Freedom of Information or Freedom to steal?
Henry Bramlet
I'm a little concerned with all the pirated works of Herbert's being sent on
this newsgroup. Is there any way to stop it? Does anyone know who to contact
in order to force enforcement against this person?
Thank you
--
(-)enry Bramlet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
"Should this journey lead to death, we ride together!"
-Jason Holdfast
Parables of the Fall
Note: Remove the NOSPAM from my address if you wish to contact me via email.
Tony
"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f5mbru46v9g3nh4i7...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:44:51 GMT, "Henry Bramlet"
> <hbra...@NOSPAMqwest.net> wrote:
> >Hey all-
> >
> >I'm a little concerned with all the pirated works of Herbert's being sent on
> >this newsgroup. Is there any way to stop it? Does anyone know who to contact
> >in order to force enforcement against this person?
>
> remailers, so we can't track him or her down. There's no one who can
> take action against this person, and no way to censor messages on the
> group.
>
> One thing someone could do would be to request Google not to archive the
> posts. That way the material won't be available indefinitely over the
> web.
>
> I've just killfiled all the email addresses. This isn't someone
> attempting to distribute FH's work (there are far easier and more
> effective ways to do that), this is an attempt to ruin the newsgroup. If
> we just ignore it, maybe this person will get a life instead.
>
<snip>
Yes. Just ignore it. No one wants to read these books on a computer screen anyway.
Gunnar Harboe
<hbra...@NOSPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>I'm a little concerned with all the pirated works of Herbert's being sent on
>this newsgroup. Is there any way to stop it? Does anyone know who to contact
>in order to force enforcement against this person?
I don't think there's anything we can do. The person is using anonymous
remailers, so we can't track him or her down. There's no one who can
take action against this person, and no way to censor messages on the
group.
One thing someone could do would be to request Google not to archive the
posts. That way the material won't be available indefinitely over the
web.
I've just killfiled all the email addresses. This isn't someone
attempting to distribute FH's work (there are far easier and more
effective ways to do that), this is an attempt to ruin the newsgroup. If
we just ignore it, maybe this person will get a life instead.
--
Bye!
Gunnar Harboe
gh...@cam.ac.uk
The alt.fan.dune FAQ
<http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gh248/dunefaq/>
___
There should be a word-tension for "fated," conveying
a meaning opposite from a thing destined to be. There
should also be a garnish-tension for "parsley,"
denoting the opposite of the leafy herb. Oh, we speak
in daily discourse of "anti-parsley," but that is
another thing entire. What the word for a thing is
can consequent much.
- from "Mauve'Bib Has Ideas and Speaks Them,"
edited by the Princess Serutan
Marco Heykant
and printing is a hell of a job...
but this is infringement of copyright, right?
--
The Hithhikersguide to the Galaxy.
"Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it!"
=======================
== http://www.phonus.net ==
=======================
"Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9CC624E3A2CC6F7B.F565A4B0...@lp.airnews.net...
Giovanni Wassen
the water. I can smell it in the air. Ergo, Gunnar Harboe wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:44:51 GMT, "Henry Bramlet"
> <hbra...@NOSPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>>Hey all-
>>
>>I'm a little concerned with all the pirated works of Herbert's being
>>sent on this newsgroup. Is there any way to stop it? Does anyone know
>>who to contact in order to force enforcement against this person?
>
> I don't think there's anything we can do. The person is using
> anonymous remailers, so we can't track him or her down. There's no one
> who can take action against this person, and no way to censor messages
> on the group.
>
> One thing someone could do would be to request Google not to archive
> the posts. That way the material won't be available indefinitely over
> the web.
>
> I've just killfiled all the email addresses. This isn't someone
> attempting to distribute FH's work (there are far easier and more
> effective ways to do that), this is an attempt to ruin the newsgroup.
> If we just ignore it, maybe this person will get a life instead.
>
Can an anonymous remailer steal e-mailadresses and names? I mean, I saw a
familiar name as sender of one of the posts.
BTW A cool thing in X-news is the fact you can 'delete' the post so it
won't be visible anymore for you.
--
[Gio]
----
http://www.nmmusic.nl
http://www.nmmusic.nl/dune
http://www.geocities.com/gio_sf
-------------------
BUFFY: What the hell are you doing?
SPIKE: I thought they were demons.
BUFFY: Way to go with the keen observiness, Jessica Fletcher.
-------------------
Gunnar Harboe
>"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:f5mbru46v9g3nh4i7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:44:51 GMT, "Henry Bramlet"
>> <hbra...@NOSPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>> >Hey all-
>> >
>> >I'm a little concerned with all the pirated works of Herbert's being sent on
>> >this newsgroup.
>Yes. Just ignore it. No one wants to read these books on a computer screen anyway.
I don't know about that. I myself have read a couple of books online
(Kafka's Metamorphosis and a book called Metrophage), and e-books appear
to be quite popular. I believe some people would want to read these
books on a computer screen.
Susan Hogarth
>
>On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:10:24 -0400, "Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Yes. Just ignore it. No one wants to read these books on a computer screen anyway.
>
>I don't know about that. I myself have read a couple of books online
>(Kafka's Metamorphosis and a book called Metrophage), and e-books appear
>to be quite popular. I believe some people would want to read these
>books on a computer screen.
I read every day on my tiny Zaurus (think Palm Pilot, but Linux) - entire books.
I used to read quite a bit on the Palm, and that's dedicated - especially on a
moving bus :) or at night with the buzzing green backlight. At first I thought
I'd not get used to it, but since I'm a pathological reader, I learned to live
with it and now am completely comfortable with the Zaurus.
I have found that certain types of things are easier to read - plot-driven
fiction and short essay-type materials. Longer works, things that take a lof of
concentration, and heavily footnoted stuff is a bit of a pain.
Sometimes it's a delicate balancing act finding the right thing to read. For a
meeting or class in which you are not fully 'engaged', for instance, you want
something interesing enough to keep you awake but not so absorbing that you
forget you are supposed to be acting like you're paying attention :) Also I have
learned to avoid humorous material for meeting ;-) although I do have a fine
time laughing on the bus and confusing people :)
For a person like myself who likes to be reading several things in the same
timeframe, ebooks are a godsend (so to speak). I can carry around 4 or 5 books
(more, actually) and always have -something- agreeable to my mood and the
surroundings.
--
Susan Hogarth
Gunnar Harboe
>alt.fan.dune has changed. I can feel it in the earth. I can feel it in
>the water. I can smell it in the air. Ergo, Gunnar Harboe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:44:51 GMT, "Henry Bramlet"
>> <hbra...@NOSPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>>>Hey all-
>>>
>>>I'm a little concerned with all the pirated works of Herbert's being
>>>sent on this newsgroup. Is there any way to stop it? Does anyone know
>>>who to contact in order to force enforcement against this person?
>>
>> I don't think there's anything we can do. The person is using
>> anonymous remailers, so we can't track him or her down. There's no one
>> who can take action against this person, and no way to censor messages
>> on the group.
>Can an anonymous remailer steal e-mailadresses and names? I mean, I saw a
>familiar name as sender of one of the posts.
Anyone can put any name and e-mail address they want on the posts they
send. You can never be sure that a newsgroup post is from the person you
think it is. That's why some people include PGP codes in their messages.
Or you can inspect the path to see where the message is coming from and
compare it to previous posts.
That said, I think most remailers just use a standard "From" field, so
that anyone using the same service will appear to be the same poster.
That's probably why you recognise the sender.
>BTW A cool thing in X-news is the fact you can 'delete' the post so it
>won't be visible anymore for you.
This feature is available on most newsreaders. You can also "killfile"
posts from certain posters, or with certain subject lines etc. By
killfiling the e-mail addresses all this spam is coming from, I never
see most of it in the first place.
Ty Beard
> attempting to distribute FH's work (there are far easier and more
> effective ways to do that), this is an attempt to ruin the newsgroup. If
> we just ignore it, maybe this person will get a life instead.
I agree with Gunnar here -- and my contempt for copyright violators is well
known. Anyone who wants illicit electronic versions of FH's works can get
them in far more convenient form elsewhere. This guy is just some twit
trying to initiate a flamewar. I suggest we not play.
--Ty
Ty Beard
news:iMst9.548$if.2...@pollux.casema.net...
> I quite agree,
>
> and printing is a hell of a job...
>
> but this is infringement of copyright, right?
Yes.
--Ty
Henry Bramlet
news:bBtt9.47231$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:40:50 +0100, Gunnar Harboe wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:10:24 -0400, "Tony" <to...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ..
> >>Yes. Just ignore it. No one wants to read these books on a computer
screen anyway.
> >
> >I don't know about that. I myself have read a couple of books online
> >(Kafka's Metamorphosis and a book called Metrophage), and e-books appear
> >to be quite popular. I believe some people would want to read these
> >books on a computer screen.
>
> I read every day on my tiny Zaurus (think Palm Pilot, but Linux) - entire
books.
> I used to read quite a bit on the Palm, and that's dedicated - especially
on a
> moving bus :) or at night with the buzzing green backlight. At first I
thought
> I'd not get used to it, but since I'm a pathological reader, I learned to
live
> with it and now am completely comfortable with the Zaurus.
>
My SO has one of the RCA e-book readers. It is actually very nice. It has
good lighting, crisp, clear text, and long battery life. The size of the
screen is about the same as your average paperback book and the scrolling,
paging buttons are situated so that you can read with only one hand.
All in all, I thought I'd never get into ebooks. There is something about
flipping page to page that I really enjoy. However, when we went camping
last summer, the ebook reader really sold me. I've always hated taking books
up camping. They end up getting wet, dirty, or smelling like smoke. Further,
you have to keep a flashlight or lantern nearby if you want to read past
dark. The ebook reader is water resistant and easy to clean- and doesn't
hold the smell of smoke. Further, the reader comes with its own backlight
that makes it easy to read at night, but is dim enough to let others in the
tent sleep.
After our last camping trip, I had to go out and get me one. Who says
getting back to nature means leaving technology behind?
-HB
Tamara
and there is also some pretty good fanfiction out there.
"Henry Bramlet" <hbra...@NOSPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:hyAt9.606$Fj6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tamara
Outlook Express, and can't delete, or kill them, so i just have them
cluttering up the newsgroup.
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:urdia8m...@corp.supernews.com...
Outlook Express, and can't delete, or kill them, so i just have them
cluttering up the newsgroup.
Tamara
"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c1ocruoaicloj61e5...@4ax.com...
David Paul
well
> known. Anyone who wants illicit electronic versions of FH's works can
get
> them in far more convenient form elsewhere. This guy is just some twit
> trying to initiate a flamewar. I suggest we not play.
I see your point... but think of who the royalties would normaly be
going to.
> --Ty
--
David Paul dsp...@charter.net
------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again with those tired accusations. I wasn't
even in the same city as your socks when they were bleached,
stabbed, burned and mixed into the dorm cafeteria menu.
Ty Beard
news:urfm29q...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Ty Beard" <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
> news:urdia8m...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I agree with Gunnar here -- and my contempt for copyright violators is
> well
> > known. Anyone who wants illicit electronic versions of FH's works can
> get
> > them in far more convenient form elsewhere. This guy is just some twit
> > trying to initiate a flamewar. I suggest we not play.
>
> I see your point... but think of who the royalties would normaly be
> going to.
I suppose that they will be going to FH's heirs -- Brian Herbert and his
other children. The bottom line though is that the actual harm caused by the
moron who posts these works to AFD is probably quite low. First, most of us
have read most of FH's works, I'd guess. Second, most of us are savvy enough
to get electronic versions of these works from other, more convenient
sources, if we wish.
Therefore, I think it is a poor use of energy to rail against this idiot.
--Ty
Anonymous
those awful, desperate anonymous senders!
You must be shitting yourselves with worry! Good!!
Rabid_Si
"Anonymous" <nob...@mail.jmbcv.net> wrote in message
news:3403b9095f1d2d3d...@mail.jmbcv.net...
Obviously not as much as you, Mr. A. Nonymous.
Have a nice day at the dry cleaners, won't you. ^_^
~Rabid_Si
rici...@hotmail.com
> those awful, desperate anonymous senders!
>
> You must be shitting yourselves with worry! Good
Please, let's considerate the following facts. Allowing books for free
reading is very common in libraries for centuries. It's very possible
that you could find FH books freely in libraries all over the world.
The web is a way of disposing information. It's a kind of eletronic
library, among many other things. Frank Herbert was one of the best
writer and one of the most proeminent minds of our species, but why
his children must have the exclusive right of exploring comercially
his work? I am against this!!! The property of a book, or song or
whatever should end with the author's death. So, it would pass to the
coletivity, who supported his work and made grow his talents. I
believe we were very important for Herbert when he was alive. And that
he would like the world could have access to his masterpieces. The
future of his children is warranted, the inherited all that he
deservely got from his job. May them satisfact with this. Ok, there is
legal issues, it's a matter of legality. But will all the legal be
fair? Always? Think about that. It's time to change some arcaic
positions.
Tamara
<rici...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26dc323e.02102...@posting.google.com...
orgone
>positions.
>
i doubt you'll hear much crying out for that round here. the old money
continent fears change.
"...I hold in most profound detestation and execration the corruptions which
have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a
conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of
mankind..."
Ty Beard
news:20021027124534...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >Think about that. It's time to change some arcaic
> >positions.
> >
>
> i doubt you'll hear much crying out for that round here. the old money
> continent fears change.
Actually, I suspect they fear the consequences of letting people like you or
the previous poster unilaterally determine what should be changed.
With good reason, considering past conversations.
--Ty
orgone
>the previous poster unilaterally determine what should be changed.
>
>With good reason, considering past conversations.
lol, i really don't care. my daddy wasn't a famour writer. but, it does seem
silly that his son is making money off his father's books and making sloppy
additions to the series.
what would those consequences be ty? and should you change that to "WE fear the
consequences..."
Henry Bramlet
> >Actually, I suspect they fear the consequences of letting people like you
or
> >the previous poster unilaterally determine what should be changed.
> >
> >With good reason, considering past conversations.
>
> lol, i really don't care. my daddy wasn't a famour writer. but, it does
seem
> silly that his son is making money off his father's books and making
sloppy
> additions to the series.
> what would those consequences be ty? and should you change that to "WE
fear the
> consequences..."
We know the consequences. We've had them for hundreds of years. Parents are
given incentive to provide a lasting estate for their children, that they
might have it easier than they did. I know that it is a big reason *I* work
more than if I was just interested in my own well being.
-HB
Jeff Teunissen
We've already let uninformed...people...unilaterally determine what should
be changed. That's how we got the current insane, stupid, and corrupt
system in the first place.
Herbert didn't write Dune in an atmosphere where his children would
benefit from his work after his own death, except perhaps via residuals
and trust funds set up during his own lifetime.
The copyright framework as we know it today did not exist in 1965, much
less hundreds of years ago. At that time:
1. Copyright was not automatic.
2. Copyright had to be renewed, or it was lost.
3. Copyright had a fixed-length term.
Frank Herbert wrote "Dune", "Dune Messiah", and "Children of Dune" in the
knowledge that his copyright on all three of these works would expire
while he was still living.
Obviously, the framework of copyright in the United States was adequate
then for Herbert to write these works and enough for the publisher to
print them.
Retroactive copyright extensions are not incentive for the creation of
works -- if they were, they would not be retroactive. The aim of fostering
"science and the useful arts" is not furthered by preventing "Steamboat
Willie" (itself a blatant ripoff of the film "Steamboat Bill") from
entering the public domain. To suggest such is demonstrably lunacy.
Copyright has precisely one purpose in this country (the USA): To get
people to create stuff for us all to use freely. To further that aim, we
grant them a limited-term monopoly on controlling their creation. After
their monopoly is ended (through expiration or explicit abandonment), the
work belongs to everyone, to use as we see fit.
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
orgone
>given incentive to provide a lasting estate for their children, that they
>might have it easier than they did. I know that it is a big reason *I* work
>more than if I was just interested in my own well being.
you forgot the part where the kids grow up to be full grown adolesent humans.
jfk jr. some good it did him. bush jr, puppet president of the usa with the
claim of a C average at dad's alma mater. brian herbert...
i'm not talking about the people working their asses off so their children
won't have to want for.
rici...@hotmail.com
copyrights is very seemly to yours. In consequence, some editors buy
the copyrights from the heirs of a late writer, and simply put into a
drawer and forget it, only remembering when someone makes "irregular
use" of their "intellectual property", when generrally make issues
against the users. We have here heirs of third or fourth generation
who never write anything, in some cases never had interrest in reading
the work of their "ancestral", but get huge amounts of non deserved
money. I know, we can't change the things by ourselves, but this
matter should be discussed and alternatives must be searched.
Ty Beard
> >Actually, I suspect they fear the consequences of letting people like you
or
> >the previous poster unilaterally determine what should be changed.
> >
> >With good reason, considering past conversations.
>
> lol, i really don't care. my daddy wasn't a famour writer. but, it does
seem
> silly that his son is making money off his father's books and making
sloppy
> additions to the series.
> what would those consequences be ty? and should you change that to "WE
fear the
> consequences..."
Again, don't flatter yourself.
--Ty
Ty Beard
news:3DBDD742...@d2dc.net...
> Henry Bramlet wrote:
> > We know the consequences. We've had them for hundreds of years. Parents
> > are given incentive to provide a lasting estate for their children, that
> > they might have it easier than they did. I know that it is a big reason
> > *I* work more than if I was just interested in my own well being.
>
> We've already let uninformed...people...unilaterally determine what should
> be changed. That's how we got the current insane, stupid, and corrupt
> system in the first place.
>
> Herbert didn't write Dune in an atmosphere where his children would
> benefit from his work after his own death, except perhaps via residuals
> and trust funds set up during his own lifetime.
>
> The copyright framework as we know it today did not exist in 1965, much
> less hundreds of years ago. At that time:
<snip>
Setting aside the copyright issues, it seems obvious to me that allowing one
to transfer property to his heirs acts as a strong incentive for him to work
hard to build a large estate.
> Retroactive copyright extensions are not incentive for the creation of
> works -- if they were, they would not be retroactive. The aim of fostering
> "science and the useful arts" is not furthered by preventing "Steamboat
> Willie" (itself a blatant ripoff of the film "Steamboat Bill") from
> entering the public domain. To suggest such is demonstrably lunacy.
In principle, I agree. But I believe that the power to regulate copyright
law is vested in the legislative branch and I am not generally in favor of
individuals unilaterally overruling the Congress on a matter that it has the
Constitutional authority to regulate. Interestingly, I just read the briefs
for the US Supreme Court and it appears that the court will decide if the
"limited time" language in the Constitution is breached by these retroactive
extensions. And since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the
Consitution means, your theory may yet prevail.
> Copyright has precisely one purpose in this country (the USA): To get
> people to create stuff for us all to use freely.
While that may be one effect, I don't agree that it is the sole purpose of
copyright law (nor the most important purpose).
--Ty
Ty Beard
> >We know the consequences. We've had them for hundreds of years. Parents
are
> >given incentive to provide a lasting estate for their children, that they
> >might have it easier than they did. I know that it is a big reason *I*
work
> >more than if I was just interested in my own well being.
>
> you forgot the part where the kids grow up to be full grown adolesent
humans.
> jfk jr. some good it did him. bush jr, puppet president of the usa with
the
> claim of a C average at dad's alma mater.
Interestingly, GWB's college grades were better than Al Gore's. And GWB
appears to have taken a more rigorous course of study. So much for the lefty
conceit that their guys are always smarter...
--Ty
Niall Young
>
> Retroactive copyright extensions are not incentive for the creation of
> works
>
> people to create stuff for us all to use freely. To further that aim, we
> grant them a limited-term monopoly on controlling their creation. After
> their monopoly is ended (through expiration or explicit abandonment), the
> work belongs to everyone, to use as we see fit.
Our water belongs to the tribe.
orgone
>fear the
>> consequences..."
>
>Again, don't flatter yourself.
i wasn't including myself there. i've got no old money.
orgone
>appears to have taken a more rigorous course of study. So much for the lefty
>conceit that their guys are always smarter...
...and now he's a puppet. i'm no fan of gore either, but at least he has a
grasp on the english language.
Susan Hogarth
To the contrary, we can *only* change things by ourselves.
--
Susan Hogarth
Henry Bramlet
news:3DBDD742...@d2dc.net...
> Henry Bramlet wrote:
> > are given incentive to provide a lasting estate for their children, that
> > they might have it easier than they did. I know that it is a big reason
> > *I* work more than if I was just interested in my own well being.
>
> We've already let uninformed...people...unilaterally determine what should
> be changed. That's how we got the current insane, stupid, and corrupt
> system in the first place.
>
Unilaterally? Last I checked legislation is hardly a unilateral process. Is
it just me, or has the term "unilateral" become a label for any process
where a sufficiently large opposition minority grumbles that their position
was not 100% accepted?
> Herbert didn't write Dune in an atmosphere where his children would
> benefit from his work after his own death, except perhaps via residuals
> and trust funds set up during his own lifetime.
>
My comment was one more based on property rights- that someone should be
able to pass them on to his heirs. If we decide today that some sort of
property should be allowed to be passed onto kids, then we have hundreds of
years of precedent to suggest that it encourages wealth building, long term
savings and prudent spending (the exceptional JFK jr's, et al
notwithstanding).
The question was, "what would the consequences of such a system be?" Though
I see that several crappy Dune books were released, I've not seen Herbert's
work in any way diluted. His books still remain as glorious as ever. Based
on the precedent of other estate property rights, and the current state of
his works, I don't see an issue.
> The copyright framework as we know it today did not exist in 1965, much
> less hundreds of years ago. At that time:
>
> 1. Copyright was not automatic.
Which was a bad thing, IMHO. I like the automatic copyright.
> 2. Copyright had to be renewed, or it was lost.
It is still possible for intellectual property to enter the public domain
through public use and failure to enforce one's rights. At least, I know
this is so for film productions, articles and commercial property.
> 3. Copyright had a fixed-length term.
>
Well, this is what is up for debate, isn't it? We'll see what the Supreme
Court says. I think this is a thorny issue. Retroactive rights-repeals (if
congressional authority to arbitrarily extend deadlines is negated,
obviating the 1976 copyright reforms in addition to current legislation) can
be just as bad as retroactive rights extensions.
> Frank Herbert wrote "Dune", "Dune Messiah", and "Children of Dune" in the
> knowledge that his copyright on all three of these works would expire
> while he was still living.
>
> Obviously, the framework of copyright in the United States was adequate
> then for Herbert to write these works and enough for the publisher to
> print them.
>
> Retroactive copyright extensions are not incentive for the creation of
> works -- if they were, they would not be retroactive. The aim of fostering
> "science and the useful arts" is not furthered by preventing "Steamboat
> Willie" (itself a blatant ripoff of the film "Steamboat Bill") from
> entering the public domain. To suggest such is demonstrably lunacy.
>
I didn't suggest anything about retroactive rights extensions. I said that
in a world where one can pass his property to his heirs, there is incentive
to produce and manage the asset for the long term. That the rights are
extended retroactively makes no difference to the argument at hand. A world
where Brian Herbert can reallize value from property created by his father
is also a world where an aspiring young writer can plan to create a legacy
for his children. The historical evidence suggests that this is a good
thing.
> Copyright has precisely one purpose in this country (the USA): To get
> people to create stuff for us all to use freely. To further that aim, we
> grant them a limited-term monopoly on controlling their creation. After
> their monopoly is ended (through expiration or explicit abandonment), the
> work belongs to everyone, to use as we see fit.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries"
As I read it, this statement asserts that progress is assured by securing
property rights- not by giving works to the public. Congress and the
judiciary have long understood the conflict to be between:
i) ensuring that the creator received return for his investment
(understanding that the better the return, the better the incentive to
produce) and,
ii) ensuring that the resulting monopoly does not harm the public interest.
The variables determining each factor are far different than they were back
in the 1800's. Information is cheaper, production is easier, and
distribution (legal or otherwise) more effective. These affect both the
potential value of the work, and the ability of the creator to realize a
return on that value. In addition, congress and the judiciary have clarified
the limits of the monopoly- balancing the value of the creator's exclusive
rights against the public interest- by securing the public's right to use
the property in beneficial ways (criticism, comment, news, reporting,
teaching, scholarship and research) without interference from the owner.
I live and produce in this country because I believe that the value I get
here is better than the value achieved in other countries. I raise my
children here because I've faith that future changes in the national climate
will be met and confronted with intent to secure the same (or better) value
when I'm gone. Likewise, it is incentive for a producer of copyrightable
material to know that there is a system in place to enforce his value
return, and ensure that his children receive the value in the future.
I see nothing wrong with this. And luckily we have the Supreme Court to
provide guidance on which limitations the legislative branch must have.
-HB
Jeff Teunissen
> "Jeff Teunissen" <de...@d2dc.net> wrote in message
> news:3DBDD742...@d2dc.net...
> > Henry Bramlet wrote:
> > > We know the consequences. We've had them for hundreds of years.
> > > Parents are given incentive to provide a lasting estate for their
> > > children, that they might have it easier than they did. I know that
> > > it is a big reason *I* work more than if I was just interested in my
> > > own well being.
> >
> > We've already let uninformed...people...unilaterally determine what
> > should be changed. That's how we got the current insane, stupid, and
> > corrupt system in the first place.
> >
> > Herbert didn't write Dune in an atmosphere where his children would
> > benefit from his work after his own death, except perhaps via
> > residuals and trust funds set up during his own lifetime.
> >
> > The copyright framework as we know it today did not exist in 1965,
> > much less hundreds of years ago. At that time:
>
> <snip>
>
> Setting aside the copyright issues, it seems obvious to me that allowing
> one to transfer property to his heirs acts as a strong incentive for him
> to work hard to build a large estate.
I agree -- in point of fact, more than most would. Inheritance law is
another area in which things have gotten deeply out of hand. However, to
do this with copyright is problematic at best, given the extreme terms
placed on it relatively recently. It assumes that a copyright is property,
something which does not have a whole lot of supporting evidence.
Frank Herbert *left* a sizeable estate for his family.
> > Retroactive copyright extensions are not incentive for the creation of
> > works -- if they were, they would not be retroactive. The aim of
> > fostering "science and the useful arts" is not furthered by preventing
> > "Steamboat Willie" (itself a blatant ripoff of the film "Steamboat
> > Bill") from entering the public domain. To suggest such is
> > demonstrably lunacy.
>
> In principle, I agree. But I believe that the power to regulate
> copyright law is vested in the legislative branch and I am not generally
> in favor of individuals unilaterally overruling the Congress on a matter
> that it has the Constitutional authority to regulate. Interestingly, I
> just read the briefs for the US Supreme Court and it appears that the
> court will decide if the "limited time" language in the Constitution is
> breached by these retroactive extensions. And since the Supreme Court is
> the final arbiter of what the Consitution means, your theory may yet
> prevail.
I too am following Eldred v. Ashcroft, formerly Eldred v. Reno. Are you
familiar with Lawrence (Larry) Lessig's work in returning sanity to the
copyright system? He makes a lot of good points, many critical for the
continuing development of creative works.
For the record, I also am against copyright infringement -- I would not be
a software developer and a writer otherwise. However, I believe that the
copyright system (and to a greater extent, the patent system) has been
distorted beyond most rationality, in large part because of the huge
number of political contributions made by the large media outlets.
> > Copyright has precisely one purpose in this country (the USA): To get
> > people to create stuff for us all to use freely.
>
> While that may be one effect, I don't agree that it is the sole purpose
> of copyright law (nor the most important purpose).
In other countries, that is so. Not in the USA, as outlined in the
Constitution. The benefit to the creator of a work is purely secondary to
the importance of increasing the value of the public domain. The
continuing increase of term and scope of copyright "protection" has not
permitted the public domain to grow _at all_ in the past 35 years.
Until the last half of the last century, most uses of copyrighted works
were unregulated. Not "fair use", unregulated. Fair use is simply that
which _would_ be regulated, but which the government says is not
actionable.
Creative works always build upon the past, just as today's world is
derived from history. The Copyright clause's "limited times" acknowledged
that without a strong public domain to draw from, authors and inventors
will "run out of material".
Ever noticed how many books, films, or plays can trace their lineage back
to the works of William Shakespeare, Sam Clemens, Charles Dickens, or
Homer? How many publishing houses sell editions of these authors' works?
How many fortunes are made today because of the work of these, and other,
great writers and poets?
These modern works are made possible because the "source" material is in
the public domain. How many great retellings or reinterpretations of more
modern works will not be made because our cultural heritage has been
locked away with the key of Copyright?
Jeff Teunissen
> "Jeff Teunissen" <de...@d2dc.net> wrote in message
> news:3DBDD742...@d2dc.net...
[snip]
> > Herbert didn't write Dune in an atmosphere where his children would
> > benefit from his work after his own death, except perhaps via
> > residuals and trust funds set up during his own lifetime.
>
> My comment was one more based on property rights- that someone should be
> able to pass them on to his heirs. If we decide today that some sort of
> property should be allowed to be passed onto kids, then we have hundreds
> of years of precedent to suggest that it encourages wealth building,
> long term savings and prudent spending (the exceptional JFK jr's, et al
> notwithstanding).
>
> The question was, "what would the consequences of such a system be?"
> Though I see that several crappy Dune books were released, I've not seen
> Herbert's work in any way diluted. His books still remain as glorious as
> ever. Based on the precedent of other estate property rights, and the
> current state of his works, I don't see an issue.
>
> > The copyright framework as we know it today did not exist in 1965,
> > much less hundreds of years ago. At that time:
> >
> > 1. Copyright was not automatic.
>
> Which was a bad thing, IMHO. I like the automatic copyright.
It has its purposes, and this part is a rather good way to simplify
matters.
> > 2. Copyright had to be renewed, or it was lost.
>
> It is still possible for intellectual property to enter the public
> domain through public use and failure to enforce one's rights. At least,
> I know this is so for film productions, articles and commercial
> property.
You "know" wrong, then.
Copyright is not a trade mark. If you do not defend against it, you still
do not lose it.
If I place the source code to a computer program on my web site with no
permission grant on how it is to be used, and thousands of people and
companies download and use large portions of it in their own software, I
can wait ten years and then sue each and every one of those
companies...and win -- because I did not give explicit permission to copy
my copyrighted work in the manner it is being used. Only by _explicitly_
abandoning my copyright by writing something such as "This software is in
the public domain", or dying and having 95 years pass (at least, that's
the /current/ copyright term), is my copyright ever lost.
Trade marks have to be defended. Trade secrets have to be _vigorously_
defended if they are made public. Patents and copyrights do not.
> > 3. Copyright had a fixed-length term.
>
> Well, this is what is up for debate, isn't it? We'll see what the
> Supreme Court says. I think this is a thorny issue. Retroactive
> rights-repeals (if congressional authority to arbitrarily extend
> deadlines is negated, obviating the 1976 copyright reforms in addition
> to current legislation) can be just as bad as retroactive rights
> extensions.
No, it is not up for debate. At the time, copyright did have a
fixed-length term that has been subsequently expanded in a series of
Mickey Mouse Protection Acts.
[snip]
> > Copyright has precisely one purpose in this country (the USA): To get
> > people to create stuff for us all to use freely. To further that aim,
> > we grant them a limited-term monopoly on controlling their creation.
> > After their monopoly is ended (through expiration or explicit
> > abandonment), the work belongs to everyone, to use as we see fit.
>
> "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries"
>
> As I read it, this statement asserts that progress is assured by
> securing property rights- not by giving works to the public. Congress
> and the judiciary have long understood the conflict to be between:
Property rights are generally regarded as permanent; "intellectual
property rights" are not, haven't been in the British Empire or the common
law since 1774 when the 1769 ruling in Millar v. Taylor was overturned.
The "property rights" of a copyright holder thus far remain a figment of
governmental regulation. Real property may not be taken without just
compensation -- copyrights are supposed to be, as a matter of course.
Ditto for patents -- you only get 17 years of exclusive control over an
invention.
Promoting the sciences and the useful arts is not possible by locking them
away forever. Both science and the useful arts are furthered only in an
environment of free communication of ideas...a commons.
A copyrighted work _never_ belonged to its "creator", from the moment it
was conceived of. You do not create something that never existed before
out of nothing but your own imagination -- something does not come from
nothing. It is just a much a product of society as your adult mind is a
product of genetics, nurturing, and education. _Dune_ itself was written
in a commons, where authors routinely "stole" ideas from each other and
from earlier work.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants to create our works. Creativity
and innovation always stands on the past, and the past always seeks to
control the creativity of the present. It is the job of the free society
to limit that control so that that creativity and innovation can continue
as unhindered as is possible.
[snip]
Niall Young
>
> Setting aside the copyright issues, it seems obvious to me that allowing one
> to transfer property to his heirs acts as a strong incentive for him to work
> hard to build a large estate.
Agreed, but is language property? Each of the words, even a sentence or
two can be freely reproduced and distributed in the right circumstances
- but not the unique sequence of words that was originally published?
Why not hand down a copy of each book to his son - consider the property
transferred. Hell, if you're a writer in this century - *publish your
own material* and never let go!
Building something for your descendents is noble, it's just a shame when
they rape and pillage the halls for a few bucks more. It's sad to think
that the best of Frank's genes weren't dominant.
Niall Young
>>Interestingly, GWB's college grades were better than Al Gore's. And GWB
>>appears to have taken a more rigorous course of study. So much for the lefty
>>conceit that their guys are always smarter...
>
> ...and now he's a puppet. i'm no fan of gore either, but at least he has a
> grasp on the english language.
Also, Gore's family doesn't seem to exhibit the substance abuse problems
of the Bush-tree. Like Paul Atreides, however, most people who find
themselves at such a vast pinnacle of leadership inevitably become a
slave or a puppet - what you want to avoid is either a monopoly of
organised inheritance and favour, the clergy, or a stagnation or
reduction in diversity in the gene pool from which such leaders are chosen.
CIA|CRACK|BUSH^3?!?
Ty Beard
news:3dc14130$0$194$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Of course Clinton admitted to using drug (though he attempted to weasel out
by claiming he "didn't inhale"). Given his penchant for sophistry, I assume
this means that he ate marajuana brownies or used drugs intravenously.
Drug abuse is a generational issue, it seems to me. And I would not (yet)
conclude that Gore's family is immune from such behavior.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the issue of whether Gore is actually
smarter than Bush...
--Ty
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> >
> > Setting aside the copyright issues, it seems obvious to me that allowing
one
> > to transfer property to his heirs acts as a strong incentive for him to
work
> > hard to build a large estate.
>
> Agreed, but is language property?
In some forms, yes, it's intangible property. The copyright to a written
work can clearly be an "asset" which has "value". The law distinguishes this
from a particular expression of the work (such as the copy of Dune that sits
on my bookshelf or the copy that is in my truck).
> Each of the words, even a sentence or
> two can be freely reproduced and distributed in the right circumstances
> - but not the unique sequence of words that was originally published?
Exactly. And this is a Good Thing, I think, though I agree with Jeff that
the copyright law has been twisted at times to benefit certain entities
(Disney). However, most laws have, at one time or another, been abused. This
does not mean we need to eliminate them.
> Why not hand down a copy of each book to his son - consider the property
> transferred. Hell, if you're a writer in this century - *publish your
> own material* and never let go!
And the law will allow you to own the work and derive any benefit from it
that might exist. Logical IMHO.
I think it is manifestly unjust to allow free riders to get the benefit of
an author's work without the author's permission, at least for a significant
period of time after the creation of the work. It is also a Bad Thing in
economic terms. History has demonstrated -- particularly in the 20th
century -- that if you remove the ability of someone to benefit from their
work, they will work far less, if at all. So I have no problem with the
concept of copyright, though I might well agree that the period currently
granted by the US is overlong.
> Building something for your descendents is noble, it's just a shame when
> they rape and pillage the halls for a few bucks more.
Such hyperbole...
I have found that almost *any* taking of profit will be characterized by
*someone* as "raping and pillaging" or somesuch. Such characterizations
ignore the obvious difference between receiving the benefit from property
you legally own and receiving the benefit from something that you have
illegally taken. Or stealing from someone without their permission. The
apparent inability of some to understand this basic point is a constant
source of bemusement to me.
--Ty
orgone
>by claiming he "didn't inhale"). Given his penchant for sophistry, I assume
>this means that he ate marajuana brownies or used drugs intravenously.
ah, the typical righty clinton reply. good one. i didn't give a damn about
clinton either. imagine for once everyone is not "left" or "right" that some
people actually, now don't be afraid, think one their own. right they form
their own thoughts on things. are you ok?
>In any case, this is irrelevant to the issue of whether Gore is actually
>smarter than Bush...
this is true, thus the word "also" that appears before the paragraph.
Damian
"orgone" <kv...@aol.comandatore> wrote in message
> >Of course Clinton admitted to using drug (though he attempted to weasel
out
> >by claiming he "didn't inhale"). Given his penchant for sophistry, I
assume
> >this means that he ate marajuana brownies or used drugs intravenously.
>
> ah, the typical righty clinton reply. good one. i didn't give a damn about
> clinton either. imagine for once everyone is not "left" or "right" that
some
> people actually, now don't be afraid, think one their own. right they form
> their own thoughts on things. are you ok?
This reminds me of a website where you answer a heap of questions and it
gives you a political readout, what was interesting is that it did it with a
Y and X axis, and hence makes a lot more sense then the normal left/right
compartments that people get put in. I forget the address though, google may
find it...
This website came up first and is not the site I was thinking of but gives
the answer in 2 dimensions -only takes a minute to do as well. Apparently I
am a left-liberal. Dont like the sound of that but there you go.
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Damo
Gunnar Harboe
>This reminds me of a website where you answer a heap of questions and it
>gives you a political readout, what was interesting is that it did it with a
>Y and X axis, and hence makes a lot more sense then the normal left/right
>compartments that people get put in. I forget the address though, google may
>find it...
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
--
Bye!
Gunnar Harboe
gh...@cam.ac.uk
The alt.fan.dune FAQ
<http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gh248/dunefaq/>
___
There should be a word-tension for "fated," conveying
a meaning opposite from a thing destined to be. There
should also be a garnish-tension for "parsley,"
denoting the opposite of the leafy herb. Oh, we speak
in daily discourse of "anti-parsley," but that is
another thing entire. What the word for a thing is
can consequent much.
- from "Mauve'Bib Has Ideas and Speaks Them,"
edited by the Princess Serutan
Niall Young
>>they rape and pillage the halls for a few bucks more.
>
> *someone* as "raping and pillaging" or somesuch. Such characterizations
> ignore the obvious difference between receiving the benefit from property
> you legally own
By "rape and pillage" I'm not referring to Brian's replication of his
father's work - until the copyright runs out that's obviously fine. I
just find it distasteful what they're using it for, extending upon his
work in such an incompetent way instead of letting it sit on its own.
By all means, continue to distribute Frank's work for profit, as he did
when he was alive. But have some humility and leave it alone unless
you're truly capable of building upon it. It must be obvious to them
that their writing doesn't come close?
Chris Mears
> This reminds me of a website where you answer a heap of questions and it
> gives you a political readout, what was interesting is that it did it with a
> Y and X axis, and hence makes a lot more sense then the normal left/right
> compartments that people get put in. I forget the address though, google may
> find it...
Is this what you are thinking of?
Niall Young
>>
>>>>Interestingly, GWB's college grades were better than Al Gore's. And GWB
>>>>appears to have taken a more rigorous course of study. So much for the
>
>>>...and now he's a puppet. i'm no fan of gore either, but at least he
> has a
>>>grasp on the english language.
>>
>>Also, Gore's family doesn't seem to exhibit the substance abuse problems
>>of the Bush-tree. Like Paul Atreides, however, most people who find
>>themselves at such a vast pinnacle of leadership inevitably become a
>>slave or a puppet - what you want to avoid is either a monopoly of
>>organised inheritance and favour, the clergy, or a stagnation or
>>reduction in diversity in the gene pool from which such leaders are
> chosen.
>
> conclude that Gore's family is immune from such behavior.
Of course not, but the vices of Bush are rather amusing - his father
brought crack cocaine into the ghettos to undermine African-American
prosperity and his son and granddaughter become problematic users.
> In any case, this is irrelevant to the issue of whether Gore is actually
> smarter than Bush...
True, but their intelligence is just as irrelevent as full grown
adolescents or providing a lasting estate for descendents, let alone
"Freedom of Information or Freedom to steal". Are we not allowed to see
where open discussion leads, or are there some offtopic rules here that
apply to everyone else but yourself, Ty? Relax, this is usenet.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
Wow. We've been quite in synch lately, Chris.
Chris Mears
> On 01 Nov 2002 22:39:37 +1100, Chris Mears <ch...@adjective-army.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Is this what you are thinking of?
> >
> >http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> Wow. We've been quite in synch lately, Chris.
I was just about to say that. (-:
Ty Beard
By their own admission (a letter I received from KJH conceded as much) they
know that. But see, they can make money from writing those books. And if the
marketplace is willing to buy such tripe, then so be it.
--Ty
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> > Drug abuse is a generational issue, it seems to me. And I would not
(yet)
> > conclude that Gore's family is immune from such behavior.
>
> Of course not, but the vices of Bush are rather amusing - his father
> brought crack cocaine into the ghettos to undermine African-American
> prosperity
You forgot to put the "I am just kidding, I really don't believe such
outlandish drivel" emoticon here. Otherwise, someone might think you
actually *do* believe this :-)
> and his son and granddaughter become problematic users.
>
> > In any case, this is irrelevant to the issue of whether Gore is actually
> > smarter than Bush...
>
> True, but their intelligence is just as irrelevent as full grown
> adolescents or providing a lasting estate for descendents, let alone
> "Freedom of Information or Freedom to steal". Are we not allowed to see
> where open discussion leads, or are there some offtopic rules here that
> apply to everyone else but yourself, Ty? Relax, this is usenet.
You may discuss what you wish, but I unilaterally reserve the right to
participate in a given topic.
In response to a "Bush is stupid" post from someone who should learn the
tale of the pot and kettle, I noted the universal lefty conceit that their
leaders are smarter than the other side. And the fact that like so many
lefty beliefs, the facts seem to tell a different story.
--Ty
Susan Hogarth
Wow - and I thought the Libertarian-esque 'quiz' had loaded questions. It's a
model of simplicity compared to such convolutions as:
"Class background determines peoples' consciousness more than their membership
of a particular nation." (agree, disagree) WHAT?
and "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
What if you don't think *either* inflation or unemployment should be
"controlled"?
And "The rich are too highly taxed."
Well, *yes*, but then so are the *poor*. Sheesh.
and
"Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of
medical care and education."
It's not a question of *right* to care; it's a question of *access*.
And wtf *this* has to do with 'politics' is beyond me:
"When a person is troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy
with more cheerful things."
or this:
"Abstract art, because it doesn't represent anything, shouldn't be considered
art at all."
or:
"Astrology can explain many more things than most people presently realise"
????
or:
"One day, science may be able to cure homosexuality."
I tried to wade through it and came out 'right libertarian' whatever they think
that means. It's hard to tell what they are thinking when they write such
wierdness as this:
"The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of
fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the
opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is
neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy) "
How could anyone straightfacedly say "anarchism (ie liberal socialism)"?
BOTH communism and fascism involve state-planned economies - one ostensibly
favoring the 'capitalists', and the other ostensibly favoring the 'workers', but
both in fact simply favoring the overarching state.
A simpler quiz can be found here:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
I used to think *it* carried a lot of bias, but it seems to be a model of
simplicity and clear-headedness next to that other. Although it doesn't address
astrology and it's important connection to modern political thought ;-)
--
Susan Hogarth
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>On 01 Nov 2002 22:39:37 +1100, Chris Mears wrote:
>>
>>"Damian" <suer...@noway.com> writes:
>>
>>> This reminds me of a website where you answer a heap of questions and it
>>> gives you a political readout, what was interesting is that it did it with a
>>> Y and X axis, and hence makes a lot more sense then the normal left/right
>>> compartments that people get put in. I forget the address though, google may
>>> find it...
>>
>>Is this what you are thinking of?
>>
>>http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
>Wow - and I thought the Libertarian-esque 'quiz' had loaded questions. It's a
>model of simplicity compared to such convolutions as:
>
>"Class background determines peoples' consciousness more than their membership
>of a particular nation." (agree, disagree) WHAT?
>
>and "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
>
>What if you don't think *either* inflation or unemployment should be
>"controlled"?
>
>And "The rich are too highly taxed."
>
>Well, *yes*, but then so are the *poor*. Sheesh.
I think those questions give a good indication of where a person fits
along the mainstream political spectrum. *Your* political views are so
far removed from most people's that they don't even exist on the same
continuum. Of course the questions aren't going to reflect your
concerns!
>and
>
>"Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of
>medical care and education."
>
>It's not a question of *right* to care; it's a question of *access*.
>
>And wtf *this* has to do with 'politics' is beyond me:
>
>"When a person is troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy
>with more cheerful things."
>
>or this:
>
>"Abstract art, because it doesn't represent anything, shouldn't be considered
>art at all."
>
>or:
>
>"Astrology can explain many more things than most people presently realise"
>
>????
>
>or:
>
>"One day, science may be able to cure homosexuality."
Yeah, I think those questions are bizarre as well. I can only imagine
that they're trying to utilise some perceived correlation between
New-Ageism and liberalism and between orthodox religiousness and
conservatism. Which only works as far as people fit into traditional,
stereotypical categories.
>I tried to wade through it and came out 'right libertarian' whatever they think
>that means.
It should be explained at the end of the test. Let's see.... the
horizontal axis is economics, so right means you believe in free market
economics. The vertical axis has to do with social restrictions, so
libertarian means you believe individuals should be free to act as they
like.
You don't think highly of the test, but do you disagree with its
conclusion?
> It's hard to tell what they are thinking when they write such
>wierdness as this:
>
>"The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of
>fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the
>opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is
>neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy) "
>
>How could anyone straightfacedly say "anarchism (ie liberal socialism)"?
>
>BOTH communism and fascism involve state-planned economies - one ostensibly
>favoring the 'capitalists', and the other ostensibly favoring the 'workers', but
>both in fact simply favoring the overarching state.
You are reducing the many different types of socialism to the one form
that came to power in the Soviet Union. Anarchists did not want to set
up state-controlled plan-economies, they didn't want a state at all.
The in-fighting between different brands of socialism was as vicious as
the struggle between communism and capitalism (cf. Stalin-Trotsky, or
'Life of Brian). There was little love lost, and little resemblance,
between the authoritarian Soviets and the anarcho-syndicalist
utopianists.
Henry Bramlet
> Henry Bramlet wrote:
>
> > "Jeff Teunissen" <de...@d2dc.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DBDD742...@d2dc.net...
>
<snip>
> > > 3. Copyright had a fixed-length term.
> >
> > Well, this is what is up for debate, isn't it? We'll see what the
> > Supreme Court says. I think this is a thorny issue. Retroactive
> > rights-repeals (if congressional authority to arbitrarily extend
> > deadlines is negated, obviating the 1976 copyright reforms in addition
> > to current legislation) can be just as bad as retroactive rights
> > extensions.
>
> No, it is not up for debate. At the time, copyright did have a
> fixed-length term that has been subsequently expanded in a series of
> Mickey Mouse Protection Acts.
>
My point is that the matter of whether the "Fixed term" is being sidestepped
or not, is up for debate. Clearly there is currently a fixed term defined in
law, no? The debate is whether congress has the right to modify the length
of that term perpetually.
> [snip]
>
> > > Copyright has precisely one purpose in this country (the USA): To get
> > > people to create stuff for us all to use freely. To further that aim,
> > > we grant them a limited-term monopoly on controlling their creation.
> > > After their monopoly is ended (through expiration or explicit
> > > abandonment), the work belongs to everyone, to use as we see fit.
> >
> > "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> > limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> > respective writings and discoveries"
> >
> > As I read it, this statement asserts that progress is assured by
> > securing property rights- not by giving works to the public. Congress
> > and the judiciary have long understood the conflict to be between:
>
> Property rights are generally regarded as permanent;
So? Property rights are still not absolute. We recognize the right of
society (and government) to interfere with the handling of your personal
property under certain circumstances (for instance, if you are using it to
harm someone, or the government wants to build a freeway on your land).
Government performs its duty to its governed- to promote the progress of
economy and society- by securing (within limites) to owners the exclusive
rights to their properties.
Notice that in both cases, "secures" is used. Not *grants*. Note that in the
constitution, certain rights are considered an aspect of the person, and
only secured by the government.
> "intellectual
> property rights" are not [permanent], haven't been in the British Empire
or the common
> law since 1774 when the 1769 ruling in Millar v. Taylor was overturned.
But this does not mean that the property rights are nonexistant! The
government will only protect your rights for a finite time, but they still
recognize that the right of control of that content is yours by virtue of
your creative act- not by their own grant of title. Similarly, the
government recognizes your right of control when you own a house- even while
they forcibly storm it because you stage it as a launching ground for
mortars.
Millar v. Taylor stated that the Author had rights to his or her own
creations by the very virtue of his or her labors. Donaldson v. Becket
merely said that the government stopped protecting that right after a finite
period of time because the right of the author's creation must be ballanced
against . Note that this is different from
> The "property rights" of a copyright holder thus far remain a figment of
> governmental regulation.
"Rights" to anything are abstract and therefore are always secured via the
government. Again, the Constitution recognizes that your rights- intangible
as they are- exist none the less, subsequently securing them for you (within
certain limits). If you deny me access to my land with a shotgun, what
determines my right to that land? I purchased it, and it is mine, but it is
not until we have a government to secure those rights (and defend them by
force if necessary) that the right is reallized.
> Real property may not be taken without just
> compensation -- copyrights are supposed to be, as a matter of course.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. I'm not able to take a copy of a book
without compensating an author and his publisher. And the government is
MANDATED by the constitution to secure those works- the purpose being to
make sure the Author receives just compensation before it is turned over to
the public domain.
> Ditto for patents -- you only get 17 years of exclusive control over an
> invention.
> Promoting the sciences and the useful arts is not possible by locking them
> away forever.
Countless works are printed each day under copyright, so your suggestion
that someone is "locking them away for ever" borders on absurdity.
And, just for the record, it isn't for forever, either. It is for a finite
term that could be extended or recinded as the Congress sees fit.
> Both science and the useful arts are furthered **only** in an
> environment of free communication of ideas...a commons.
>
(**'s mine)
This always bugs me. Are you seriously contending that science can only
advance as 17 year-old technology slips out of patent? Just transmitting
this message you are using equipment derived of technology further derived
of other technologies that are *still* under patent protection.
If indeed science could only progress in the public domain, then it would
have been 1967 before anyone could have advanced on the invention of the
Transistor (patented in 1950), and the nine years of research taken for
Kilby's first integrated circuit would have delayed its patent until around
1972, and the first TI calculators wouldn't have been patented until about
1985. We could forget about our current Intel rockets, because clearly no
one else would have been researching their own integrated circuits until
1989, when the IC patent expired. Of course, after 1989, things would have
really taken off. Given the same "patent, pause for 17 yers, research,
discover, repeat" scenario that you profess, my dad would be bringing home
our family's first computer in 2045 or so.
Considering that Science has made more advances within the last 30 years
(less than two patent windows) than in pretty much all of recent history,
I'd say that it can progress quite well even under the oppressive ownership
of its creators.
Now whether the same holds true for the creative world or not, is all
subjective. FWIW, I do believe that Disney cartoons tend to be much better
today than in the past- despite the fact that the original Mickey Mouse
remains outside the public domain. Good creative material- from science
fiction to more mainstream litterature- continues to be created. Great new
films continue to emerge, despite the fact that Casablanca remains under
protection.
> A copyrighted work _never_ belonged to its "creator", from the moment it
> was conceived of.
This is wrong from a historical perspective, a legal perspective, and a
phillisophical perspective.
Historically, folks as far back as Milton have recognized that the act of
creation is an act of labor, and that the fruits of that labor are the
property of the creator. IIRC, Milton once criticized King James I for
daring to use a dead author's prayer for a purpose not originally intended.
Since then, and leading up to today, people have always recognized that the
creator is attributed rights to unique arrangements.
Legally speaking, since Miller v. Taylor and Donaldson v Becket, the
author's ownership of the work has been acknowledged under law. In fact,
rights to the works had been recognized for the publisher further back prior
to the Statute of Anne, but it was in those court cases that the author's
specific ownership of those rights was affirmed. I challenge you to provide
an interpretation of either case suggesting the author doesn't own the
result of his labor.
Phillisophically speaking, just go read Locke. Man plucks things from his
nature around him, and labors to produce something. That which results is
his, and for him alone to control.
> You do not create something that never existed before
> out of nothing but your own imagination -- something does not come from
> nothing. It is just a much a product of society as your adult mind is a
> product of genetics, nurturing, and education. _Dune_ itself was written
> in a commons, where authors routinely "stole" ideas from each other and
> from earlier work.
Of course nothing is created from nothing. However, our social contract
provides certain things to you in return for your contribution to society.
In the case of copyright law, the social contract recognizes that there is
value to your creative works. It provides material for you to draw from-
sometimes at a monetary cost (a la Star Wars franchised novels), sometimes
not (a la the Hero Archetype)- and protects your control over that work
until such a time as your gain costs more than society is willing to bare.
At that point, society stops protecting your control over the works. It is
important to note that the social contract is flexible enough to constantly
review that point of contest between what the individual has right to and
what the society is willing to bare. In the united states, we have set the
congress to review such things.
Similarly, a fisherman pays society for his right to fish common grounds. He
pays both in agreement to proper fishing conduct and in fees, dues and other
taxes. Using these things (purchased by his adherence to the social
contract) the fisherman adds his freely given labor to produce fish which
are then his to control to extents that society is willing to bare.
Note that in both these cases, society must not be interested in what its
majority wants, but the maximum tollerance it will bare. This is important
because when the society tries to control the fisherman's production just by
what ends it wants, the reward for the individual's effort (the only thing
that he can contribute to the betterment of himself and society) is
diminished, and therefore the less willing he is to pay his dues (both
monetary and intangible) under the social contract.
To this extent, Frank Herbert stole nothing. His contribution to society
entitled him to many things- including language and public domain works.
These legally bartered materials (among others) were used with the addition
of his own effort to produce something new.
-HB
Niall Young
>>father's work - until the copyright runs out that's obviously fine. I
>>just find it distasteful what they're using it for, extending upon his
>>work in such an incompetent way instead of letting it sit on its own.
>>By all means, continue to distribute Frank's work for profit, as he did
>>when he was alive. But have some humility and leave it alone unless
>>you're truly capable of building upon it. It must be obvious to them
>>that their writing doesn't come close?
>
> By their own admission (a letter I received from KJH conceded as much) they
> know that. But see, they can make money from writing those books. And if the
> marketplace is willing to buy such tripe, then so be it.
Hence rape and pillage.
Niall Young
>>brought crack cocaine into the ghettos to undermine African-American
>>prosperity
>
> You forgot to put the "I am just kidding, I really don't believe such
> outlandish drivel" emoticon here. Otherwise, someone might think you
> actually *do* believe this :-)
I'm not kidding, it happened. Do a little research instead of
dismissing the inconvenient and disturbing truth.
>>True, but their intelligence is just as irrelevent as full grown
>>adolescents or providing a lasting estate for descendents, let alone
>>"Freedom of Information or Freedom to steal". Are we not allowed to see
>>where open discussion leads, or are there some offtopic rules here that
>>apply to everyone else but yourself, Ty? Relax, this is usenet.
>
> You may discuss what you wish, but I unilaterally reserve the right to
> participate in a given topic.
As long as you recognise the rest of us have the same right, no problem.
I don't see the point in dismissing what others have to say in such a
hypocritical way, but if that's your contribution that's fine.
> the facts seem to tell a different story.
They certainly do Ty. http://gnn.tv/crack/
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> > "Niall Young" <ni...@holbytla.org> wrote in message
> >
> >>Of course not, but the vices of Bush are rather amusing - his father
> >>brought crack cocaine into the ghettos to undermine African-American
> >>prosperity
> >
> > You forgot to put the "I am just kidding, I really don't believe such
> > outlandish drivel" emoticon here. Otherwise, someone might think you
> > actually *do* believe this :-)
>
> I'm not kidding, it happened. Do a little research instead of
> dismissing the inconvenient and disturbing truth.
Uh, riiiiight.
Are you sure you just didn't forget the "I am just kidding, I really don't
believe such outlandish drivel" emoticon?
> >>True, but their intelligence is just as irrelevent as full grown
> >>adolescents or providing a lasting estate for descendents, let alone
> >>"Freedom of Information or Freedom to steal". Are we not allowed to see
> >>where open discussion leads, or are there some offtopic rules here that
> >>apply to everyone else but yourself, Ty? Relax, this is usenet.
> >
> > You may discuss what you wish, but I unilaterally reserve the right to
> > participate in a given topic.
>
> As long as you recognise the rest of us have the same right, no problem.
> I don't see the point in dismissing what others have to say in such a
> hypocritical way, but if that's your contribution that's fine.
Hypocritical?
I'm merely (a) acknowledging your right to discuss what you will and (b) my
right to decline to participate in said discussion.
> > the facts seem to tell a different story.
>
> They certainly do Ty. http://gnn.tv/crack/
Yikes. Even more "facts" may be found at the sites listed here:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lunatic+Conspiracy+Theories
--Ty
Raymond Besse
> Ever noticed how many books, films, or plays can trace their lineage
> back to the works of William Shakespeare, Sam Clemens, Charles
> Dickens, or Homer? How many publishing houses sell editions of these
> authors' works? How many fortunes are made today because of the work
> of these, and other, great writers and poets?
>
> These modern works are made possible because the "source" material is
> in the public domain. How many great retellings or reinterpretations
> of more modern works will not be made because our cultural heritage
> has been locked away with the key of Copyright?
I would like to refer folks to Spider Robinson's excellent short story
'Melancholy Elephants' (I think I have that right). The widow of a
celebrated composer lobbies *against* a law extending copyright, saying
that humanity needs forgetfulness. The late husband killed himself because
all his new work was being rejected by the Library of Congress' copyright
search computers, which were always able to find something in his works
that was derivative of a previous, protected, work.
--
"Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who
hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you." - Jesus
"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was
no sense in what he said." - Mark Twain
Raymond Besse
> it
> does seem silly that his son is making money off his father's books
Nevertheless, it's what the father wanted.
If Frank didn't want his estate to earn royalties from the ongoing
publication of his books, he could have placed all his works into the
public domain at or before his death.
> and making sloppy additions to the series.
That's not silly. That's a tragedy.
Niall Young
>>dismissing the inconvenient and disturbing truth.
>
> Uh, riiiiight.
> Are you sure you just didn't forget the "I am just kidding, I really don't
> believe such outlandish drivel" emoticon?
Once again, you dismiss it in what I find a fairly condescending way.
>>>>True, but their intelligence is just as irrelevent as full grown
>>>>adolescents or providing a lasting estate for descendents, let alone
>>>>"Freedom of Information or Freedom to steal". Are we not allowed to see
>>>>where open discussion leads, or are there some offtopic rules here that
>>>>apply to everyone else but yourself, Ty? Relax, this is usenet.
>>>
>>>You may discuss what you wish, but I unilaterally reserve the right to
>>>participate in a given topic.
>>
>>As long as you recognise the rest of us have the same right, no problem.
>> I don't see the point in dismissing what others have to say in such a
>>hypocritical way, but if that's your contribution that's fine.
>
> Hypocritical?
Absolutely, you claim my comments were irrelevent when your own (several
posts previous - go read them) did exactly the same thing. Do you read
what you post?
>>>the facts seem to tell a different story.
>>
>>They certainly do Ty. http://gnn.tv/crack/
>
> Yikes. Even more "facts" may be found at the sites listed here:
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lunatic+Conspiracy+Theories
Seriously Ty, do 5 minutes of research - look up some of the references
in GNN's video, look up some of the Government's own documents, read
some of the interview transcripts - why do you insist on dismissing this
so quickly, why degrade yourself by insinuating this is some lunatic
conspiracy theory without giving it a chance? I admit, it sounds
outrageously unlikely - far too scandalous to be true, but just look at
the evidence...
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> > "Niall Young" <ni...@holbytla.org> wrote in message
> >>I'm not kidding, it happened. Do a little research instead of
> >>dismissing the inconvenient and disturbing truth.
> >
> > Uh, riiiiight.
> > Are you sure you just didn't forget the "I am just kidding, I really
don't
> > believe such outlandish drivel" emoticon?
>
> Once again, you dismiss it in what I find a fairly condescending way.
On the contrary -- I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly you appear to actually believe it.
--Ty
Niall Young
> "Niall Young" <ni...@holbytla.org> wrote in message
>
>>Ty Beard wrote:
>>
>>>"Niall Young" <ni...@holbytla.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>believe such outlandish drivel" emoticon?
>>
>>Once again, you dismiss it in what I find a fairly condescending way.
>
> On the contrary -- I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
By calling my words outlandish drivel, then:
> Sadly you appear to actually believe it.
pity?!? Gosh, I guess you can't make the camel drink.
Jeff Teunissen
> "Jeff Teunissen" <de...@d2dc.net> wrote in message
> news:3DC09C39...@d2dc.net...
[snip]
> > No, it is not up for debate. At the time, copyright did have a
> > fixed-length term that has been subsequently expanded in a series of
> > Mickey Mouse Protection Acts.
>
> My point is that the matter of whether the "Fixed term" is being
> sidestepped or not, is up for debate. Clearly there is currently a fixed
> term defined in law, no? The debate is whether congress has the right to
> modify the length of that term perpetually.
The debate is largely on whether or not an apparently-infinite series of
small extensions equates to a single infinite extension. I think it does.
The Supremes will decide.
[snip]
> > Property rights are generally regarded as permanent;
>
> So? Property rights are still not absolute. We recognize the right of
> society (and government) to interfere with the handling of your personal
> property under certain circumstances (for instance, if you are using it
> to harm someone, or the government wants to build a freeway on your
> land).
Property may not be taken without just compensation.
Even using eminent domain, land must be purchased at a fair price. No
compensation is given or offered for the "taking" of a copyright.
A drivers' license does not give you the right to drive, and can expire or
be taken away from you.
A copyright does not give you the right to make copies of a work -- you
already have that, everyone does. It gives you the power to prevent other
people from making copies of that work. And like a drivers' license, it
can expire or be taken away from you without compensation. How, then, is
it property?
[snip]
> Millar v. Taylor stated that the Author had rights to his or her own
> creations by the very virtue of his or her labors. Donaldson v. Becket
> merely said that the government stopped protecting that right after a
> finite period of time because the right of the author's creation must be
> ballanced against . Note that this is different from
Millar v. Taylor also stated that copyright was eternal, despite the
Statute of Anne. The Constitution explicitly goes against that doctrine.
[snip]
> > Real property may not be taken without just
> > compensation -- copyrights are supposed to be, as a matter of course.
>
> I'm sorry but this makes no sense. I'm not able to take a copy of a book
> without compensating an author and his publisher.
A copy of a book is not a copyright. The copy is a tangible object
imprinted with a particular representation of the protected work. The
First Amendment says you have the right to copy and republish that work
any way you like -- but a copyright trumps that right while the copyright
remains in effect. It's a temporary limit on your creativity. It is for
this very reason that there must be balance between the public's rights
and the right of producers of creative works and inventions to _seek_
benefit from their work. They have no right to benefit from their work,
merely to seek it.
And what I said was true -- copyrights _are_ supposed to be taken from
their holders after a certain amount of time has passed.
> And the government is MANDATED by the constitution to secure those
> works- the purpose being to make sure the Author receives just
> compensation before it is turned over to the public domain.
The author is secured the right to produce (or direct others to produce)
his own compensation without interference from third parties, for a
limited time. The PURPOSE as mandated by the Constitution is to enrich the
public domain; the MEANS is via a framework to assist authors and
inventors in procuring compensation for their respective works and
inventions.
A copyright is without actual value unless the work is published and
successfully sold, or the author sells his copyright to someone who
publishes or sells it.
The work itself is in the public domain from the moment it is affixed in
tangible form. The copyright limits others' rights to copy and produce
works derivative of it, to those whom the copyright holder permits.
> > Ditto for patents -- you only get 17 years of exclusive control over
> > an invention. Promoting the sciences and the useful arts is not
> > possible by locking them away forever.
>
> Countless works are printed each day under copyright, so your suggestion
> that someone is "locking them away for ever" borders on absurdity.
Not at all. A copyright on a work is a limitation on my First Amendment
right to publish that work, or works of my own that are based on it.
That's what the Copyright Clause is all about -- to give your own rights
precedence over the rights of all others, for a limited time.
Barring judicial action, the current system is such that some art is
indeed being locked away forever.
To explain: say I have a copy of the "Spider-Man" DVD, and (just to
simplify things) copyright law will not change in the next hundred years.
The copyright on that work will expire on 3 May 2097, 95 years after its
original publication date, because it is a work for hire.
On 4 May 2097, I take that DVD, crack the encryption, make 10000 copies of
it on whatever storage medium is in common use, and sell the copies. This
is a derivative work of the original, public-domain, film.
I am now a criminal, because I have violated 17 USC ยง1201 by breaking the
encryption.
We don't even have to go into the future -- I can be a criminal merely by
breaking the encryption on an e-book of /The Odyssey/, a work which has
never been protected by any kind of copyright.
> And, just for the record, it isn't for forever, either. It is for a
> finite term that could be extended or recinded as the Congress sees fit.
It's for a finite term that is being extended indefinitely.
> > Both science and the useful arts are furthered **only** in an
> > environment of free communication of ideas...a commons.
> >
> (**'s mine)
>
> This always bugs me. Are you seriously contending that science can only
> advance as 17 year-old technology slips out of patent?
Not at all (and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth). I said that
science can only advance in an environment of free communication of ideas.
If all new technology is patented and no one allows others to make use of
their patented inventions, then yes, the advance of technology will slow
to a crawl as inventors will have to wait for the technology they need to
fall out of patent.
Not all new technology is patented, and not all patent holders are
unwilling to allow the use of their covered inventions.
Every technology is based on one or more earlier technologies, and it is
trivially shown that useful tech becomes more prevalent (and more useful)
after any patents covering it have expired. The barrier to entry is
lowered, and more people can produce the covered invention. This is called
progress.
[snip]
> Considering that Science has made more advances within the last 30 years
> (less than two patent windows) than in pretty much all of recent
> history, I'd say that it can progress quite well even under the
> oppressive ownership of its creators.
Large companies can make use of patented tech, if the patent holder
permits them, by licensing the patent. As a rule, this option is only open
to those large companies, because only they can afford it, and because
they have their own patent portfolio to cross-license.
If the patent holder is uncooperative (not unheard-of -- see Amazon v.
Barnes & Noble), then they get to wait 17 years and be one of a herd of
producers.
> Now whether the same holds true for the creative world or not, is all
> subjective. FWIW, I do believe that Disney cartoons tend to be much
> better today than in the past- despite the fact that the original Mickey
> Mouse remains outside the public domain. Good creative material- from
> science fiction to more mainstream litterature- continues to be created.
> Great new films continue to emerge, despite the fact that Casablanca
> remains under protection.
And as we all well know, the vast majority of those cartoons are based on
works in the public domain: Snow White. Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella.
Beauty and the Beast. Aladdin. The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Mulan.
Atlantis. Tarzan. Their new one, "Treasure Planet". The continual,
retroactive, extensions assure one thing -- that no one can do to Disney
what Disney has done/is doing to E.R. Burroughs, the brothers Grimm, Hans
Christian Anderson, Robert Louis Stevenson, Alexandre Dumas, Victor Hugo,
and others.
If there were a lot of very good reasons for it, I could get behind a
copyright extension -- giving authors greater incentive to produce is on
the whole a good thing.
I have a huge problem with retroactive extensions--they add absolutely no
further incentive to create (after all, Disney's "Cinderella" isn't ever
going to be created again, and creating a new work based on it does not
ride on the same copyright), and there is no reasonable argument available
to suggest that they do anything to help the public or other artists.
Ergo, any retroactive copyright extension is simply wrong.
> > A copyrighted work _never_ belonged to its "creator", from the moment
> > it was conceived of.
>
> This is wrong from a historical perspective, a legal perspective, and a
> phillisophical perspective.
>
> Historically, folks as far back as Milton have recognized that the act
> of creation is an act of labor, and that the fruits of that labor are
> the property of the creator. IIRC, Milton once criticized King James I
> for daring to use a dead author's prayer for a purpose not originally
> intended. Since then, and leading up to today, people have always
> recognized that the creator is attributed rights to unique arrangements.
Some people.
Not many of those who founded the USA.
[snip]
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Ty Beard
> The debate is largely on whether or not an apparently-infinite series of
> small extensions equates to a single infinite extension. I think it does.
> The Supremes will decide.
I suspect that they agree with you. The issue is likely whether they have
the authority to pre-empt Congress. The court has traditionally shown great
deference to the other branches on matters that the Constitution gives them
explicit control over. For instance, the Court will usually defer to the
Executive branch on military matters.
> > > Property rights are generally regarded as permanent;
> >
> > So? Property rights are still not absolute. We recognize the right of
> > society (and government) to interfere with the handling of your personal
> > property under certain circumstances (for instance, if you are using it
> > to harm someone, or the government wants to build a freeway on your
> > land).
>
> Property may not be taken without just compensation.
Not quite the best analogy (see below). But I note that property can be
"hindered" without compensation. Example -- zoning, environmental
regulation, etc. And, there are a great many property rights that last only
for a fixed term -- a leasehold, life estate, or fee simple determinable.
Many contract rights, which are intangible personal property are "property"
under the law. Each of these can be sold, leased, assigned, etc., unless the
parties agree otherwise.
In any case, the courts have consistently held that a copyright is
intangible personal property. It can be sold, rented ("licensed"),
transeferred, inherited, taxed, etc. It can generate income. So if it walks
like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...
> A copyright does not give you the right to make copies of a work -- you
> already have that, everyone does. It gives you the power to prevent other
> people from making copies of that work. And like a drivers' license, it
> can expire or be taken away from you without compensation. How, then, is
> it property?
As noted, many forms of property have limited terms of ownership.
--Ty Beard