yes, that was 1) Why is this thread being crossposted to
comp.os.linux.misc anyway? (that's where I found it)
--
Irish
"I'm Not the shell answer man, I just know some things about Linux"
Binesh Bannerjee
: What in heaven's names makes you think you have any right to that
: script?
The fact that I was not looking for it, it happened to appear one day out
of the blue on my little terminal. Or rather, that happened to someone
before me, and I just asked that someone for a copy of what they saw..
If someone asks me for a copy of what Roger Tang said a few days ago
because their site accidentally deleted it and wanted to know if I could
send it to them, I'd send it to them, and that would be fine. Once anything
hits the net, effectively, it has become public domain. Nobody asked for
the script, it just popped up on our terminals. I have a right to capture
whatever I feel like capturing on my terminal.
Binesh
: --
: Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
: The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Stew Barnes
> I know this question was not addressed to me, but, I definitely DO
> contribute to free software, the same way I contribute to musicians
> who perform on the sidewalk etc, etc. The fact that they don't FORCE
> their audience to pay, may make it so that they earn less than the
> performers, or programmers who DO force you to pay, in many cases
> before you ever hear or trial whatever, but they are still doing what
> they love, and can still claim a living...
FORCE? Excuse me, but could you name a performer or programmer who has
ever FORCED you to pay for anything? If you choose to buy a product sight
unseen (without hearing or trying the product, and presumably without
reading any reviewers you respect, or looking into the history of the
producer of the product, and presumably from a store that doesn't allow
returns) you deserve what you get.
S
(Who doesn't like musicians who FORCE me to pay them so they'll go away
'cause the law doesn't allow me to throw them in front of the Q train.)
Binesh Bannerjee
: > I know this question was not addressed to me, but, I definitely DO
: > contribute to free software, the same way I contribute to musicians
: > who perform on the sidewalk etc, etc. The fact that they don't FORCE
: > their audience to pay, may make it so that they earn less than the
: > performers, or programmers who DO force you to pay, in many cases
: > before you ever hear or trial whatever, but they are still doing what
: > they love, and can still claim a living...
: FORCE? Excuse me, but could you name a performer or programmer who has
: ever FORCED you to pay for anything? If you choose to buy a product sight
: unseen (without hearing or trying the product, and presumably without
: reading any reviewers you respect, or looking into the history of the
: producer of the product, and presumably from a store that doesn't allow
: returns) you deserve what you get.
You are absolutely right.
Wrong choice of words on my part.
Binesh
: S
: (Who doesn't like musicians who FORCE me to pay them so they'll go away
: 'cause the law doesn't allow me to throw them in front of the Q train.)
Binesh Bannerjee
: A couple of things.
: 1). Every year Congress reviews various things, one of which is
: the cable act. In 1992 (or thereabouts), they asked Cable (or rather,
: their PACs) what they wanted changed to improve their service. Cable
: responded that they would like the ability to do NO-KNOCK SEARCHES of
: private residences with HIRED ARMED GUARDS (not cops). Why? "cable
: thieves" was the response. That's right, Joe Schmoe hooks up that black
: box he got from his buddy so he can watch Plaboy for free, and the next
: thing he knows his door is broken down without warning, and armed men are
: ripping apart his entertainment center. Fortunatly, Congress has a few
: more brains than most people account for, and of course told them no
: chance in hell.
You have GOT to be kidding!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Binesh
johanw
Subject: Re: Copyright Violations Plague the Net
I am Johan of Internet. The script will be assimilated by the
Bor... (eh, Net). Copyright is irrelevant. Lawyers are irrelevant.
Ethics is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. Your laws as they
have been are over. From this time forward, copyright will be extinct.
The knowledge and experience of the Lawyers, is part of us now. It has
prepared us for all possible courses of action. Your resistance is
hopeless, lawyers.
You see the power of the net? :-)
Johan Wevers
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers | The only nature of reality
joh...@xs4all.nl | is physics.
Binesh Bannerjee
: In a previous article, bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) says:
: >Oh, but what if I copied my friends CDs? For free?
: That would still be illegal. Every copy you make from SOMEONE ELSE's copy
: is one less copy actually bought from the record company (via their
: distributors, the record stores, etc.). And that that someone else is
: your friend is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The record company
: loses out on their revenue from that one copy. If this applied to just
: you, the company would have a negligible loss to worry about. But it
: doesn't.
You obviously missed my original post, and someone else rebutting my point
by saying that making backup copies of CD's were legal.
I know that copying my friend's CD's are illegal. My original
point was to say, that even when I have the technology to make perfect
copies of CDs I still wouldn't, because the packaging is important to
me. I was using this to say, that I would bet that most people who buy
the scripts, would want legitimate copies, and so the hundreds of copies
floating around would kind of be useless to them...
And, the CD market is quite a bit different from the script market.
I would bet that A. the CD market is quite a bit higher, and B. the
reasons for why one buys a script, differes from why one buys a CD.
Duh... I mean, that MOST people, buy CDs just to hear the music,
and if they can get a free copy, hey, so they get to hear the
music for free, and that's all they wanted, so they're happy, and
the music industry has a legitimate grievance, because, those
people probably WOULD have bought the CD, if they couldn't get it
for free..
But, I'd bet that most script buyers are collectors, and for them,
like me (I collect CD's and comics), for collectors, having an
illegitimate copy is useless, because an illegitimate copy is a
worthless copy. The legitimacy of the script itself has value.
And, my entire point revolves around the idea that most people
who got a copy of the script illegaly would NOT have bought the
script had it not been free, so there is no legitimate grievance
by Paramount.
And, people keep telling me this sort of an argument:
Binesh: There is no damage to Paramount associated with
spreading more copies.
Someone:That's irrelevant! It's ILLEGAL! It's ILLEGAL!
It's ILLEGAL!!!!
Binesh: But why? Why should it be illegal, if I'm
not causing any damage?
Someone:It's ILLEGAL! It doesn't matter that you don't cause
damage! It's ILLEGAL! It's ILLEGAL!
Maybe I should be more direct and just ask why should a
harmless activity be illegal?
And, I'm all for that test that we mentioned earlier, Roger,
what's the figure for the script sales for ST:VI, been from
it's release date till now? We'll check how many scripts
have been sold that many days from the release of ST:VII,
and ... Maybe we should formalise again, so there's no confusion.
ReleaseDateOfSTVI = ((ReleaseDate of ST:VI)
Today = today; (Whenever today is, but please let me now)
NumDays = Today-ReleaseDateOfSTVI = Number of days between release date
of ST:VI and today
NumSalesOfSTVI = Number of script sales as of Today
ReleaseDateOfSTVII = 11/18/94
DateToCheck = ReleaseDateOfSTVII+(Today-ReleaseDateOfSTVI) = Date when we
check the script
sales of ST:VII
NumSalesOfSTVII = Number of script sales as of DateToCheck
I bet that (NumSalesOfSTVI*0.9) >= NumSalesOfSTVII, and if not
I will publicly acknowledge the fact that I am a giant net.weenie,
and explain why I am such a net.weenie.
Of course, if it (NumSalesOfSTVI*0.9) >= NumSalesOfSTVII then
Roger Tang will have to publicly acknowledge the same, and
give us the same explanation...
Binesh
: --
: . James Fraser, at...@freenet.carleton.ca "The land & .
: /|\ Member, AFM, ENVY, the Bajoran Alliance the people /|\
: |/^\| For ENVY info e-mail Bajor...@aol.com are one" |/^\|
: \_/ FTP/shell access, open-end telnet not avail thru NCF \_/
Binesh Bannerjee
: FORCE? Excuse me, but could you name a performer or programmer who has
: ever FORCED you to pay for anything? If you choose to buy a product sight
: unseen (without hearing or trying the product, and presumably without
: reading any reviewers you respect, or looking into the history of the
: producer of the product, and presumably from a store that doesn't allow
: returns) you deserve what you get.
Actually, in a WAY, I kind of can justify the claim, but only with
respect to ONE company... Microsoft... Microsoft built it's Windows
monopoly by making it so that computer distributors could either pay
an exorbitant price per copy, or pay a MUCH cheaper price in bulk
for Windows if they paid for Windows for each PC that was made by
whichever company. For instance, each Gateway machine or each
Dell machine, whether you had Windows on it or not (If you got Unix,
or OS/2, you paid for a copy, because Microsoft FORCED (in a way)
the distributor to pay for Windows on each machine they shipped...
But I won't say anything more, because you're right, that noone
forces anyone to buy a product. But, what I was saying was the
people who are just street performers, well, you like their music,
then you toss them some money. Or, you like their music, you stand
around and watch, and then you just go away, or you don't like their
music, so you walk away... The people who sell their CDs...
This is a totally fruitless argument for me... The people who sell
their CDs well, you can listen to them off the radio, for free...
So, again, sorry, bad choice of words "FORCE"...
Is it ok to tape stuff off the radio tho? Is it only
OK for 1 or two songs? What if you amass a HUGE library
of music and you never pay for any of it, just off the
radio?
I DON'T CARE ABOUT LEGAL/ILLEGAL stuff! Being the immoral
agnostic, criminal son of a bitch that I am!
I just want to know if that's equally cutting into copyrighted
material, so are people who copy stuff off the radio, equally
worthy of vilification?
: S
: (Who doesn't like musicians who FORCE me to pay them so they'll go away
: 'cause the law doesn't allow me to throw them in front of the Q train.)
See?
Me, I wouldn't throw the musician in front of the Q train, because, I would
think it's wrong to kill them regardless of if it's legal or not, so tomorrow
when there's new legislation, that permits one two throw musicians in front
of trains, I still won't do it. You on the other hand, are the kind of person
who sits around thinking Gee! I wish I could throw this guy in front of
the train.. But, it's illegal! So, I won't do it.
On the other hand, if I felt like doing it, (Where, it can be drugs,
prostitution, giving away scripts for the next star trek movie, etc. etc.)
I'd do it whether or not it was legal again, as long as my OWN moral
conscience is clear. Which is why I keep asking people why my moral
conscience should not be clear, but people keep screaming "ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!" at me...
Binesh
still waiting...
Alan Dekok
>just another theatre geek (gwan...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: What in heaven's names makes you think you have any right to that
>: script?
>
>The fact that I was not looking for it, it happened to appear one day out
>of the blue on my little terminal.
So you come into posession of stolen copyrighted material, and
you're innocent because _you_ didn't steal it? You're still in
possession of stolen property.
> Or rather, that happened to someone
>before me, and I just asked that someone for a copy of what they saw..
"...I just asked a friend for an x-rated picture involving dogs and
little girls, officer. Honest, _I_ didn't make the picture, why are
you arresting me?"
Your logic has gaping holes.
>[snip]
> Once anything hits the net, effectively, it has become public domain.
'Effectively' doesn't cut it. 'Legality' does. If anything is
'effectively' publicly available (i.e. through the net), possession
and distribution of it (if copyrighted) is still illegal. Or are you
arguing that it's not?
> Nobody asked for
>the script, it just popped up on our terminals. I have a right to capture
>whatever I feel like capturing on my terminal.
Show me where it says that in any law book, or where there is any
court precedent for this statement.
Honestly, your arguments ignore legal reality. They are all based
on your claims of ignorance of the knowledge of legal reality, which
won't ct it, either.
Alan DeKok.
--
"Even more like you, perhaps, than you are yourself."
just another theatre geek
>: What in heaven's names makes you think you have any right to that
>: script?
>The fact that I was not looking for it, it happened to appear one day out
>of the blue on my little terminal.
Ah, and if some day, a Monet painting appears on your doorstep,
you then have a right to it?
Riiighhhhhttt......
>the script, it just popped up on our terminals. I have a right to capture
>whatever I feel like capturing on my terminal.
No, you do not. Not when it is NOT your property.
just another theatre geek
>I DON'T CARE ABOUT LEGAL/ILLEGAL stuff! Being the immoral
>agnostic, criminal son of a bitch that I am!
Then think about this....
They made it. It's their property. Keep your hands off it if they
don't want you to touch it.
Simple and ethical.
Steersy
Thanks for sharing this with us. What newsgroup was it actually meant for?
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civil-
ized world. Your message will cost _\|/_ the net hundreds if not thousands
of dollars to send everywhere. Please {@ @} be sure you know what you are doing
===================================ooO=(_)=Ooo=================================
Keep a cool and have a good Weekend!
Bruce Hayden
>Blanche Cohen (bla...@du.edu) wrote:
>I don't know what your hobby is, but for me, my hobby IS software development.
>And, obviously, in the area of software development, there are plenty of
>people who would go on creating, even if you wouldn't without a monetary
>incentive... Linux, FSF, PGP etc etc etc...
I believe Blanche's point was that she does her software development
only when paid. Which she has done for a long, long time. Though I had
known her before, I got to know her quite a bit better taking a couple
of software engineering classes from her last year. Hobbies I believe
include Star Trek and chokolate.
>How about RSA technology? From what limited perspective I have, it seems
>as though, this company has essentially patented an algorithm, simply
>a more complicated version of patenting multiplication... Is this
>beneficial to anyone BUT the company? And, if you think that knowledge
>such as this should be patented, well, we disagree there. There are also
>patents for DNA patterns, these days, which I consider equally ridiculous.
Mostly I would propose are red herrings. The big DNA sequencing application
was rejected last year when the applicant was unable to show utility.
As for RSA, hasn't the technology been recently licensed for essentially
general use? In any case, a patent on a "mathematical" algorithm is
still suspect. Though note that algorithms themselves are specifically
provided for in the patent law as methods.
---------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden 29330 Lower Moss Rock Road
bha...@copatlaw.com Golden, Colorado 80401
(303) 526-2399 FAX (303) 526-2008
Bruce Hayden
>Gina Goff (GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1994Oct15.0...@escape.widomaker.com>
>: shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
>:
>: I don't see how patents make software inherently incompatible, inefficient,
>: etc.
>Then read some magazines, use some computers, etc. The evidence is all
>around you everywhere you look.
I seem to be missing it.
>: Manufacturers sometimes make their stuff incompatible on purpose so
>: users won't switch to other brands. As for expense, the companies can
>: charge only what the traffic will bear -- intellectual property will not
>: alter the fact that if it's too expensive, many people won't buy.
>Or can't buy. I run UNIX and would love to buy some software for it. But
>the costs are too high. They companies pricing for what the market will
>bear is destructive. They should price for profit if anything. If they
>can't sell it then give it away and find something else.
Let me suggest that you take a couple of business courses. I would suggest
that the parties pricing the software are better trained at pricing products
than you are. If you have ever been involved in it, you would know that it
is quite an art, requiring a strong technical background (in marketing).
>: >For every person like your father there are others who cannot get their
>: >work done because of his patents. What about people who might need to
>: >make use of one of them but cannot afford to license it? What options do
>: >they have?
>:
>: They create their own, do without, or break the law.
>* creating their own is stupid when something suitable is already there
>* doing without is not an option or they wouldn't need it in the first
> place
>* breaking a law that is unjust is the only option available anymore.
> Software patents have already made it impossible to make a legal
> program of any complexity. Most people don't realize it but it's
> true.
This is one of the most absurd statements that I have heard recently.
I would be interested in exactly which patents arre blocking your
complex program.
>: Suppose you were a software consultant. You put together a really nifty
>: package for company A. In fact, it's so popular with them that you decide
>: to market it. Unfortunately, company A has decided to sell it, too; why
>: shouldn't everyone be able to just use your effort? How would you feel
>: then?
>Scenario: Company A starts bottling air. They file a lawsuit against
>people that point out air is already free and win. It's now a crime to
>breathe without using the air they sell. How would you feel then? Much
>the same thing is happening in the software industry today.
Oh come on. The analogy is not even close to being appropriate.
>: >knowledge but once that knowledge exists it is criminal to profit from
>: >it's disclosure and restrict it to only those who can pay for it.
>:
>: And here we get back into the "what is information and what is intellectual
>: property?" question again...
>There is no intellectual property. Most ideas are just old ideas recycled
>and/or mixed with some new creation. You deserve credit and even to
>profit from your work. But you do not deserve to limit access to knowledge
>and it is inefficient for us to do so anyway. In the long run, no one
>benefits. I'm more inclined to see companies do something like:
If you can show that someone did not invent something, then you can
ultimately invalidate any patent that they may have. But I suspect it
is rare that this happens. Instead, people read the patents' abstracts
and panick after listening to the marketing hacks of the companies that
own the patents. Of course, the marketing hacks only looked at the
abstracts themselves, and not the claims.
The reality is that a certain, probably small, number of questionable
patents issue each year in any art. The number is probably a little
larger in this art due to its relative infancy as patentable subject
matter. But then the PTO probably rejects more applications for legal
inventions in software than they accept questionable applications. Why?
Because they have been essentially hostile to software patents until
very recently, if even then.
>* copyright what they do
>* allow use of their code except to sell it for profit
>* allow others to support their product if they can attain sufficient
> expertise to do so (obviously)
>* NEVER patent their software, it's simply wrong to do so
>* if they must get a leap on someone else then keep it a trade secret,
>This is not perfect but given that we don't have a perfect world it may
>be necessary. It's advantage is it doesn't have the force of law (we
>need no more laws controlling business) and eventually a company must
>release the information before it becomes useless. If they don't,
>someone else will do better and that's what competition is all about.
>Some duplication of effort but in a good way. Not just because
>something is out there and heavily restricted.
>Because of the fast nature of the software industry, companies must not
>keep trade secrets for long or they'll get behind. Give them patent
>protection and they'll sit on their behinds because they can make
>money without working. Everyone is forced to deal with them and the
>technology stagnates unless someone else does a complete duplication
>of their work and beats them. Great when it happens but all too often
>the whole industry gets held up because of this.
I would suggest that anyone reading this article consult with an IP
attorney before making any reliance upon anything here. In particular,
there is significant amounts of mis-information contained in the article
I just commented upon, and in particular in the above paragraph.
>Recent events have pretty much proven that you can make money without
>heavily protecting your technology. It's also proven that freely
>available technology can advance much more rapidly than heavily guarded
>technology.
Conclusory statements, without any actual basis in fact. In particular,
your conclusion appears to be based on a small number of somewhat
successful noncommercial products (compared to the millions of
noncommercial programs that never are useful, etc.).
Bruce Hayden
>GI...@ricevm1.rice.edu (Gina Goff) writes:
>>In article <1994Oct16....@escape.widomaker.com>
>>shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
>>
>>(snip!)
>>
>>>Recent events have pretty much proven that you can make money without
>>>heavily protecting your technology. It's also proven that freely
>>>available technology can advance much more rapidly than heavily guarded
>>>technology.
>>
>>If this is true, then there will shortly be no incentive for businesses
>>to apply for patents, so this discussion is pointless.
>It's far from pointless. Even if no patents are applied for (a ridiculous
>thought considering the current rate of application), existing ones are
>damaging enough in themselves. I don't think you realize just how many
>common-sense items and key technologies are patented. In fact, I would
>not bet someone that I could write even "hello world" without violating
>someone's patent. It may very well be impossible.
>>
Do you really read that many patents? And if you do, do you read the
claims, in view of the specifications, or just limit yourself to the
abstracts, or even worse, the title lines? And if you find one that
you believe is especially egregious, do you read the file history so
that you can see which claim interpretations have been estopped?
And after that, do you have personal knowledge that the disclosed
invention in that patent was not novel at the time of application?
The Daily Planet
From: bha...@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Path: bhayden
st...@balder.nta.no (Haakon Styri) writes:
>Shannon Hendrix (shen...@escape.widomaker.com) wrote:
>: It's far from pointless. Even if no patents are applied for (a ridiculous
>: thought considering the current rate of application), existing ones are
>: damaging enough in themselves. I don't think you realize just how many
>: common-sense items and key technologies are patented. In fact, I would
>: not bet someone that I could write even "hello world" without violating
>: someone's patent. It may very well be impossible.
>It's amazing how most things become "common-sense" the minute after
>the patent is known. :-) Anyway, I don't know how US patent law
>works, but from what I understand of European practice you only have
>to publish and then it cannot be patented by somebody else. (Dunno
>how much things will change due to the new GATT deal.)
Actually, under U.S. law, you can file an application within a year
of publication. However, if someone else was the one publishing the
information, then you would have to essentially show that your
invention predates the publication (and that you were diligent
in reducing the invention to practice).
Some of the above differs from the rest of the world, since the
U.S. is the primary country hanging on for at least a little longer
to first to invent. Much of the rest of the world has gone to
first to file.
>With respect to the notion that copyrights and patents are slowing
>down technological developement (not that I think that is a bad
>thing, it's supposed to be good to stop and thing every now and then)
>I'll just point out that: Progress is achieved by standing on the
>shoulders of others, not on their toes.
And of course there is little if any actual hard evidence that copyrights
or patents really do slow down technological development.
T. Joseph W. Lazio
In article <37nmrl$8...@panix.com> bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
BB> If somebody had decided to pirate the movie for Generations, and
BB> capture one of the stations, and broadcast the movie illegally,
BB> and I happened to have been taping at that particular moment, and
BB> I came home and I saw the whole movie and I said HEY! great I have
BB> the whole movie! Do I have a right to keep MY tape? I think I
BB> should. I did nothing illegal. I was simply taping and this
BB> broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape so, I should
BB> be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and give it to a
BB> friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do so. Or are
BB> you saying that the cops should break into everyone's house and
BB> order everyone to blank out any tapes they made?
BB> This is the same argument I'm applying here.
Perhaps you should consider just what is your property and what
isn't.
The tape is your property. The movie ST:Gen is Paramount property,
as such they should have the right to control its distribution.
--
| e-mail: la...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu
T. Joseph W. Lazio | phone: (607) 255-6420
| ICBM: 42 deg. 20' 08" N 76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? | STOP RAPE
just another theatre geek
T. Joseph W. Lazio <la...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> "BB" == Binesh Bannerjee <bin...@panix.com> writes:
>BB> If somebody had decided to pirate the movie for Generations, and
>BB> capture one of the stations, and broadcast the movie illegally,
>BB> and I happened to have been taping at that particular moment, and
>BB> I came home and I saw the whole movie and I said HEY! great I have
>BB> the whole movie! Do I have a right to keep MY tape? I think I
>BB> should. I did nothing illegal. I was simply taping and this
>BB> broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape so, I should
>BB> be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and give it to a
>BB> friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do so. Or are
>BB> you saying that the cops should break into everyone's house and
>BB> order everyone to blank out any tapes they made?
>BB> This is the same argument I'm applying here.
> Perhaps you should consider just what is your property and what
> isn't.
> The tape is your property. The movie ST:Gen is Paramount property,
> as such they should have the right to control its distribution.
No! It mine! IT's ALLLLLLLL mine! It bewong to me!
And if you don' gimme the scwipt NOW, I'm gonna hold my bweath
until my face turns bwue!
WAAHHHHHHHHHH! WAHHHHHHH!
Taki Kogoma
<37urml$3...@panix.com> in rec.arts.startrek.misc:
>ron house (ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU) wrote:
>: I don't know where to start. Why is intellectual work not deserving of
>: reward like any other sort of work? You don't have to be selfish to
>: want to receive a reasonable income from working 40 or more hours a
>: week, even if you do love it. Selfishness indicates an _unreasonable_
>: desire for payment. And I do think there is a gap of some sort between
>: where "free" ends and "unreasonable" begins. BTW: do you contribute
>: free software, or merely use it? Not flaming, just interested.
>
>I know this question was not addressed to me, but, I definitely DO
>contribute to free software, the same way I contribute to musicians
>who perform on the sidewalk etc, etc. The fact that they don't FORCE
>their audience to pay, may make it so that they earn less than the
>performers, or programmers who DO force you to pay, in many cases
>before you ever hear or trial whatever, but they are still doing what
>they love, and can still claim a living...
Erm...
Let me see if I get your argumentation correct here.
"Because I choose not to charge for my work, nobody else should charge
for theirs"?
In other words, why should the fact that *some* programs/books/whatever
is place in the public domain or is permitted unrestricted duplication
force *all* programs/books/whatever to be similarly (un)controlled?
Don't the wishes of the creators of these programs/books/whatever have
any bearing? Or is it okay to steal them from a Publishing Company
just because said company is just in it for the money?
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk - qu...@unm.edu | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
Gina Goff
bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
>Thanks for deleting the POINT of this second argument.
My apologies. I missed the fact that you were discussing the broadcast
of something stolen. Could you make your paragraphs briefer, to improve
readability?
>The broadcast that I mentioned was one where someone
>STOLE a copy of a soon to be released movie, took over
>a TV station and aired the movie in it's entirety...
>And, ...
>: :and this broadcast came over the air. Then, again it's MY tape
>: :so, I should be able to make copies of it, so if I make a copy and
>: :give it to a friend, well, it's MY tape, and I should be able to do so.
>: :Or are you saying that the cops should break into everyone's house
>: :and order everyone to blank out any tapes they made?
The cops are unlikely to know, and even if they did, I doubt anyone would
be breaking into your house. To answer your original point, distributing
stolen copyrighted material is a violation even if you aren't the one who
took the copy in the first place. Distribution is one of the rights covered
by copyright.
G.
Blanche Cohen
have cited gnu, TeX, shareware, etc as examples of the spirit
of the software community. However, most software is NOT written for small
personal computers but for larger workstations and mainframes. True there is
a great deal of "community" software for unix, but much of that is due to
the original distribution philosophy of AT&T (before they realized they
had a money-maker!)
It's not completely valid to cite these examples. To wit - TeX may be freely
distributed but a number of companies are now marketing new and improved
versions of TeX for various platforms - and they're NOT free. XWindows is
another example - the basic system is freely available here on the net, or
pay a small service fee and have the X Consortium send you the tapes. On
the other hand, there is an entire industry of X developers of toolkits,
add-ons, consultants, etc. that are NOT shareware/freeware/whatever.
And I have yet to hear of any shareware/freeware/whatever in the COBOL arena,
nor in the US Dept of Defense (talk about proprietary and classified!) and
so on. People just don't make shareware/freeware/whatever for high-end
mainframes, Crays, etc.
If you take a look at the entire software development spectrum, I think you'll
find that pc development is a small (altho growing) part of the industry.
--
"It might be interesting to explore useless for a while" [DS9]
"Chocolate is a serious business" [TNG]
"Worst case of testosterone poisoning I've ever seen..." [B5]
Ken Arromdee
Shannon Hendrix <shen...@escape.widomaker.com> wrote:
>There is no intellectual property. Most ideas are just old ideas recycled
>and/or mixed with some new creation.
There is no creative writing. Most written material is just old letters and
words recycled, and most plots have been done before.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova
Viktor T. Toth
[stuff deleted]
Excuse me folks but what exactly does this stuff have to do with Linux? And if
the answer is 'nothing', would you
PLEASE GET OUT OF COMP.OS.LINUX.MISC ?!?
Thank you.
Viktor
johanw
>That being the case, Paramount should have stopped contacting script
>distributors months ago. Apparently, they don't share your opinion of
>the situation.
Well, I posted the script some days agoo and I've heard nothing from
Paramount yet (but I did from other people). I'm waiting... :-)
Johan Wevers
Hutsel Barry E
: And noone has yet told me any tangible
: way that Paramount is getting hurt... I've heard "potential loss"
: I've heard "it's not the writers final draft" etc. etc, but no real
: way that Paramounts wallet is hurting... Certainly not per EACH
: copy that is made (cause I've heard about the 1% of the population
: who reads the script and says "I ain't paying to see that", which
: if Paramount counts that, they should bring libel suits against
: every reviewer also... Unless people tell me that reviewers all
: have to be registered with Paramount before they do a review.)
The fact remains that under the copyright legislation Paramont does not
have to prove any loss. The original poster of the scipt violated the
law and any subsequent posters (whether or not they were the ones who
stole the script) are also in violation. Paramont's loss is irrelevant.
However, if you do want to consider loss (say for example if Paramont was
to sue the poster of the script in tort), the amount of loss would only
be relevant to the amount of damages awarded. All Paramont would have to
prove to be awarded judgment would be some loss. All it would have to
prove is that one person who might have purchased the script or bought a
ticket to the movie did not do so because of the unauthorized
publication. AND, I think even YOU would have to agree that this would
be an easy thing for Paramont to do (I dare say that it might be the law
that Paramont would only have to prove potential loss, but I'm not
certain on that point and therefore do not assert it here).
Hope this helps....
--Barry
-----------------------------
Barry E. Hutsel O___
2-542 Frontenac _.>/ _
Kingston, Ont. (_) \(_) ................
K7K 4M2
ph (613) 531-8819 "... I'd rather be on the road."
3b...@qlink.queensu.ca
hut...@mbnet.mb.ca
Peter Wright
Both I (part-time at night) and the company I work full time protect
our respective intellectual property aggressively. I write some Xbase
applications and never release source and issue copyright notices when
I distribute. This prevents my competition, at least to a small extent,
from building on my work.
The company I work full time for is in direct competition with AT&T. So
you can imagine how jealous they are of their inventions.
In a truely competitive market, intellectual property must be protected
or else everyone will be looking for someone else to spend R&D money.
Without patents and copyrights, it will be unjustifiable to spend profit
money without generating a resonable return on the investment.
Peter Wright, TMC Compute and Network Planner
Bell-Northern Research, Corkstown (CRK 047)
Internet pwr...@bnr.ca
Jeff Kesselman
We just had a very nice summary of Copyright law posted over in the FRp
situation (with cites, very authoratative.) It turns out that all
Paramount has to prove is potential future loss, even in a market not yet
opened. So, they can EASILY claim taht your illegal video tape copy is
an impact on their eventual video-tape sales of this move, when and if
they decide to release it.
** FLAME ON
This is ALL besides the point, however. Noone has to debate why ripping
off a candy bvar is illegal, it is obvious. Similarly infringing a
copyright- the right ot control how copies are made-- is an equally
obvious thing. The only time the issue of specific damage comes up in an
argument is from people who have a need to somehow justify their illegal
activities.
Frankly, I have more respect for the hardened criminal, who at least is
genreally willign to ADMIT that he's antisocial, and doesnt care abotu
other people.
** FLAME OFF
Binesh Bannerjee
: >And, if you dispute point B, I'd like to hear how much extra money
: >Paramount loses per each extra copy.
: >
: >But, if you tell me that each copy is lost revenue because those
: >people would have bought the script otherwise, this is false,
: >because I for one, would NOT have bought the script if it wasn't
: Irrelevant.
: Generalization from a specific is a poor argumentation technique,
: especially since you CAN measure losses such as this quite easily....by
: pointing to PAST script sales.
: Try again.
Nope sorry, you try again.
What I was saying was that EVERYONE who got a copy of the script
would not have bought the script.
Let's formalize:
For All persons who have a copy of the script, there exists one or
more persons who would not have gotten a copy of the script IF
the copy was not free...
All I need to prove a there exists type of proof is a single
solitary example. Although, I can pick many many examples...
In any case, you are right, we can extrapolate from previous
script sales to figure on how many scripts would have been
sold this time. I'd say, it'd be most reliable to use ST: VI's
script versus this one, because they are both later movies, but
if not, I guess you could average the past 6 movies. But, don't
compare Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan to this one, and tell me
"See?" OK? OK... Now, we can go check script sales... Unfortunately
this doesn't appear to help us now... (I think) Don't we have to
wait for a while to get this? (The script) In anycase, ST: VI would
again be the quickest comparison. We'd have to take their script sales
right now, and figure how many years ago it was written, and compare
ST:VII's script sales that many years from now. I bet whatever you want
to bet that the difference will not be significant. (Don't tell me
See? There were 5 scripts less on ST:VII than ST:VI...) Something
along the order of say 10% difference. Deal?
Binesh
: --
: Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
: The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Binesh Bannerjee
: In article <37k4bt$3...@panix.com>, Binesh Bannerjee <bin...@panix.com> wrote:
: So, if you were to one day write a book, a computer program, a song, a
: musical score, draw a piece of artwork, or other such item, you would
: have no problem with people taking that item and making an infinite
: ammount of copies? You're going to be a really poor artist if you did that.
In point of fact, I have written several programs, and have always
given them away for free... None of them are anywhere NEAR as
widely distributed as GNU stuff, nor honestly are they anywhere
near as good, but I have...
: >Take for example CDs... I have a large collection of CDs... I plan to
: >get a DAT... I think it's foolish for the recording industry to think
: >that there will not be people who won't copy the CDs... And, they weren't
: >which is why there's SCMS and why there isn't widespread acceptance of
: >DATs... But, even when I get a DAT, I will not be pirating CDs...
: >Why? because the cover, and the artwork surrounding the CD is important
: >to me. So, this is an effective means by the recording industry to prevent
: >me from copying CDs... Same goes for movies... I have a large collection
: >of tapes... I wouldn't copy them, even though I could, because the packaging
: >is important to me.
: But, what you describe is PERFECTLY LEGAL! You are making copies for
: personal use, you are not selling or giving them away. My father used to
: make reel-to-reel copies of his favorite records in order to preserve
: their quality. There is nothing wrong with that because he kept the
: record, and still has them to this day.
: The problem comes if he tries to sell those reel-to-reel copies. That
: would be illegal.
Oh, but what if I copied my friends CDs? For free?
Binesh
: --
: Brian Eirik Coe * "The hotel of your mind has many vacancies"
: Optometrist-in-Training * -Yakko Warners Fortune Cookie
: "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" -The Brain, Animaniacs
: "It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent." -Q, ST:TNG