OT Justifications for violating copyright?
Mija
<snip of some not-very-good reasons people violate copyright>
> Is there another argument I've been missing?
I can think of several, most rather far afield from
the earlier discussion. They're related to teaching. :)
1) The holder of the copyright (not the original author) is
charging too much or taking too long to grant reproduction
rights and I need to copy this article / image in order to teach.
This is done frequently and, in many cases, with the approval
of the works authors. Nevertheless it is illegal and deprives
the copyright holder of income.
2) The artist / writer is unethical and you don't want to contribute
money to them.
This was the case when _The Closing of the American Mind_ came out.
My intellectual history professor xeroxed the entire book and handed
it out to a class of 170 students, with a cover sheet explaining that
his doing this was a direct violation of Allen Bloom's copyright. He
felt a need to teach the backlash against feminism and intellectualism
that Bloom's book embodied, but also felt it would be unethical to
assign the book and have students pay into supporting this intellectual
equiviant of Mein Kaumf, his words, not mine. The professor then
stated that he'd done this for 8 different classes at 5 universities
throughout the US and was hoping to get sued for copyright violation
so he could explain in court why he a) needed to have students read
Bloom's work and b) couldn't ask students to pay for it.
3) Finally, there are those anarchists who don't believe in ownership
period, let alone on the idea you can 'own' an idea or image -- or worse
yet, that a corperation can 'buy' intellectual or artistic rights to
anything.
This is different from but related to the free circulation of information
arguement. It's not one I hold to, though I do find Warner Brothers going
after websites built by kid fans of Harry Potter abhorrant. Some artists
(Santana being probably the most famous) themselves don't believe in the
idea of limits on distribution of artistic work, which is why some
recording artists supported Napster.
Since I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm not the best person to make this last
argument, but I know it's out there.
Peace,
Mija
P&e
--
"Live to the point of tears."
Pablo and Mija's Treehouse -- http://www.thetreehouse.net
Personal Dad
There is no legitimate justification for violating copyright laws if you are
enjoying the benefits of the system, and if you are on the internet, you are
getting soemthing from it. Play by the rules or dont play. That's fair.
But we can still ask whetehr the world would be better off if there were no
copyright laws. True, there would be less people making a living from
generating artistic works, but the world was just fine, even before
copyright laws. Maybe we would have more people spending time feeding the
hungry or curing diseases if the lawyers, corporate executives and big time
advertising and distribution companies could not make money licensing
artistic works, or software, for that matter.
The rules of intellectual property are arbitrary and man made. We could
think the unthinkable -- why not get rid of the copyright laws? I would
like to know.
PD
p&e
Mija
> Mija wrote:
>
> >1) The holder of the copyright (not the original author) is
> >charging too much or taking too long to grant reproduction
> >rights and I need to copy this article / image in order to teach.
> >
> >This is done frequently and, in many cases, with the approval
> >of the works authors. Nevertheless it is illegal and deprives
> >the copyright holder of income.
Naomi replied:
> I've done a good bit of teaching, on and off, and I've never run into this
> exact situation. I'm not saying I doubt it's happened to you. I generally deal
> with much different sorts of materials, I would imagine (considering our
> respective fields). I have had other problems getting teaching materials, i.e.
> textbooks going out of print.
That happens too much to even talk about. And the living author has
generally given up print rights for a period of years. When the press
goes under, there's nothing we can do to get more copies of stuff
(and I'm talking plays that have only been out for a year or two) until
another press buys the cataloge / author rights.
Most often though, it happens with journal articles. The journal isn't
in issue anymore and takes 5 months to let me know I need to pay $31.00
a copy to reproduce a single play or article. This is true, even if I
want to xerox one I wrote. And of course, the money doesn't go the author--
they rarely see a dime.
Last semester, a class I was TAing for needed 100 copies of _I the Jury_
which is out of print. Wanna how much the publisher wanted for us to
copy the $1.50 paperback we had? $45 each. And that was just one book.
Were we to have done that, we'd have had students book costs at over $400
dollars each. So we had them copied illegally and sold them to the students
to for the printing costs ($5.00). Otherwise, we could have left the text
out entirely, but can one really understand the new chick dicks without
Spillane?
> If a living author doesn't control copyright any more (did someone buy it for
> an anthology or something?), well, that sounds like a real problem. I have had
> friends whose books were stuck in publishing houses which would not put them
> out in affordable form, or not put out enough copies, or whatever. Ultimately
> it is the author's responsibility to make a contract s/he can live with.
Yes, well, the reality in the academic world, is except for a few stars,
people have to be grateful for whatever agreement they can get to get
published...generally for free. Otherwise they lose their jobs. As I
know you're aware. :)
> The mechanics of publishing can cause big problems. I sympathize with the
> situation you describe, and I don't think you're a bad person for what you
> choose to do, but I think, in principle, you're wrong. The only real solution
> is to straighten out the problems of rights and publishing.
>
> In other words, I see how you are driven to do this, but I don't see an
> argument for doing it, really. Not in the abstract.
For me, it is. If copyright is being used against those who create work
and against those who study the creative work, then copyright itself
becomes anti-intellectual and has ceased to function as the artist
protection it was intended to be.
Copyright is just a legal construct as far as I'm concerned. Like all
legal constructs it can be used for good or ill depending on how it's
applied. So I guess I'm arguing for "justifiable copyright violation"
> >2) The artist / writer is unethical and you don't want to contribute
> >money to them.
> >
> >This was the case when _The Closing of the American Mind_ came out.
> >My intellectual history professor xeroxed the entire book and handed
> >it out to a class of 170 students, with a cover sheet explaining that
> >his doing this was a direct violation of Allen Bloom's copyright. He
> >felt a need to teach the backlash against feminism and intellectualism
> >that Bloom's book embodied, but also felt it would be unethical to
> >assign the book and have students pay into supporting this intellectual
> >equiviant of Mein Kaumf, his words, not mine. The professor then
> >stated that he'd done this for 8 different classes at 5 universities
> >throughout the US and was hoping to get sued for copyright violation
> >so he could explain in court why he a) needed to have students read
> >Bloom's work and b) couldn't ask students to pay for it.
> >
>
> I think this is dead wrong. If the book is worth reading, pay for it or take it
> from the library. If he simply didn't want students to pay for it, he could
> discuss it and put it on reserve or something. If he thought it was so
> Hitlerian he could write reviews to that effect. Using our civil court system
> to make a point like this seems IMO worse than useless.
>
> I'd like to know who this professor is, so I could look up some of his work.
His name is Paul Boyer. I believe he's still chair of humanities at the
University of Wisconson (or was 5 years ago). He's most well known for a
book called _By the Bomb's Early Light_. I suspect he did write something
or other on _The Closing of the American Mind_.
Personally, I agree with what he did. If I were doing a seminar, I'd put
my copy of the book on reserve. But if a class as 150 students or more
one can't really do that -- the students will be forced to either buy the
book or not complete the assignment. What he didn't do that he could have
was out Bloom, who he apparently knew was gay and yet, even when students
questioned homosocial passages and jokingly questioned the author's sexuality,
never hinted that he could confirm this. (Until after he died and was
outed by a former lover... then all bets were off.)
Some things need to be done in the specific. If one is going to do a
psychoanyalitic reading or intellectual reading, one needs the specific
text.
I'm not sure I'd ever have the courage to do what Boyer did (it was right
after the Kinko's case and he's quite well known so he could well have
been sued) but it taught me more clearly than anything else ever has that
when we pay for something, we're supporting the thing's creator. Even, in
small part, keeping it in print longer.
> >3) Finally, there are those anarchists who don't believe in ownership
> >period, let alone on the idea you can 'own' an idea or image -- or worse
> >yet, that a corperation can 'buy' intellectual or artistic rights to
> >anything.
> >
> >This is different from but related to the free circulation of information
> >arguement. It's not one I hold to, though I do find Warner Brothers going
> >after websites built by kid fans of Harry Potter abhorrant. Some artists
> >(Santana being probably the most famous) themselves don't believe in the
> >idea of limits on distribution of artistic work, which is why some
> >recording artists supported Napster.
> >
> >Since I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm not the best person to make this last
> >argument, but I know it's out there.
>
> I just don't know what to say to this type of argument-- it seems so absurd.
Yes, but it's supporters would say that's because our intellectualism has
been taught by a western capitalist culture that is founded on notions of
individual ownership and unequal distribution of wealth.
> Not necessarily that ownership or capitalism is bad, but that stealing is the
> way to deal with these things in the here and now. If people don't believe in
> ownership, they can walk onto my lawn and steal my birdbath but I can *always*
> go after them and take it back. They can say all they want about their beliefs,
> but I can take steps to recover my stuff, and I have the law behind me. Writers
> and artists have copyright law behind them. People who steal things may say
> it's a political act, but at this point they're still stealing.
Sure, imo too. But they see it as civil disobedience. And the student I had
make the arguement with me would point out that if she made a copy of your
birdbath, your birdbath would be no less yours. How does her copy of your
birdbath diminish the usefulness or pleasure you have in your own copy?
> Even if I did believe that property=theft, or some version of that, I think the
> arts and literature would be just about the last place that belief would apply.
> If I do a painting in my studio, that's *my* time that's gone into it. I
> haven't taken anything from anyone (except maybe a model who has agreed to
> model for me). I can never get that time back. Without me, the thing would not
> exist. I don't even have to show it to anyone, if I don't want.
Right. And I suspect my anarchist students would agree with your right
to hold what you created as your own. But if you sell it to Coca-Cola
and they plaster it all over tv and then she reproduces it onto shirts
for her friends, that would seem another matter.
Of course, in a practical sense anarchists tend to have no property so
there's little practical use in going after them. <g> Which is also
their political choice. Having things may well create a greater need in
me to protect concepts of ownership.
>
> If Santana and the Greatful Dead want to give up some of their rights, that's
> their privilege. It seems to me that if you want to make this kind of point
> about freedom, this is a very legitimate way to do it. More power to them.
<nod> I agree. I know the recording industry abuses unknown artists. Maybe
they feel they need to, but the contracts people get stuck signing and then
sold around because of seem a form of free-market slavery, not artistic copyright
protection. Of course, someone selling something the author intended to have
as free is probably the worst situation of all.
I don't mean to be tedious about this. But copyright is such a modern and
western concept it does bother me to see it presented as though it were handed
down by the finger of god. It was intended to protect artists from abuses by
printers. Not to give industries new ways of controling artists and their
works. But copyright laws in the US do more to protect corperate profits then
individual artists or writers. At least, in my opinion.
Peace,
Mija
PS. You're welcome. I'm sorry I can't do a better job at this. I *know*
there's another side to copyright / ownership. But since I don't ascribe to
it, I'm not really doing it justice.
bunstinger
>Is there another argument I've been missing?
The copyrighted material is no longer available from
legitimate sources.
Shortly before the demise of Napster, I downloaded
several long out of print pop songs and a couple of
likewise out of print movie soundtracks. Although out
of print, I have little doubt that the copyrights on
this material were still in effect.
The music now resides on my hard drive and is
available for other surfers (using napster clones) to
download as well.
Now admittedly I violated copyright law but did I
deprive the artist, their record label or anyone else
of a rightful sale of this material? I would say 'no'.
Furthermore, I would maintain that this is an example
of victimless 'theft' and hence a morally neutral act.
Thoughts anyone?
Bunstinger
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Pablo
>
> Naomi asks:
>
> >Is there another argument I've been missing?
>
> The copyrighted material is no longer available from
> legitimate sources.
>
> Shortly before the demise of Napster, I downloaded
> several long out of print pop songs and a couple of
> likewise out of print movie soundtracks. Although out
> of print, I have little doubt that the copyrights on
> this material were still in effect.
>
> The music now resides on my hard drive and is
> available for other surfers (using napster clones) to
> download as well.
>
> Now admittedly I violated copyright law but did I
> deprive the artist, their record label or anyone else
> of a rightful sale of this material? I would say 'no'.
>
> Furthermore, I would maintain that this is an example
> of victimless 'theft' and hence a morally neutral act.
Only, I'd say, so long as you could be absolutely certain
that the music wouldn't ever come back *into* print. Ever.
Because what if it does/did? It's quite possible that
someone who'd picked up a copy from you (or someone doing
the same thing) would have bought it otherwise.
Also, the artist might have taken the work out of print
for a specific reason. Whatever that might be, there
are reasons why something might not be available other
than just commercial ones, and, whatever you might think
about those, it's their decision.
I'm thinking here of Kubrick's withdrawal of A Clockwork
Orange in the UK, though I'm extending it worldwide. Not a
commercial decision, nor just a lapse of print run. A
conscious, deliberate decision to remove the work from
availability. Hitchcock did something similar with a
number of his best films, though for different reasons.
In that case you wouldn't be depriving them of any sales
(with the above caveat that they might come back *into*
print, as Orange did in the UK after Kubrick died, and as
the Hitchcock films did), but there'd still IMO be a moral
violation.
Not sure if any of this applies to your examples.
Pab.
~K~
"Naomi Darvell"
> Without the artist, the material you've copied would not exist. You have
no right to it; the artist has a right to control it.
Another thought is that without the downloader the music would not exist.
There are so many songs, forms of music, etc that have been lost thru time
because there was no one who cared enough to KEEP it.
I enjoy alot of the older music and it is starting to get very hard to find.
What happens in 10 years? it will be gone. I think I'll keep on downloading
and feed my need for the next few generations.
~K~
Pablo
> Napster is an example, for me, of duplication which in tiself
> creates harm, apart from any monetary value being stolen. Napster
> files are often distorted or of poor quality. They may cheapen
> the artist's reputation. The same kind of thing is happening
> with literary bootlegging on the net.
There's another effect too, which always reminds me of the
early days of home computers in the UK.
It was a bit different in the US, I think, but in the UK, in
the early to mid-80s, there was an enormous boom in extremely
cheap machines, driven by an inventor called Clive Sinclair,
who managed to pack (relatively) great performance into these
tiny, cheap little boxes.
The upshot of which, was that almost every kid in the land
had one. And here's the rub. They used audio cassettes as the
main external storage medium. And software came on cassettes.
*Games*. Hundreds, if not thousands of them, mostly written
by spotty teenagers in their bedrooms.
But tapes are ridiculously easy to copy. So, despite the low
prices of the games (maybe 5 or 6 pounds each), there was a
huge disparity between what these kids wanted and what they
could afford. And piracy was massive. These kids would get
together and exchange huge numbers of these things. They'd
have (this is direct from an undergrad in one of my classes
a few months ago) *parties* where they'd get together to
pirate games.
Most of the games were terrible, of course. But that didn't
stop them wanting them. Because they were *free*. They'd build
up collections of hundreds and hundreds of these things, almost
none of which they'd paid for.
And this is the point: The *acquisition* became the thing,
rather than the actual *playing* of these games. Besides the
fact that most were crap, there's no way they could ever get
through more than a small fraction of them. I suspect many of
them spent longer doing the copying than they ever did playing
the damn things.
My feeling is that the same is true of things like Napster for
quite a lot of their users. It's about the acquisition, rather
than the music. I've heard students talk about how many tracks
they've got from Napster, seemingly trying to outdo each other.
And I wonder how much of this stuff they actually *listen* to.
Pab.
Personal Dad
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling from your posts that you don't
value
> creative work that much.
Maybe I'm wrong, Naomi, but I get the feeling that you are {perhaps
unintentionally} engaging in personal attack when you should be addressing
the ideas I presented. It disappointed me because I think you are one of
the finest writers on the ng and I never fail to read and enjoy your
stories. You are truly a master [mistress?] of the written word and I love
your ability to create a mood and stick with it. So it hurts my feelings
when someone I respect and admire says stuff like this.
I do value creative work, Naomi, but I agree with [ I think it was Mija's
point ] the point that modern copyright laws have the effect of protecting
corporate distributors' interests and do not in fact do anything significant
to help all but the very few very privileged artists.
I do think the Napster is a good case in point - - it is a waste of
government and societal resources to pay the six figure and seven figuire
salaries of judges, corporate lawyers and executives to fight over music and
movie script downloads. Personally, I would let that activity go on without
government regulation and focus government resources on preserving human
rights, fighting world hunger, striving for world peace and cleaning the
environment.
Now, in fairness, I would point out that the corporate entertainment
business is dominated by American corporate interests, and there is an
extent to which strict enforcement of copyright laws helps to maintain
American economic power and hegemony in the world at large by forcing
royalties to flow back to the good old USA. And I personally think that
this is a good thing, because I personally think that American domination is
good for the world at large. Without our armed forces to periodically spank
the all the other naughty little countries, the world would be a much worse
place, IMHO. Interestingly, the British usually support us in these
endeavors -- because they, too, understand the value of a good spanking --
better than anyone else perhaps.
But ultimately, Naomi, all I was doing was posing a legitimate question - -
what if we abolished copyright laws. It's a complicated question with 2 or
more sides, IMO.
As you are well aware, most artists have always made very little money, and
it never stopped them from producing great literary and artistic
masterpieces. Eliminate copyrights, and the artists would still produce.
They might even develop new economic models that resulted in artists making
more money instead of less. True artists produce because they are driven to
do so. Giving them a big allowance doesnt help anything. It just ebtices the
hackers to move into the field with copycat drivel. The world could surely
use another Bergman, Kubrick, Vonnegut, etc. But strict enforcement of
copyright laws is as likely to suppress this as encourage it.
PD
bunstinger
print material:
>Only, I'd say, so long as you could be absolutely
>certain that the music wouldn't ever come back
>*into* print. Ever.
Ever hear of H.P. Lovecraft? No not the writer, the
band?
Methinks Jesus will 'come back' before their
recordings do ;)
Regarding popular artists who withdraw their work for
personal reasons, i.e. the two examples you cited.
Surely, both Mr. Kubrick and Hitchcock were fully
aware that their decisions would only amplify public
demand for those films. Indeed, I suspect that both of
them would have been profoundly disappointed were they
to subsequently learn that no one wanted those movies
bad enough to purchase unauthorized copies.
Human nature is a funny thing, eh?
bunstinger
eloquently:
>Another thought is that without the downloader the
>music would not exist. There are so many songs, forms
>of music, etc that have been lost thru time because
>there was no one who cared enough to KEEP it.
Since I downloaded those old relics I mentioned
earlier I have noticed many others uploading those
same tunes from my hard drive. One of those songs has
been out of print for 31 years!
Now consider this, had the technology existed in say
the 1930's for consumers to make digital copies of the
popular music and movies of that era many hundreds of
lost films and even greater number of musical
recordings would still be with us.
Keep up the good work ~K~ and the lawyers be damned ;)
BitOTrouble
<20010715145729...@ng-ma1.aol.com>...
As an annoyingly amoral/moral person I feel compelled to rephrase this
question:
What are justifications for breaking the law?
1) Civil disobedience--you don't believe the law is just and are willing to
accept the consequences (perhaps like Thoreau, to be thrown in jail) to
protest the injustice.
2) You decide that laws are for other people and will only comply with laws
that don't inconvenice you.
IMHO:
# 1 is moral
# 2 is for people of questionable ethics
Trouble
Ladi...@aol.com
The rules of intellectual property are arbitrary and man made. We could
think the unthinkable -- why not get rid of the copyright laws? I would
like to know.
PD
Holy freaking shit. Because some of us make a living from what we write,
paint, photograph, film, etc. and if people did not have to pay us to use our
work we would make even less money than we do.
I have to keep track of my earnings and expenses for tax purposes and so far
every year I have spent more money on ink, envelopes, postage, paper, on line
services etc. than I earn. I live for the day I will finally break even.
I bust my ass every damned day. Between writing, research for writing, and
doing the business of writing, I can't remember the last time I saw an eight
hour day. If you add up all the time against my sales, I probably make .0003
cents an hour.
Did you think about that? Did you think about the fact that there are some
of us out here who have to depend on being paid for our work?
Not to mention the fact that if I give a newsgroup a story for their
pleasure, I am placing it where I want it to be. I want control of who else
uses that story. Luckily most people ask. I have never turned anyone down,
but I always look at the site first. I want to be sure my story is in a place
I want it to be.
Copyright exists for a reason. Without copyright I would be making 0 cents
an hour instead of .0003 cents an hour. I have had entire years where I was
not paid for a single story, though I usually manage to get at least a few
things published in magazines that don't pay a dime. They claim to pay in
prestige. Good. My little cat can't eat prestige. She needs cat food.
Can't buy catfood with prestige.
Sure, do away with copyright. Now how about you work for free, go to work
everyday without being paid a time? How would you live? How valued would
you feel?
Bloody hell. Do away with copyright. Yeah, let's not pay anybody anymore.
Everybody just go our and grab whatever you want. Fill up your cart with a
load of groceries and just want out the door. Nobody needs to pay those farm
workers who sweated in the fields to pick those vegetables. Nobody needs to
pay the cowboys that hearded those steers.
Creating is work, real, legitimate work. It is not some damned game,
something to do to amuse oneself. For some of us it is what our life is
about.
Tell me, did you ever have to make your living from what you created from
hour own mind and hands, or do you go to work each day and do what you are
told in exchange for dollars?
In case anybody is wondering, AOL gave me an extension until August. I
popped on to look for some addresses to move to my new E-mail name and found
this thread.
I was content to stayout of this subject until I say Personal Dad's post.
That one really got me. So creative people should then get an extra job to
live on or should we stand on the corner and beg for change?
Katharine
Haron
<<I personally think that American domination is good for the world at
large. Without our armed forces to periodically spank the all the other
naughty little countries, the world would be a much worse place, IMHO.>>
I wish you didn't say that, PD. Not going to start a flame on this topic,
but I just wish you didn't say that.
Best,
Haron, always a candidate to get a bomb dropped on her in a way of spanking
her "naughty little country".
domino
wrote:
>I enjoy alot of the older music and it is starting to get very hard to find.
>What happens in 10 years? it will be gone. I think I'll keep on downloading
>and feed my need for the next few generations.
Um... not so. A *lot* of labels have reprints of old music - it's
possible to acquire legal CDs of a range of music - classical, 20s,
30s etc.
Try www.cduniverse.com or
http://www.pastperfect.com/
regards
domino
domino
>Last semester, a class I was TAing for needed 100 copies of _I the Jury_
>which is out of print. Wanna how much the publisher wanted for us to
>copy the $1.50 paperback we had? $45 each. And that was just one book.
>Were we to have done that, we'd have had students book costs at over $400
>dollars each. So we had them copied illegally and sold them to the students
>to for the printing costs ($5.00). Otherwise, we could have left the text
>out entirely, but can one really understand the new chick dicks without
>Spillane?
Well - I just had a quick look at www.alibris.com and today they are
offering 72 copies of the qork you mention. The most expensive is a
first edition costing $4500, but most of the others were under $20,
most around the £12 mark, and some as low as $6
And that was just *one* site which deals in secondhand books.
So I don't think you *needed* to violate the copyright law.
love
domino
domino
<bunst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Pablo wrote regarding the ethics of copying out of
>print material:
>
>>Only, I'd say, so long as you could be absolutely
>>certain that the music wouldn't ever come back
>>*into* print. Ever.
>
>Ever hear of H.P. Lovecraft? No not the writer, the
>band?
>
>Methinks Jesus will 'come back' before their
>recordings do ;)
Walmart is selling a live album at
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?cat=54526&dept=4104&path=0:4104:4118:5090:54526&bti=0&sb=61
Excite is selling the live album and another one at
http://music.excite.com/album/386191
regasrds
domino
Pablo
> Regarding popular artists who withdraw their work for
> personal reasons, i.e. the two examples you cited.
> Surely, both Mr. Kubrick and Hitchcock were fully
> aware that their decisions would only amplify public
> demand for those films.
Oh, I'm sure they did. It doesn't follow that that was their
*motivation* for withdrawing them, though. Nor that, if it
*had* been their motivation, that that would have made it okay
to violate their copyright.
I'm not sure Hitchcock's reasoning was ever properly explained,
though I think it's been speculated that he was using the films
in question as a kind of bequest for his daughter. The logic
behind that is a little strange, though, so I'm not sure. At
least a couple of the films were ones he wasn't really happy
with.
Kubrick *definitely* didn't withdraw Orange to amplify demand.
I was surprised when it was released so soon after his death.
I'd fully expected him to leave instructions for it not to be
released at all. They'd have been followed, too.
> Indeed, I suspect that both of them would have been profoundly
> disappointed were they to subsequently learn that no one wanted
> those movies bad enough to purchase unauthorized copies.
I'm sure they would. But that's not the same as approving (or
wanting) the unauthorised copying.
Pab.
Mija
Actually you're mistaken. (Though it wasn't me who violated it
as I'm not the instructor of record here.) No one ever wants
to use xerox copies if they can get their hands on a text.
There's nothing about xerox copies that make people want to read.
The professor teaching the class, myself, and another TA spent
about three days trying to track down enough used copies of
I, The Jury at around $10 for the class once the publisher got
word to us how much they were charging for permission to xerox.
We were hopeful as the professor had tracked down 50 copies the
previous year. Also, when we logged onto bibiofind they said
they'd located 150 copies. In reality the number of those
in our price range were significantly less.
At the end of 2 days, we'd located (using ABE, bibliofind and
the university 2nd hand book dealer) fewer than 40. Forty isn't
enough, especially when you're dealing with undergrads who get very
antsy when books aren't in the student store. If we'd had more time,
no doubt we could have found the books--as it was, they just weren't
that many copies in our price range available. And, we were told
a good used copy was currently averaging $15.
The professor in question had been willing to front up to $1000
to buy these books and then get the students to buy them from him.
This really is above and beyond though--I couldn't afford to do
that at Christmas time, nor, I suspect, could most people teaching.
What the solution really is is for the publisher to reprint the
book. Hopefully they will--if the used prices are any indication.
Trying to rely on used copies purchased from a score of different
used bookstores to teach a class of 100 or more just doesn't
work.
Peace,
Mija - thinking the last two pages of I, the Jury are about as
funny as writing gets. :)
P&e
---
Personal Dad
>
> > I would point out that the corporate entertainment
> >business is dominated by American corporate interests, and there is an
> >extent to which strict enforcement of copyright laws helps to maintain
> >American economic power and hegemony in the world at large by forcing
> >royalties to flow back to the good old USA. And I personally think that
> >this is a good thing, because I personally think that American domination
is
> >good for the world at large. Without our armed forces to periodically
spank
> >the all the other naughty little countries, the world would be a much
worse
> >place, I
>
Barrister wrote:
> Please tell me you're speaking tongue-in-cheek here and are not
> serious - please.
What is that troubles you, my good fellow?
I think you could break this down into 3 propositions:
1. From an American perspective, the protection of American business
interests is a major policy justification for strong copyright laws.
Nothing offensive about this, right? Every other country acts in their own
interests, we can too -- right?
2. America owes its paramount military position in the world to its economic
power, and weakening the American economy weakens American military
capabilities. Pretty non-controversial, huh? This is how we won the cold
war -- by arms racing the Soviets into economic oblivion, which was followed
by political collapse and denigration of the soviet military capability.
3. American domination of the world is pretty much the best thing that has
ever happened to the world, at least so far.
I assume that proposition 3 is the one that is bothering you? I apologize
if you found my phraseology offensive. I suppose that it is not surprising
the other little countries of the world would get their little noses out of
joint if I analogize them to bratty little girls that need a spanking from
time to time. But from an American perspective, it frequently seems like we
are the ones trying to stand up to terrorists, keep the anti-human rights
Chinese in check, stabilize the old soviet union to avert nuclear disaster,
and prevent the spread of fundamentalist islamic regimes that oppress women
in a manner that is utterly disgusting. Meanwhile, the Japanese, the
French, the Germans, are doing business with the worst of these scoundrels
and saying please don't bother us we wanna go to the mall! Waaaahhhh!
Irresponsible little children who can't see beyond their next paycheck.
American hegemony has tremendous benefit to the rest of the free world and
fosters the growth of open societies. Frankly, the reaction of the rest of
the world frequently seems like a bunch of bratty selfish little girls that
need a spanking. With the notable exception of the Brits (Should I add the
Canadians and Aussies, who maybe don't think of themselves as Brits
anymore?), who seem to understand the exercise of world power for obvious
historical reasons.
So, barrister, to summarize, I did not mean to offend by my tongue in cheek
spanking analogy. But the fundamental points I was making seem quite
defensible.
There is a reason the USA has always been the destination of choice for
dissatisfied achievers of other lands. Our freedoms are what make us strong
and powerful as a nation. Our democratic traditions are what make us the
only world power worthy of being entrusted with the fate of the world. Do
you have a problem with that? Think about what the world would look like
today if it were run by the Russians, the Chinese, or (god help us!) the
French.
Kind regards
PD
p&e
John Blaikie
protected by these laws.
If I couldn't get paid for them, I coundn't afford to draw them. If you think
copywrite laws
cause a problem - try thinking about a world where houses, offices, cars,
airplanes, and other
complex things were not designed by highly trained profesionals.
John
Ladi...@aol.com wrote:
<Long sectional of well written, informed post sinped to save room.>
Simon
Personal Dad wrote:
> Now, in fairness, I would point out that the corporate entertainment
> business is dominated by American corporate interests, and there is an
> extent to which strict enforcement of copyright laws helps to maintain
> American economic power and hegemony in the world at large by forcing
> royalties to flow back to the good old USA.
Not arguing with that, certainly.
> And I personally think that
> this is a good thing, because I personally think that American domination is
> good for the world at large.
VERY DEFINITELY arguing with this ! I do hope you were only joking, but I don't
feel it is obvious what your tone is here.
> Interestingly, the British usually support us in these
> endeavors -- because they, too, understand the value of a good spanking --
> better than anyone else perhaps.
OK, joking or not, let's be clear about this one. Certain craven and spineless
British *governments* have sometimes backed various pieces of American
adventurism. Most British *people*, along with most people in the rest of the
world, get seriously fed up with it all. Furthermore, since Britain is currently
expected to turn itself into a human shield in the form of a radar base for
missile defence, I expect that opposition to increase. Whatever Americans may
think, Britain is not here to get nuked so that America might live.
Simon
--
"Our star-spangled Union Jack flutters so proud,
Over the dancing heads of the merry, patriotic crowd.
Tip your hat to the Yankee conqueror."
51st State - New Model Army
Simon
I think much of this depends on what it is you believe copyright law should do, and
what it actually does, and how you react to that discrepancy. What follows is long,
but necessarily so IMO.
Theoretically, copyright should be about protecting the right of the creator to
benefit from their creation. Whether you're talking about prose, music, photographs
or any other kind of artistic/intellectual property, this is the avowed aim of
copyright law. Personally I'm all in favour of that. As Katharine says, it's
important that struggling creators should be able to get what profit they can from
the time and effort they put into producing their creations. I completely agree
with what she says about protecting artists.
In practical terms, however, this is not what copyright does, or at least not what
it primarily does. What copyright law actually does in practice is to regulate the
practice of exploiting the creativity of others and making money off their
endeavours. The people who gain most from copyright law are not the creators
themselves, but the large corporations who control the distribution of other
people's creations. Record companies, film distributors, publishing houses. These
are the people who gain from copyright law, not the creators of the works in
question.
Mija has already referred to the Harry Potter issue, so let's take that as an
example, because it illustrates a fundamental flaw in the copyright system. Warners
Brothers use their corporate muscle and legal resources to overwhelm a
rags-to-riches author and get her to essentially sign her soul away. WB haven't
done a damn thing with Harry Potter in creative terms. They didn't write it, they
didn't take the initial risk of publishing it, they did nothing. The movie isn't
even out yet, but right now WB are coining in money off the Harry Potter name. In
order that nothing should jeopardise this most awesome of free lunches, they have
chosen to persecute a number of teenage children who have been running websites.
The same thing has happened to fan sites for other properties, such as Buffy and
the Teletubbies.
They get away with all this because there is nothing in copyright or contract law
which addresses the concept of unequal bargaining positions. If you have a lot of
money and a lot of lawyers and a stranglehold on the means on distribution, you can
dictate terms to the creators in your field with impunity. If a creator wants an
audience, they have to agree to your terms. Nowhere is this more true than in
music, where upcoming bands or singers have to sign incredibly restrictive
contracts in order to get a record deal. Since the record companies are effectively
a cartel, if you want a major release, you have to do what you're told.
Then there are the cases where copyright law is used to actively suppress a work.
Let's take my favourite example of this, the works of Hiyao Miyazaki. Miyazaki is
an extremely talented Japanese animator, and works such as "Princess Mononoke" and
"Kiki's Delivery Service" are widely recognised as masterpieces. These films
represent real competition to US firms, in particular Disney's market in Europe.
European tastes are different to those in the US, and Miyazaki's childrens films in
particular would be very well received. So what happens ? Simple, Disney buy up the
European distribution rights to Miyazaki's work and then just refuse to release
them. No theatre releases, no videos, nothing. I had to buy my copy of "Princess
Mononoke" from the US, and could only do that because I happen to have a VCR which
plays NTSC tapes. Most of Europe knows nothing of Miyazaki, and thanks to Disney,
it never will.
These contracts prevent even the creator from exploiting their own work. Once the
copyright is assigned to another party, even the original creator is prevented from
publishing or distributing their own work via a different means. The copyright only
reverts to the original creator under certain specific circumstances, and a clever
company can easily meet these requirements without actually giving any benefit to
the creator.
There is also the question of the distribution of profits. Imagine an artist who
sells an image to a company. The artist is pleased to have sold a piece, and so
accepts the modest price offered. Who knows, they may need the money and have no
choice but to accept. The corporation then uses the image to great effect, and
makes a massive amount of profit from it. Now clearly they have invested time and
money, and deserve a fair return; but do they really deserve a return so much
larger than the person who created their now hot property ?
So basically, I think it is perfectly fair to flout copyright if the beneficiary of
that copyright is no longer the original creator of the work, or if the copyright
law is being used to unfairly suppress or restrict access to a work. I would never
countenance copying a Harry Potter book or audio tape, but I'd gleefully rip off a
piece of WB merchandise. Copyright law is not protecting the people it is supposed
to protect. What it does is allow people to gain control of properties and
ruthlessly exploit them, simply because they already have money and power.
What should be done ? Well, I think a major overhaul of copyright law would be
required. At the heart should be the absolute right of a creator to market their
own creation as they see fit, and to retain ownership of that creation no matter
what. No-one should find themselves pressured or tricked out of the ability to
benefit from their own work, or to choose how to exploit their own work. Then you
could look at rules governing the distribution of profits from commercial
exploitation, so that if a work is successful, the creator genuinely shares in its
success. It's all a pipe dream of course, because the vested interests will ensure
that the system remains the same.
Simon
--
"Mandy, I am very disappointed by your behaviour. Take your knickers
down and come here so I can spank you."
Mandy sighed and started to bare her bottom. It was so unfair !
It wasn't as if anyone was going to miss Great Aunt Emma....
Simon
Pablo wrote:
> Kubrick *definitely* didn't withdraw Orange to amplify demand.
> I was surprised when it was released so soon after his death.
> I'd fully expected him to leave instructions for it not to be
> released at all. They'd have been followed, too.
According to an interview I saw, the reason Orange was withdrawn was due
to a number of very serious death threats which Kubrick received at the
time of its initial release. Since he is now dead, the threats are no
longer an issue I suppose.
SoCalSwitch
>The rules of intellectual property are arbitrary and man made. We could
>think the unthinkable -- why not get rid of the copyright laws? I would
>like to know.
Well let's see what kinds of copyrighted material touches your life on a daily
basis, beginning with the computer you used to access this newsgroup and the
software both embedded in vairous chips inside the computer and the software
that makes your Hotmail account work. Without the protection of copyright
laws, it's highly unlikely that you would have either. Do you read a
newspaper? Watch TV? Go to the movies? All copyrighted material that might
not exist without the concept of intellectual property rights.
How about the text books that contributed to your education? Come to think of
if, how about all the text books that help to educate and train the doctors who
look out for our health? the engineers who design and build our autos? the
architects who design our buildings? the contractors who build them? the
physicists who developed the laser that now powers your CD player, CD-ROM
drive, DVD player and drive, cleans your teeth, fixes bad eyes and other
medical problems?
My point is that copyrighted material is much more than just "artistic works".
It is material that touches every aspect of modern life, especially in this
technological "information age." In addition, "artistic works" like music,
art, movies, TV shows and even comic strips can greatly enrich our lives.
Without the protection of copyright, there would be much less incentive to
create such work, especially in quantity, much less distribute it.
On a personal note, I write for a living. That's my job and I'm damned good at
it. Just because the products I create come from my mind rather than being
physically manufactured, it is just as much my property as a piece of furniture
I may have crafted with tools. It is my legal, ethical and moral right to
decide how that material is used and exploited - ESPECIALLY if someone else is
profiting from it.
Sorry PD, other than the "fair use" doctrine already a part of copyright law
which allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works within fairly narrow
parameters, I think copyright owners have every right to decide for themselves
how their works get distributed.
SCS
Simon
Haron wrote:
> I wish you didn't say that, PD. Not going to start a flame on this topic,
> but I just wish you didn't say that.
>
> Best,
> Haron, always a candidate to get a bomb dropped on her in a way of spanking
> her "naughty little country".
Paradoxically though, this is the one benefit which America has. It's not that
long ago that Haron's country and mine glanced nervously at each other over the
Iron Curtain. And yet here we are now, two diverse citizens of the world
brought together to fight the common evil. We're like the Rebel Alliance
really, different peoples banding together to defend ourselves against the evil
Empire and their new Death Star !
Personal Dad
crackerjack usenet poster. As to my *true* intentions, well . . . it's the
writing that counts, is it not?
Kind regards
PD
PS: It is tempting to finish off the analogy of countries and naughty girls
with some descriptions of their bottoms . . . ah, well, maybe another time.
Please forgive me for not seeing your sense of humour right off the
> bat.
>
> Barrister
>
>
>
>
Don A. Landhill
<3B531C85...@imrryr.demon.co.uk>, Simon wrote
holders to commercial works are often not the original creator, but some
corporation to which the work has been sold, or some the rights to the work. It
is alos true that an indiviudual author or artist is often in a poor bargining
position vis-a-vis the corporation. This is one reason why there are such
organizations as the Screen Writers guild, the Science Fiction Writers of
America, and other creators assocations -- unions, in effect. Many of these have
standard contracts, will advise members in negociating deals, will sue or assist
is suing publishers who violated their contracts, etc.
On the other hand, many authors are more or less happy with the publication
deals they have made, and want the publisher to do as well as possible, because
their ropyalties are directly tied to sales. Unless you know that in a
particualr case the copyright is owned under an exploitive contract, it is IMO
ill advised to assmne that it is, and to feel free to violate copyright on the
assumption that you are helping or at least not harming, the original author.
You say:
>Well, I think a major overhaul of copyright law would be
>required. At the heart should be the absolute right of a creator to market their
>own creation as they see fit, and to retain ownership of that creation no matter
>what.
The problem is that if the creator has an absolute right to market as s.he sees
fit, and this right can not be contractred out, what publisher would pay for
publication rights, when it knows that those rights could be canceled anytime?
I think that this sounds good, but would actually do harm in practice.
A revision which gave more protection to creators, which re-definend the concept
of "out of print" in a practical way, and allowed a copyright to be reclaimed
when a work is being supressed, which perhaps limits the term for which a
copyright can be assigned, so that the creator is enabled to re-negociate every
5 or 7 years, or some such, might be a workable solution to this problem.
----
-Don A. Landhill <Dlan...@aol.com>
See my stories and those of SamPast and others at
<http://www.geocities.com/dlandhill/>
Simon
Naomi Darvell wrote:
> I still think, at the most basic level, you're talking about people feeling
> provoked into doing something illegal-- and it's still illegal and not really
> right, *in my opinion.*
Well I guess this depends on whether or not you feel obliged to obey an unjust
law. This is a classic moral philosophy discussion, and this thread is already
getting long :). But I personally am convinced that law is only valid when backed
up by some level of social and moral legitimacy. If I were in Taleban-controlled
Afghanistan, it would be illegal for me to run a school for women. Would you
condemn me if I did it anyway ?
> In the examples you gave, you're talking about
> entertainment. Yes, it's bad when publishers, studios etc. fail to distribute
> the stuff people want, but nobody really has a right to take it.
No, come on, they are not "failing" to distribute it, they are deliberately
choosing to suppress it. What gives them the right to decide what I can read or
watch ?! I didn't vote for them, they didn't consult me, they aren't doing it
because of any legitimate government legislation. They are removing my choice for
their own personal gain. They are abusing their power in order to limit my choice
and exploit me. I have every right to fight that by whatever means I can find. Why
should I roll over and allow corporate Amerika (sic) to stomp me any time it wants
?!
> I feel for the artist whose work is being held back, but I think the only 100%
> ethical solution, and the one which will have a long-term effect-- is to
> attack the problem in a legal way.If people become complacent about dealing
> with it by pirating, it's just going to perpetuate the problem.
ROFLOL. Attack the problem in a legal way, yeah right. If you've got a suggestion
as to how that could be done, I'd love to hear it. In principle, I agree with you.
I'd love to be able to challenge Disney and make them give up the rights to
Miyazaki. Anyone with an ounce of business sense could make a profit selling his
stuff in Europe. But we're living in the real world, and in the real world this
just isn't going to happen. Look at Microsoft. People tried a legal challenge
there, but sadly it has now collapsed. All of a sudden we find the judge was
somehow "biased", and his remedy is thrown out. The fact that Microsoft was a
large contributor to Dubya's campaign fund is, of course, pure coincidence. But
it's bad news if you're one of the people whose company was smashed by the
soulless bastards in Micro$oft's marketing department, using vapourware to grab
your idea at a rock-bottom price.
Let's face it, special interests own the courts, and nowhere more so than in
America. There is no legal solution. You can either roll over, or you can engage
in civil disobedience. I choose the latter. I find nothing unethical about it.
It's not something that I actually do in practice very often, but I have no
problem with the principle. It's easy to be sanctimonious when you are the one
benefitting from the system and the status quo.
Don A. Landhill
<20010715145729...@ng-ma1.aol.com>, Naomi Darvell wrote
>
>I'm starting a new thread because I don't want to seem to be jumping on an
>individual who may very well have made an honest mistake, for all I can tell.
>
>Can somebody point me to a really good, reasoned and thorough explanation of
>why it's OK to publish other people's material? I've read a lot of discussions,
>and justifications seem to boil down to:
>
>You can't stop the practice. (No comment.)
>
>It makes things cheaper/more convenient for me. (Is comment really necessary?)
>
>It helps promote the artists' work, translating to more money for them. (Since
>when don't artists-- or someone they's made a contract with-- get to decide how
>their own work is promoted?)
>
>Everyone's done something of the sort. (Yes, almost everyone I know has at
>least done something like tape songs from the radio or listen to a Napster file
>once to see if they want to buy the album. Some of this behavior seems pretty
>harmless, but where do you draw the line? It is on the same continuum with
>putting someone else's novel up on the net, depriving that person of
>livelihood.)
>
>Information ought to be circulated freely. (The word "information" is
>misleading. If I write a song, or paint a picture, and don't show it to anyone
>at all, I'm not depriving anyone of *information.* It's not a set of facts or a
>math formula. It's a piece of creative work and as such cannot be repeated,
>like facts or formulas. It can only be duplicated.)
>
>Is there another argument I've been missing?
All arguments I have seen for complete freedom to republish soemone else's work
without permission or payment basically come down to one of the above or
something like one. Of these, IMO only the lkast ever has validity. Something
like it is the reaon why copyright expires after a time, so that anyone can
reprint shakespear without geting permission from or paying royalties to anyone.
For limited freedom to quote, refer to, and otherwise make limited use ("fair
use" in the legal terminology) the argument is basicaly that there is a net
social benefit, and little or no net harm to the copyright holder. In
particular, people need to be abel to comment on a work, and support themselves
by quoting from it. People need to be able to cite a work. Libraries who have
purchased a book need the right to lend it. There is a certian sense in
permittign limited copying of a work which is out of print and unavailable,
particularly for educational use.
The exact boundries of this concept could be debated at length, and are in a
sens arbitrary, but there must be a line soemwhere. In factr it may be more
important that there is a line, and a moderately clear one, then exactly where
it is, IMO.
>
>
>
>
>Naomi D.
pest
>
>
>Naomi Darvell wrote:
>
>> I still think, at the most basic level, you're talking about people feeling
>> provoked into doing something illegal-- and it's still illegal and not really
>> right, *in my opinion.*
>
>Well I guess this depends on whether or not you feel obliged to obey an unjust
>law. This is a classic moral philosophy discussion,
or a silly pretense of one?
>and this thread is already
>getting long :). But I personally am convinced that law is only valid when backed
>up by some level of social and moral legitimacy. If I were in Taleban-controlled
>Afghanistan,
The Taliban, eh?
You do realize, don't you, that that is mere minutes away from
being technically the realm of Godwin's Law?
>it would be illegal for me to run a school for women. Would you
>condemn me if I did it anyway ?
You trivialize the tradition of civil disobedience, while not
using the term. The premise has always been that if a law is
a patent affront to human decency (the Fugitive Slave Law comes
to mind as an instance, in the history of the U.S., or the laws
enacted in Germany to de-citizenize Jews) one ought to be
willing to give up one's liberty to oppose such a law, prison being
preferable to assent. That is a very far cry from being allowed to
take what one pleases if the law is an irritant. You are free to
argue that the two things are morally equivalent, but not entitled to
be ceded the moral high ground for raising that line of argument.
--
(pest)
[use reply-to address for e-mail]
Existence is futile - You will be assimilated!
Personal Dad
Whatever Americans may
> think, Britain is not here to get nuked so that America might live.
>
LOL! Actually Simon, most of us think of Great Britain as a large aircraft
carrier with hookers. [grin]
Kind regards
PD
p&e
Personal Dad
. Whatever Americans may
> think, Britain is not here to get nuked so that America might live.
>
LOL! Actually Simon, most of us think of Great Britain as a large aircraft
carrier with hookers.
Kind regards
PD
Personal Dad
of copyright laws because I asked the question of whether the world would be
better off with or without these laws.
I don't. I just asked a question because I wanted to learn what people
thought. And I learned a great deal, so thank you all of you for your
vigorous debate.
I am inclined to agree that a major overhaul of the copyright laws is
needed. I also do not think that the current copyright laws give much
protection to the many misguided persons who thought that my merely asking a
question somehow threatened their livelihoods.
Kind regards
PD
Personal Dad
outlook. But the world is such a small place that in reality there is no
place to hide. I live within one hour's drive of numerous American military
bases. That makes me as much a target or more, as anyone else. And that is
why most Americans find it irritating when people like Simon, who are not
afraid to reap the benefits of American power (like the privilege of using
the internet), are the first to say "not me! not me!" when it comes to
taking responsibility for the benefits he enjoys as if it were some
birthright.
Yet even Simon digresses from his mindless anti American drivel to admit
that Americans can take some credit for the fall of the iron curtain. Sorry,
Simon has the political sophistication of a a silly little brainless worm,
but I am optimistic even he will grow up one day. "Evil Empire"? Dark
Star"? how stupid.
Kind regards
PD
LadiKath
>As you are well aware, most artists have always made very little money, and
>it never stopped them from producing great literary and artistic
>masterpieces.
Actually, you are completely and entirely wrong about this. Lack of income
from our creative work means we have to take other work in order to survive,
thus having a great deal less time to produce creatively. In past centuries,
most of those who produced great art or writing either had patrons who paid
the bills or were independently wealthy.
> Eliminate copyrights, and the artists would still produce.
And receive no compensation for it. Just because we are driven to create does
not mean we are not entitled to make a living from what we do. Instead of
eliminating copyright, why don't you make it so corporate America has to pay us
what we are worth?
>They might even develop new economic models that resulted in artists making
>more money instead of less. True artists produce because they are driven to
>do so. Giving them a big allowance doesnt help anything. It just ebtices the
>hackers to move into the field with copycat drivel.
This is one of the most illogical statements I have ever seen made. First of
all, just take a look at the internet. There is lots of copycat drivel nobody
every paid a dime for. People who produce drivel don't need a monetary
motivation. It just naturally oozes from their pores like sweat.
I work hard to produce my stories. Why shouldn't I be able to make a living at
the thing I am good at rather than have to go out and get a second job that
will leave me too tired to write at night? Yeah, babe, try to sit down and
write a novel when you traveled an hour and a half to work, worked eight hours,
then traveled an hour and a half home, made dinner, did the laundry and the
other basic things you need to do just to survive. It's not a matter of how
much someone is driven to write. It's a matter of sheer physical stamina.
Very few people would be physically able to do it.
The world could surely
>use another Bergman, Kubrick, Vonnegut, etc. But strict enforcement of
>copyright laws is as likely to suppress this as encourage it.
This statement doesn't even make any sense at all. All these men were paid for
their work and the only reason they were paid for their work because copyright
gave them a legal right to demand payment for it.
So your answer is to let anyone and everyone use a creative person's work
without paying them or their consent? How generous you are at our expense. So
your answer to corporate America's exploitation of creative people is to let
them have at our work for free? Wouldn't they just love that? Since all they
care about is the bottom line, your idea will save them heaps of money.
Doctors, lawyers, executives, etc. get paid for work they enjoy and are driven
to do. Why should creative people be any different? Why are we not entitled
to make a living from the thing we are driven to do?
There are a lot of bad doctors just in it for the money. Are you going to stop
paying doctors so that you can eliminate the bad ones?
What do you do for a living? Do you enjoy it? If you enjoy it, does that mean
you aren't entitled to be paid? So we all have to find work we hate in order
to be entitled to earn money from it?
Greed may be evil, but money is a matter of survival. Nobody writes for a
living to get rich, but we would like to be able to feed the cat and pay the
electric bill that keeps our computer functioning so we can write.
Tell you what, babe. How about this? How about we take away your income and
make you write poetry on little cards. By hand. No printing. You have to buy
the cards. You have to buy the ink.
Then you get to take them out on the street and sell them. How much money do
you think you can make? Think you can live on it?
That's not the new economic system you were thinking of? Well, hey, sport, you
think of a better way. You think of how we can make a living without
protecting our work. We're listening. Let's here something that will really
work, something that will eliminate drivel while the truly creative survive.
You tell me. How do we do this?
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
Katharine
AprilC
>What should be done ? Well, I think a major overhaul of copyright law would be
>required. At the heart should be the absolute right of a creator to market their
>own creation as they see fit, and to retain ownership of that creation no matter
>what. No-one should find themselves pressured or tricked out of the ability to
>benefit from their own work, or to choose how to exploit their own work. Then
>you
>could look at rules governing the distribution of profits from commercial
>exploitation, so that if a work is successful, the creator genuinely shares in
>its
>success.
In order to do this we'd have to dismantle global capitalism.
Viva the revolution. In the mean time most people will carry on ignoring most
copyright issues most of the time. Which mostly causes little harm to most
people.
The point is that businesses that exploit copyright law to make excessive
profits do more damage to us as individuals, us as creative artists, and to
society as a whole than a few lousy rip-off websites, or teachers making
photocopies for their students, or Napster etc.
April
wooz
Barrister remarks, regarding this by Simon:
> These are two of the most sensible paragraphs on the topic I've read
> anywhere and should be required reading for discussion in all
> intellectual property classes in law schools. Thanks for this, Simon.
Amen.
Wooz
Starship
Mija wrote:
>
> 2) The artist / writer is unethical and you don't want to contribute
> money to them.
>
> This was the case when _The Closing of the American Mind_ came out.
> My intellectual history professor xeroxed the entire book and handed
> it out to a class of 170 students, with a cover sheet explaining that
> his doing this was a direct violation of Allen Bloom's copyright. He
> felt a need to teach the backlash against feminism and intellectualism
> that Bloom's book embodied, but also felt it would be unethical to
> assign the book and have students pay into supporting this intellectual
> equiviant of Mein Kaumf, his words, not mine. The professor then
> stated that he'd done this for 8 different classes at 5 universities
> throughout the US and was hoping to get sued for copyright violation
> so he could explain in court why he a) needed to have students read
> Bloom's work and b) couldn't ask students to pay for it.
So anything with which that professor disagrees is automatically
immoral, and deserves no protection. Sounds to me like the old liberal
"it's not unethical if *I* do it" argument.
--
Starship - thoroughly disgusted with the calibre of some of the people
who presume to be qualified to teach
Note: The author of this post wishes to express his appreciation and
thanks to the SSS moderators for their hard work on behalf of the
newsgroup.
domino
wrote:
>According to an interview I saw, the reason Orange was withdrawn was due
>to a number of very serious death threats which Kubrick received at the
>time of its initial release. Since he is now dead, the threats are no
>longer an issue I suppose.
I'd always heard that it was because he was pissed off by the British
Board of Censors.
love
domino
domino
>Actually you're mistaken. (Though it wasn't me who violated it
>as I'm not the instructor of record here.)
Sorry for the misattribution - it was meant as a generic 'you'
I don't quite see why you think I'm mistaken though.
>The professor teaching the class, myself, and another TA spent
>about three days trying to track down enough used copies of
>I, The Jury at around $10 for the class once the publisher got
>word to us how much they were charging for permission to xerox.
>We were hopeful as the professor had tracked down 50 copies the
>previous year. Also, when we logged onto bibiofind they said
>they'd located 150 copies. In reality the number of those
>in our price range were significantly less.
Well, even if you didn't locate enough books for all the class up
front, I would have thought that you (generic) could have purchased
all the copies you *did* find.
Also, if this was a book which has been used in previous years, then
another alternative could have been to ask last year's students to
re-sell their copies.
>At the end of 2 days, we'd located (using ABE, bibliofind and
>the university 2nd hand book dealer) fewer than 40. Forty isn't
>enough,
maybe not enough, but it's a start.
>especially when you're dealing with undergrads who get very
>antsy when books aren't in the student store.
Well, don't you think by the time someone gets to be an undergrad,
that they should be aware that life is full of these awkward glitches?
> If we'd had more time,
>no doubt we could have found the books--as it was, they just weren't
>that many copies in our price range available. And, we were told
>a good used copy was currently averaging $15.
Well, to me this is a different issue - it's not that the books
couldn't be found, but they were outside your price range.
Personally I don't think $15 is too much to pay for a text book.
But how would you feel about say - an inexpensive copy of a Chanel
outfit? is that ok too?
>The professor in question had been willing to front up to $1000
>to buy these books and then get the students to buy them from him.
>This really is above and beyond though--I couldn't afford to do
>that at Christmas time, nor, I suspect, could most people teaching.
Well, I don't personally see why the professor felt that he needed to
baby these students quite so much....
>What the solution really is is for the publisher to reprint the
>book. Hopefully they will--if the used prices are any indication.
>Trying to rely on used copies purchased from a score of different
>used bookstores to teach a class of 100 or more just doesn't
>work.
Well, I still think it could have been done without quite such a
flagrant breach of copyright.
regards
domino
domino
wrote:
>Theoretically, copyright should be about protecting the right of the creator to
>benefit from their creation. Whether you're talking about prose, music, photographs
>or any other kind of artistic/intellectual property, this is the avowed aim of
>copyright law. Personally I'm all in favour of that.
yep - no problem with that.
>In practical terms, however, this is not what copyright does, or at least not what
>it primarily does. What copyright law actually does in practice is to regulate the
>practice of exploiting the creativity of others and making money off their
>endeavours. The people who gain most from copyright law are not the creators
>themselves, but the large corporations who control the distribution of other
>people's creations. Record companies, film distributors, publishing houses. These
>are the people who gain from copyright law, not the creators of the works in
>question.
Well - yeah, but only because the artists and creators have sold their
copyright to them.
>
>Mija has already referred to the Harry Potter issue, so let's take that as an
>example, because it illustrates a fundamental flaw in the copyright system. Warners
>Brothers use their corporate muscle and legal resources to overwhelm a
>rags-to-riches author and get her to essentially sign her soul away.
Well, you know I don't quite buy your portral of the author as a poor
innocent duped by the giant corporate...... Especially in this case,
where the Harry Potter books were so famous, and selling so well, that
if she'd wanted to hold out for a different deal, she coulda shoulda
woulda done.
> WB haven't
>done a damn thing with Harry Potter in creative terms. They didn't write it, they
>didn't take the initial risk of publishing it, they did nothing.
Excpet offer the author a sum of money large enough that she was
either happy to sign her rights away, or so dazzled that she forgot to
think of any of the implications.
> The movie isn't
>even out yet, but right now WB are coining in money off the Harry Potter name. In
>order that nothing should jeopardise this most awesome of free lunches, they have
>chosen to persecute a number of teenage children who have been running websites.
>The same thing has happened to fan sites for other properties, such as Buffy and
>the Teletubbies.
I don't approve of that, and I would be happy to see a change in the
law allowing for fan sites - but then, how do you distinguish between
a fansite enthusing about Harry Potter and maybe showing a couple of
clips/pix and one which claiming to be a fansite reproduces the entire
script, fully illustrated?
>They get away with all this because there is nothing in copyright or contract law
>which addresses the concept of unequal bargaining positions.
Whilst i agree that where fansites are concerned, the bargaining may
be unequal, but in the case of the artist, I don't buy that.
After all, the artist/author.creator has a commodity (the opus) which
the big companies *want* - that sounds like a pretty good bargaining
position to me.
In reality, I think what happens is that the Company makes a good
offer, and the author worries that if they quibble the offer will be
withdrawn.
> If you have a lot of
>money and a lot of lawyers and a stranglehold on the means on distribution, you can
>dictate terms to the creators in your field with impunity. If a creator wants an
>audience, they have to agree to your terms.
Well, this patently isn't so in the Harry Potter case - the book
distribution was going really well without Warner Bros.....
And with the internet nowadays, creators don't necessarily have to
rely on the big corporates to get an audience.
> Nowhere is this more true than in
>music, where upcoming bands or singers have to sign incredibly restrictive
>contracts in order to get a record deal.
There are a lot of upcoming bands who manage to survive with live gigs
and the internet.
> Since the record companies are effectively
>a cartel, if you want a major release, you have to do what you're told.
In which case, the cartel should be broken - and I believe there are
laws which would do this as it is anti-competitive. That doesn't IMO
necessarily mean that it is the copyright law which is flawed.....
>Then there are the cases where copyright law is used to actively suppress a work.
<snip of example> yes - I agree with you on this. Where copyright
law is used to suppress work, then that is unjust.
> Simple, Disney buy up the
>European distribution rights to Miyazaki's work and then just refuse to release
>them.
But to me that doesn't make sense - after all, if Disney owns the
copyright, then it would be Disney maing a profit if the movies proved
popular - and I don't imagine the sharehodlers really care whether
their dividends come from the sale of Pinocchio or Miyazaki.
> No theatre releases, no videos, nothing. I had to buy my copy of "Princess
>Mononoke" from the US, and could only do that because I happen to have a VCR which
>plays NTSC tapes.
I had to do the same thing for a copy of The Pyjama Game.... so what?
>These contracts prevent even the creator from exploiting their own work.
More fool them for signing their rights away then.
>There is also the question of the distribution of profits. Imagine an artist who
>sells an image to a company. The artist is pleased to have sold a piece, and so
>accepts the modest price offered. Who knows, they may need the money and have no
>choice but to accept.
There is *always* a choice.
The artist could choose to take a day job in order to preserve the
purity of his art.
Or if the work is saleable enough, the artist can hold out for a deal
where only the movie rights get sold or they have a royalties deal or
whatever.
>Now clearly they have invested time and
>money, and deserve a fair return; but do they really deserve a return so much
>larger than the person who created their now hot property ?
Companies - *all* companies are in business to make money. The more
money they can squeeze out of their clients, the happier they are.
Unless you want to address the issues of free trade versus an
equitable pricing structure I think this is a red herring.
No-one held a gun to the creator to get him to sign his rights away
(and if they did, that would have been illegal :-)
Whilst I know that there historically have been artists who have been
exploited by the major corporates, I also think that personal
responsibility on the part of the creator comes into it too.
>So basically, I think it is perfectly fair to flout copyright if the beneficiary of
>that copyright is no longer the original creator of the work,
*ack* I disagree with you very strongly on that.
> or if the copyright
>law is being used to unfairly suppress or restrict access to a work.
This would be a good case for flouting the law IMO.
> I would never
>countenance copying a Harry Potter book or audio tape, but I'd gleefully rip off a
>piece of WB merchandise.
I don't see the distinction.
> Copyright law is not protecting the people it is supposed
>to protect. What it does is allow people to gain control of properties and
>ruthlessly exploit them, simply because they already have money and power.
And because the creators are hungry for some of that money and power?
regards
domino
Pablo
Until his death, I think the most common explanation was that
he withdrew it after some (apparent) copycat assaults. But I
might have seen the same interview that Simon did, after he
died, where I think it was his wife who gave the death-threat
reason. It somehow didn't seem to be the sort of thing he'd do,
though he was certainly paranoid enough about security.
Pab.
Haron
dropped bombs at random."
Best,
Haron
Mija
>
>Well, even if you didn't locate enough books for all the class up
>front, I would have thought that you (generic) could have purchased
>all the copies you *did* find.
And then needed to spend another $700 on xeroxing? I'm
not sure I understand where you think this money is coming
from. The university book store had declared the book
unfindable so this would have been a matter of using personal
cash. What you're suggesting here seems to me more than should
be required cash-wise of someone teaching a course.
>Also, if this was a book which has been used in previous years, then
>another alternative could have been to ask last year's students to
>re-sell their copies.
>From where? This is a campus with 30,000 students. How are
they supposed to locate the fifty who took it previously?
>>especially when you're dealing with undergrads who get very
>>antsy when books aren't in the student store.
>
>Well, don't you think by the time someone gets to be an undergrad,
>that they should be aware that life is full of these awkward glitches?
Maybe they should be. But that's not the environment private
American universities sell. People paying $35,000 a year
expect life's little glitches to be paved over for them. <wry smile>
Realistically? If the books aren't there (in class or at the
university store), the students (collectively) won't go and find
them, even if it just means going to a corner store. For all but
a few taking the class is just a hoop they need to jump through
on their way to a business or professional degree.
You may think that's not how it should be. And I agree. But
it's how it is. If you doubt this, ask anyone teaching at a
private university.
>Personally I don't think $15 is too much to pay for a text book.
No, me neither. It was a question of him having $1500 to buy
100 copies at $15. Maybe I didn't make it clear that this was
something we were trying to do on our own.
>But how would you feel about say - an inexpensive copy of a Chanel
>outfit? is that ok too?
I'm not sure I understand your question here (and know less than
nothing about fashion). How is it relative? Are you asking if
I'd have a problem if someone made a copy of a chanel suit and
gave it to someone else for free?
>>The professor in question had been willing to front up to $1000
>>to buy these books and then get the students to buy them from him.
>>This really is above and beyond though--I couldn't afford to do
>>that at Christmas time, nor, I suspect, could most people teaching.
>
>Well, I don't personally see why the professor felt that he needed to
>baby these students quite so much....
See comments above. I think it comes down to him wanting the
students to read the text so he could teach the class.
>>What the solution really is is for the publisher to reprint the
>>book. Hopefully they will--if the used prices are any indication.
>>Trying to rely on used copies purchased from a score of different
>>used bookstores to teach a class of 100 or more just doesn't
>>work.
>
>Well, I still think it could have been done without quite such a
>flagrant breach of copyright.
I guess I don't see it the same way. The publishers and author
lost nothing more by the copies passed out than if we'd bought
100 first additions and sold them. Either way they get nothing.
When something's no longer in print, I don't see that copyright
is an issue any longer. The publisher has the right to print
and chooses not to. Fine. But they don't get to keep the information
from circulating. Personally, I think "fair use" should include
copies made of materials that are no longer in print for academic
use. But it doesn't. And in that sense, copyright is
anti-intellectual.
You obviously wouldn't have done this the way we did. But
Naomi's question was what are the some other justifications
for violating copyright. I believe in copyright when it's used
to protect artistic and intellectual property rights. That's
what it was intended to do. But the fact is, authors have
no problem (at least none I've ever heard have) with teachers
copying materials for their students when the materials have
gone out of print.
Copyright as a "great good" doesn't figure into my system of ethics
as something that's always positive no matter what. It's a law.
Laws are amoral, sometimes good, sometimes bad and almost always
reflect the monied interest of a society.
By copying that text we harmed no one and helped many. Since
no one was harmed and people were helped, the fact we were outside
an amoral legal abstraction (copyright) doesn't trouble me.
Peace,
Mija
"If you are patient in a moment of anger, you will escape a hundred
days of sorrow."
Mija
>So anything with which that professor disagrees is automatically
>immoral, and deserves no protection. Sounds to me like the old liberal
>"it's not unethical if *I* do it" argument.
I must not have made it clear. This wasn't a case of disagreement--
it was based on a belief that Bloom's book was endorcing a racist
and sexist closing of the university. It was a case of
anger to the point where he was willing to commit the act of
civil disobedience (paying for and handing out xeroxes of the
book -- free of charge which meant he spent about $500 out of
pocket) and in public and in writing, challenging Bloom and his
publishers to sue.
It was a suit he didn't expect to win -- I think he just wanted
to embarrass Bloom (whose 'scholarship' in _Closing_ would be
embarrassing). He would have had to pay damages and made it clear
he was willing to. As you know, the academic world isn't that
large, Bloom and his publishers were certainly aware of what my
professor was doing. They chose not to sue, I assume because
they didn't want the bad press.
This isn't a fight I would have made. But I don't have a problem
with people non-violently breaking the law as an act of civil
disobedience if they're willing to face the consequences of their
actions.
What this taught me was that I can do what I believe is ethical
whether or not the law says it's so, so long as I'm willing to
suffer the consequence of my actions. A very liberating thing
to learn at 19 -- that there is no 'can't. Only 'won't' or
'wouldn't.'
>Starship - thoroughly disgusted with the calibre of some of the people
>who presume to be qualified to teach
>
Are you talking about my professor or myself? If you mean me,
I do agree. Whenever I'm in front of a class I expect to be
denounced as a fraud.
Paul Boyer? That's another matter entirely.
I can only tell you the professor in question would number among
three or four as the best teacher and scholar I've worked with
through my BA, MA and Phd work. Not only was he an inspiring
teacher, his work is meticulously researched and imbued with his
strongly held beliefs.
On a more personal level, 5 years after I finished his class I
needed a copy of his course description in order to transfer credit
between universities. One phone call and he faxed it to me within
an hour. I only hope someday I can be so organized. And so
kind.
Peace,
Mija
P&e
bunstinger
<< "In response to an act of terrorism by no one knows
who, America has dropped bombs at random." >>
You're talking about the terrorism in the 80's right?
EVERYBODY knew 'who'. The Islamic Jihad group (based
in Lebanon) and the governments of Iran, Libya and
Syria in that order. The only trick was in figuring
out which one (or ones) was responsible for a
particular incident. Those bombs were *not* dropped at
random.
Interestingly Saddam Hussein in Iraq for all of his
faults never was much of a player in international
terrorism.
Bunstinger
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
LadiKath
This is not a copyright issue. This is a be-careful-of-what-you-sign issue.
I do not sell my copyright. I sell the use of it for a particular period of
time. I have a contract with the publisher that allows him exclusive use of the
story for a specified time, usually a year.
I have not yet sold a novel, but if I did, I would not sell anything but the
right to publish the novel and I would be sure the rights reverted to me if the
book went out of print.
Copyright laws protect those to create just fine as long as those who create
use some common sense. I would never sign away my right to use my own work or
character that I created. I would not sell movie rights or product rights
unless I had good legal advice and I kept at least some control of how my
creation was used.
That is my choice. If someone cares more about the money being dangled than
keeping creative control of his work, that is his choice. Some damned fine
artists are in it for the money and if they are good enough to get it, great
for them.
You think people like Spielberg work for free?
Copyright works very well for those of us who create just as it is as long as
we keep our heads and don't let ourselves be dazzled.
Katharine
LadiKath
>of copyright laws because I asked the question of whether the world would be
>better off with or without these laws.
That is <<not>> what you said. You said why not get rid of the copyright laws.
We told you why. Because it is how some of us make a living.
You did not suggest a change in the copyright laws. You said get rid of. At
no time did you suggest any protection at all for creative people. In fact,
you implied that getting paid for our work inherently makes us not as good as
those to create for no money.
You said that there would still be writing and that only the writing counted.
I other words, writers can all starve to death as long as they continue to
write.
Yes, there would be writing, but if we are not paid for it and have to get
other work, there will be a great deal less of it.
You said that eliminating copyright would elimnate bad work. Well you can see
plenty of bad writing on the internet that no one paid any money for.
I'll tell you something. When I write for money, I write better. I have a
lot of competion and I have to be good to even be considered.
When I post at story to SSS, I do it much more casually. I seldom re-write it
15 or 20 time the way I would for a magazine. Income is a motivation, not a
deterent.
It is too late to back track and cover up.
The things you said were far too offensive to those who create for that.
Don't knock something unless you are personally able to come up with a better
solution.
It may be a rhetorical question to you, but to us it's what we call life. It
can be a big intellectual game to you. It doesn't affect your income.
You asked why not get rid of copyright laws and everything I have said is the
answer to why not. I have answered your question over and over again. How
about you answering mine? How do creative people make a living without
copyright?
It's not that you brought up the idea. It's the repeatedly insulting and
degrading attitude towards those who create for a living that has people upset.
Katharine
Fishing Girl
> Naomi Darvell wrote in message
> <20010715145729...@ng-ma1.aol.com>...
>
> As an annoyingly amoral/moral person I feel compelled to rephrase this
> question:
>
> What are justifications for breaking the law?
>
> 1) Civil disobedience--you don't believe the law is just and are willing to
> accept the consequences (perhaps like Thoreau, to be thrown in jail) to
> protest the injustice.
>
> 2) You decide that laws are for other people and will only comply with laws
> that don't inconvenice you.
>
> IMHO:
>
> # 1 is moral
>
> # 2 is for people of questionable ethics
>
> Trouble
Agreed. I think the key point in number 1 is "and are willing to
accept the consequences...to protest the injustice." Too many
people think that it is their right to just disregard a law, but
consider it an outrage if they are arrested/prosecuted for it.
It's (in many countries) the individual's right to break the law.
It's also that society's right to enforce those laws. I think that
sometimes we forget that freedom, and change aren't cheap.
--Fishing Girl
<p & e>
Personal Dad
You said why not get rid of the copyright laws.
Right. I asked a question. It had only the emotional content you chose to
inject into it. I'll tell you what -- if you think I did more than ask a
rhetorical question and generate some interesting, if heated debate, why not
quote me? I'll play by the same rules as Naomi did when she challenged me
to quote her. Is that fair, or what?
> We told you why. Because it is how some of us make a living.
You assume there is no other way. Yet, in reality you are relying on
contract, not copyright, to make your living, as illustrated by your earlier
post. Katharine, do not fall into the trap that Starship did, of assuming
that because you do business a certain way, that there is no other way for a
system to function fairly. Because you know what happens when you make
faulty assumptions.
>
> You did not suggest a change in the copyright laws. You said get rid of.
At
> no time did you suggest any protection at all for creative people. In
fact,
> you implied that getting paid for our work inherently makes us not as good
as
> those to create for no money.
>
That was something you read into my post, Katherine, because you are being
emotional (and I admire you for admitting it).
Would you like to know what I got from this thread, katherine? I asked a
very hard question -- picture the world without copyright - - and I learned
that there would be some benefits to eliminating copyright, but that if we
did it, we would need to look very carefully at how to protect talented
writers like your self. It was an intellectual exercise, my friend.
Doesn't it strike you as at all ironic that tolerance of differing opinons
and free expression disappears when someone decides that an "idea" somehow
thratens their livelihood? I find it instructive, for sure, but the anger
and intolerance engendered by the mere asking of a question abouta complex
amd arcane legal matter certainly does not paint a very flattering picture
of those who spew forth all this bile.
> You said that there would still be writing and that only the writing
counted.
> I other words, writers can all starve to death as long as they continue to
> write.
>
> Yes, there would be writing, but if we are not paid for it and have to get
> other work, there will be a great deal less of it.
>
But you assumed you would not be paid. The current system is designed to pay
the average writer a subsistence wage, with the promise of a shot at the big
time if the writer is lucky against very long odds. Any system that
replaced it would have to accomplish the same thing.
> It is too late to back track and cover up.
> The things you said were far too offensive to those who create for that.
Whooshhh!
How do creative people make a living without
> copyright?
It might simply evolve on a contractual model without the copyright concept
involved. Lots of creative business is done that way. It might require the
evolution of new distribution models that protect artists in some other way.
Katherine, your post really troubles me, because it is an example of closed
minded anti creativity at its utter worst.
In order to have creative and effective interchanges, you need to consider
an idea that is radical, even threatening, and find a way to respond to it
that is constructive and helpful. This is the way newsgroups work. It's not
all about making katherine happy. Some of us actually want to think and
learn from each other.
All of this name calling because you didn't like my ideas. Why don't you
try behaving like a grownup? With manners? And intelligence?
PD
Personal Dad
way you handled our dispute. Many of us could learn from your intellectual
integrity, and I'm not embarrassed to include myself as one of them. As for
me, I can appreciate, after some reflection, how you could have interpreted
my post in the way that you did.
Best
PD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Naomi Darvell" <darve...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you one and all (was Re: OT Justifications for violating
copyright?)
> Sorry if I misunderstood your posts. The style suggested your questions
were
> rhetorical.
>
>
> Naomi D.
>
Mija
>
> Agreed. I think the key point in number 1 is "and are willing to
> accept the consequences...to protest the injustice." Too many
> people think that it is their right to just disregard a law, but
> consider it an outrage if they are arrested/prosecuted for it.
> It's (in many countries) the individual's right to break the law.
> It's also that society's right to enforce those laws. I think that
> sometimes we forget that freedom, and change aren't cheap.
I agree with the sentiment here. Though of course we don't
have a right to break the law. We have a right to fair treatment
under the law (ie no one should be shot for copyright abuse)
even when we're breaking it.
Which is why police can't beat confessions out of guilty people.
<thinking of a few police officers here in LA> ...Er... can't
*legally* beat confessions out of guilty people.
Peace,
Mija
--
"Live to the point of tears."
Pablo and Mija's Treehouse -- http://www.thetreehouse.net
Starship
>
> >Mija has already referred to the Harry Potter issue, so let's take that as an
> >example, because it illustrates a fundamental flaw in the copyright system. Warners
> >Brothers use their corporate muscle and legal resources to overwhelm a
> >rags-to-riches author and get her to essentially sign her soul away.
>
> Well, you know I don't quite buy your portral of the author as a poor
> innocent duped by the giant corporate...... Especially in this case,
> where the Harry Potter books were so famous, and selling so well, that
> if she'd wanted to hold out for a different deal, she coulda shoulda
> woulda done.
I think it should be pointed out at well that there is such a thing as a
Writers' Guild, open to any published author, which will happily
recommend agents who are experienced at negotiating contracts with big
companies. There are also innumerable books and magazine articles
offering advice and warnings of things to watch out for.
--
Starship
Mija
>>>Mija has already referred to the Harry Potter issue, so let's take that as an
>>>example, because it illustrates a fundamental flaw in the copyright system.
>>Warners
>> >Brothers use their corporate muscle and legal resources to overwhelm a
>> >rags-to-riches author and get her to essentially sign her soul away.
Domino replied:
>> Well, you know I don't quite buy your portral of the author as a poor
>> innocent duped by the giant corporate...... Especially in this case,
>> where the Harry Potter books were so famous, and selling so well, that
>> if she'd wanted to hold out for a different deal, she coulda shoulda
>> woulda done.
Starship said:
>I think it should be pointed out at well that there is such a thing as a
>Writers' Guild, open to any published author, which will happily
>recommend agents who are experienced at negotiating contracts with big
>companies. There are also innumerable books and magazine articles
>offering advice and warnings of things to watch out for.
Indeed, though Domino's mistaken in thinking Rowlings sold to
Warner Bros. after her books were famous. Film rights were part
of her first publishing contract (along with Americanizing the
title-- something that's rather common for first-time novels.
When you don't know how you're going to pay the rent, it's
hard to hire an attorney or argue with a publishing / record
company's 'standard contract'. I've got a grad student friend
who's in a recording contract that requires him to work for
whomever it's sold to for seven years or not work in the
recording industry.
Sure, it's legal for companies to do this. The people involved are
all adults. But they hardly negotiate from positions of power.
So how would I reform copyright law?
1) Wouldn't allow for 'optioning' of future work unless it's
connected to an advance and negotiated seperately. So a first
novel contract would only apply to that novel -- not three future
ones.
2) If a work is out of print or distribution for a period of say,
6 months, rights revert to the author/creator irregardless of any
previous contracts.
3) Artists and writers can't be 'sold' as assets--they must agree
to any transfers of their contracts.
4) Reform 'free use' to include non-profit educational use of work
no longer in print.
I'm sure there's some more ways, but that would be where I'd start.
Copyright was intended to protect artists and writers from abuse
by printers. Not insure profits by corperations.
I'm a be bemused by the degree to which copyright as it currently
exists is being defended. My own experience and that of the few
sucessful (and the many not-yet-sucessful) screenwriters, artists
and writers I know, is that only corperations can afford to defend
copyrights effectively. Individuals in practice see the laws turned
against them to legally rob them of rights to their creative or
intellectual work.
Peace,
Mija
Starship
>
> Starship wrote:
>
> >So anything with which that professor disagrees is automatically
> >immoral, and deserves no protection. Sounds to me like the old liberal
> >"it's not unethical if *I* do it" argument.
>
> I must not have made it clear. This wasn't a case of disagreement--
> it was based on a belief that Bloom's book was endorcing a racist
> and sexist closing of the university. It was a case of
> anger to the point where he was willing to commit the act of
> civil disobedience (paying for and handing out xeroxes of the
> book -- free of charge which meant he spent about $500 out of
> pocket) and in public and in writing, challenging Bloom and his
> publishers to sue.
>
> It was a suit he didn't expect to win -- I think he just wanted
> to embarrass Bloom (whose 'scholarship' in _Closing_ would be
> embarrassing). He would have had to pay damages and made it clear
> he was willing to. As you know, the academic world isn't that
> large, Bloom and his publishers were certainly aware of what my
> professor was doing. They chose not to sue, I assume because
> they didn't want the bad press.
More likely, because this professor had just proven him right.
> >Starship - thoroughly disgusted with the calibre of some of the people
> >who presume to be qualified to teach
>
> Are you talking about my professor or myself? If you mean me,
> I do agree. Whenever I'm in front of a class I expect to be
> denounced as a fraud.
Hunh? Why would I have been talking about you? I had no idea you taught.
Based on the way you interact on the newgroup, I expect you're a very
good teacher.
> Paul Boyer? That's another matter entirely.
>
> I can only tell you the professor in question would number among
> three or four as the best teacher and scholar I've worked with
> through my BA, MA and Phd work. Not only was he an inspiring
> teacher, his work is meticulously researched and imbued with his
> strongly held beliefs.
The only Paul Boyer I'm familiar with is the physicist (probably best
known as the author of _God and the New Physics_), whom I hope would
never act in such an unprofessional manner.
What appalls me about this man is not so much the copyright theft, but
that he would speak and act in such a deliberately inflamatory manner in
front of his students, in an outrageous and blatant attempt to influence
them toward his particular political viewpoint. As you yourself said, he
was acting from anger. Not reason or evidence, but an emotional response
to some ideas he did not like, or which made him feel threatened. I'm
disgusted because this "teacher" is stealing not only from Mr. Bloom but
also from his students, who paid for an education and recieved nothing
but personal prejudice and intolerance.
--
Starship
sarah nada
I would've snipped some of this for the sake of courtesy, but I wouldn't know
where to start. You write that someone has "the political sophistication of a
silly brainless worm," and then hope that *he'll* grow up one day?
Puh-leeeeease, honey, listen to yourself. I may not always dig Simon's
politics, but...
Your original statement (<<I personally think that American domination is good
for the world at large. Without our armed forces to periodically spank the all
the other naughty little countries, the world would be a much worse place,
IMHO.>>) may have been meant lightly, but those hardly sound like the words of a
man "taking responsibility for the benefits he enjoys" as a result of American
power. And in my view, they convey more American chauvinism than political
sophistication.
I'm an American, and know that the standard of living I enjoy is propped up by
centuries of white privilege and the inequality of rich and poor nations. <mild
sarcasm> Feeling unproud of that doesn't mean I'll be giving away all my
possessions anytime soon, and when the revolution comes you and I may end up in
front of the same firing squad. But at least I'll know I haven't walked around
talking smack about the glories of US domination.</sarcasm>
Living within shouting distance of military installations w/in the US may make
you more of a target for *something,* but I'm sure you're aware that it's not
the same sort of thing Haron was talking about. So to make a long rant
short(er), I think you owe her and our other international readers a red-blooded
American apology.
Sincerely,
Sarah
PS- I thought Simon's "Dark Star" comment was funny.
[p/e to PD and Haron]
- it's hotmail dot com not dot common -
sarah nada
>PS- I thought Simon's "Dark Star" comment was funny.
Oops, I meant to say "Death Star." Is sloppy quoting a spankable offense?
Sarah, angling for a "yes"
domino
>And then needed to spend another $700 on xeroxing? I'm
>not sure I understand where you think this money is coming
>from. The university book store had declared the book
>unfindable so this would have been a matter of using personal
>cash. What you're suggesting here seems to me more than should
>be required cash-wise of someone teaching a course.
Well - he could have chosen to use another text book that *was*
legally available. He didn't *have* to teach that particular book,
and having decided to teach it, he didn't have to find the cash to
purchase them - it was his choice.
>>From where? This is a campus with 30,000 students. How are
>they supposed to locate the fifty who took it previously?
Are you saying that there are no student records kept at your uni?
No-one knows which students attend which class?
>Maybe they should be. But that's not the environment private
>American universities sell. People paying $35,000 a year
>expect life's little glitches to be paved over for them. <wry smile>
>
>Realistically? If the books aren't there (in class or at the
>university store), the students (collectively) won't go and find
>them, even if it just means going to a corner store. For all but
>a few taking the class is just a hoop they need to jump through
>on their way to a business or professional degree.
In which case, then maybe the more practical way to proceed would have
been to find another book to teach.
>No, me neither. It was a question of him having $1500 to buy
>100 copies at $15. Maybe I didn't make it clear that this was
>something we were trying to do on our own.
He could have collected the money upfront from the students? I mean -
he wasn't *giving* the things away was he?
>I'm not sure I understand your question here (and know less than
>nothing about fashion). How is it relative? Are you asking if
>I'd have a problem if someone made a copy of a chanel suit and
>gave it to someone else for free?
OK - I'll find a different example.
My website is full of pictures of me taken by Master. Our copyright.
Quite a few folk enjoy these pix and have saved copies of them for
their own personal use.
Suppose for whatever reason I decide to close my website and withdraw
my pictures.
Does that give anyone who has saved the pictures the right to create a
website to 'share' my pictures with the world? Even if he *doesn't*
make a profit from them?
It doesn't cos they are my property.
And if I had chosen to sell them to a corporate and *they* withdrew
them, I may think that sucks, but it would be their property and they
would be legally allowed to withdraw them. Just cos you don't happen
to like that decision doesn't make it alright to distribute the
pictures without their permission.
>See comments above. I think it comes down to him wanting the
>students to read the text so he could teach the class.
His choice - he could have chosen a different text, he could have
asked the students for money upfront to buy second hand books.
>I guess I don't see it the same way. The publishers and author
>lost nothing more by the copies passed out than if we'd bought
>100 first additions and sold them. Either way they get nothing.
Oh well - that's ok then?
>When something's no longer in print, I don't see that copyright
>is an issue any longer. The publisher has the right to print
>and chooses not to. Fine. But they don't get to keep the information
>from circulating.
Whilst I think there is some grounds for breach of copyright when
stuff is being withheld maliciously, I don't think this was the case
with your professor. He had several choices open to him and he chose
to break the law. Now that's not the end of the world, and it's not a
very serious breach of the law (no one got killed) *but* he had other
options and chose to break the law instead.
> Personally, I think "fair use" should include
>copies made of materials that are no longer in print for academic
>use.
I agree.
> But it doesn't.
so if you feel that strongly about it, work to change the law....
> And in that sense, copyright is
>anti-intellectual.
hardly.... and certainly not in the example you gave.
>Copyright as a "great good" doesn't figure into my system of ethics
>as something that's always positive no matter what. It's a law.
>Laws are amoral, sometimes good, sometimes bad and almost always
>reflect the monied interest of a society.
>
>By copying that text we harmed no one and helped many. Since
>no one was harmed and people were helped, the fact we were outside
>an amoral legal abstraction (copyright) doesn't trouble me.
*shrug* ok.
Domino
Mija
> > As you know, the academic world isn't that
> > large, Bloom and his publishers were certainly aware of what my
> > professor was doing. They chose not to sue, I assume because
> > they didn't want the bad press.
Starship replied:
> More likely, because this professor had just proven him right.
That opening the university to women and allowing students to have
sex caused a decline in their intellectual vigor? Or that we'd be
better served by ignoring modern disciplines and studying Classics
(not surprisingly what Bloom was teaching amid declining enrollments)?
> > >Starship - thoroughly disgusted with the calibre of some of the people
> > >who presume to be qualified to teach
Me:
> > Are you talking about my professor or myself? If you mean me,
> > I do agree. Whenever I'm in front of a class I expect to be
> > denounced as a fraud.
Starship:
> Hunh? Why would I have been talking about you? I had no idea you taught.
> Based on the way you interact on the newgroup, I expect you're a very
> good teacher.
Not yet. But I've had good models and am working on it. And one of
my main ones in the classroom is Boyer. He made it a good place to
be.
Me:
> > Paul Boyer? That's another matter entirely.
> >
> > I can only tell you the professor in question would number among
> > three or four as the best teacher and scholar I've worked with
> > through my BA, MA and Phd work. Not only was he an inspiring
> > teacher, his work is meticulously researched and imbued with his
> > strongly held beliefs.
>
> The only Paul Boyer I'm familiar with is the physicist (probably best
> known as the author of _God and the New Physics_), whom I hope would
> never act in such an unprofessional manner.
No, it's another Paul Boyer--though interestingly they're both
at Wisc.
> What appalls me about this man is not so much the copyright theft, but
> that he would speak and act in such a deliberately inflamatory manner in
> front of his students, in an outrageous and blatant attempt to influence
> them toward his particular political viewpoint. As you yourself said, he
> was acting from anger. Not reason or evidence, but an emotional response
> to some ideas he did not like, or which made him feel threatened. I'm
> disgusted because this "teacher" is stealing not only from Mr. Bloom but
> also from his students, who paid for an education and recieved nothing
> but personal prejudice and intolerance.
There's nothing unprofessional about a scholar being passionate
about their discipline. Nor about one committing an act of
civil disobedience in response to personal conscience. He didn't
hide what he was doing (indeed, the point was for it to be a public
act). Nor did he have a problem with students who disagreed with
him (and it was the 1980's -- there were lots) either about that, or
his Quaker held beliefs on non-violence. I know this, because while
I did agree with him, one of my friends, a conservative, did a
paper defending Bloom's thesis that the entrance of women into male
universities eroded the intellectual climate. Chris received full
marks on it--higher than mine actually.
This would be in contrast to Bloom's reaction to students who
tried to dispute him.
I can only tell you my experience and that of friends in the course.
Boyer brought American history to life in a way no other historian ever
did for us (and most of us were history majors). He received the only
standing ovation I ever saw at UCLA at the end of his last lecture.
The intellectual history he taught allowed us to make our own connections
and encouraged us to decide what we believed and then challenged us to
prove it. And live it (as intellectual history is frequently about
philosophy). Yes -- he has biases. Every professor I ever took a
course from does. But one thing he taught me was when one teaches
one should lay those open so then the students can know what sort of
lens their teacher is looking through. Nothing is more unethical
then feigning objectivity. At least imo.
Civil disobedience is something I value--even when I disagree with
it (as is the case with the non-violent protests in front of family
planning centers). I won't say he taught me that--I'm the daughter
of Catholics who ascribe to liberation theology.
If you want to judge Boyer as a scholar, all of his books are in print.
In fact, even if you're just someone who enjoys reading good cultural
history I recommend him highly.
I'll happily read any reply you make of course, but if I reply it'll
be off the newsgroup. I'm starting to bore myself. ;)
Peace,
Mija - getting back to the topic at hand...
P&e
--
One of Allan Bloom's gems: "the latest enemy of the vitality of classic
texts is feminism" since "the Muses never sang to the poets about liberated
women."
Molly B
sarah nada wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> >PS- I thought Simon's "Dark Star" comment was funny.
>
> Oops, I meant to say "Death Star." Is sloppy quoting a spankable offense?
>
> Sarah, angling for a "yes"
Not sure about sloppy quoting, but replying to your own post
definitely is. Tsk tsk ;)
Molly B
p&e
Duchin
>Date: 7/16/01 11:55 AM Ce
>What should be done ? Well, I think a major overhaul of copyright law would
>be
>required. At the heart should be the absolute right of a creator to market
>their
>own creation as they see fit, and to retain ownership of that creation no
>matter
>what.
It's been a while since I posted anything, but this thread intrigued me.
Not too long ago, I watched a show on A&E hosted by Bill Curtis
and was appalled at the treatment of some of the old (1960ish - 70's)
rock 'n roll stars that are still alive.
Some of them are PROHIBITED from publicly performing their own work!
(especially the one hit wonders) because someone else now OWNS their songs?!
Sad.
Duchin
Haron
>> "In response to an act of terrorism by no one knows who, America
has dropped bombs at random."
Bunstinger replied:
> You're talking about the terrorism in the 80's right?
Er, no, actually. I was in fact quoting a joke that've been circulated
around these parts very recently. By the way the things were going,
it's expected to be a headline of newspapers of tomorrow.
Best,
Haron
Don Croyle
You should be safe for a little while. Clinton used up all the really
cool weaponry and we need to restock before we can start firing cruise
missles at random again.
--
I've always wanted to be a dilettante, but I've never quite been ready
to make the commitment.
Simon
sarah nada wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> >PS- I thought Simon's "Dark Star" comment was funny.
>
> Oops, I meant to say "Death Star."
Although since "Dark Star" is about an irresponsible crew who are ultimately
destroyed by a smart weapon system they've built and can't control, it's not a
bad choice either. :)
> Is sloppy quoting a spankable offense?
No, it's just the kind of behaviour one expects from Americans ! <big grin,
just kidding>
Simon
--
"Mandy, I am very disappointed by your behaviour. Take your knickers
down and come here so I can spank you."
Mandy sighed and started to bare her bottom. It was so unfair !
It wasn't as if anyone was going to miss Great Aunt Emma....
Simon
"Don A. Landhill" wrote:
> Unless you know that in a
> particualr case the copyright is owned under an exploitive contract, it is IMO
> ill advised to assmne that it is, and to feel free to violate copyright on the
> assumption that you are helping or at least not harming, the original author.
Oh I agree completely with that. In the vast majority of cases I think copyright is a
good thing and would happily abide by it. I only take this view where I know something
about the arrangement in question.
> The problem is that if the creator has an absolute right to market as s.he sees
> fit, and this right can not be contractred out, what publisher would pay for
> publication rights, when it knows that those rights could be canceled anytime?
> I think that this sounds good, but would actually do harm in practice.
I think it just puts more onus on the publisher to keep the creator happy and to ensure
the arrangement is seen to be equitable to all parties. If a creator is happy that they
have a good deal, they aren't going to move. I could quit my current job just by giving
four weeks notice. I don't do it, because I'm broadly happy with my terms and
conditions, and the benefit I might get from moving now would be negated by all the
hassles involved. Plus, if I bail on a contract too many times, word will get around and
then no-one will touch me. I see this arrangement working in much the same way. If a
creator is happy and getting a good deal, they won't feel the urge to look for another
publisher.
> A revision which gave more protection to creators, which re-definend the concept
> of "out of print" in a practical way, and allowed a copyright to be reclaimed
> when a work is being supressed, which perhaps limits the term for which a
> copyright can be assigned, so that the creator is enabled to re-negociate every
> 5 or 7 years, or some such, might be a workable solution to this problem.
I believe there already is a process by which a product can revert to the author in this
circumstance. There's a role-playing game I like, "Chivalry And Sorcery", which reverted
to its authors in this way. It does seem an easy process to circumvent though sadly.
I would have no problem with the approach you suggest, although I'm not sure about the
time limits you mention. It might work if there were some way in which a creator could
appeal a contract term more easily though.
Simon
pest wrote:
> >Well I guess this depends on whether or not you feel obliged to obey an unjust
> >law. This is a classic moral philosophy discussion,
>
> or a silly pretense of one?
No, I don't think so. It's something I looked at when I was studying law. Assuming you
don't believe in blind obedience to all laws, it's a valid point of discussion. Where
do you draw the line, what counts as justified, and so on.
> The Taliban, eh?
> You do realize, don't you, that that is mere minutes away from
> being technically the realm of Godwin's Law?
It was just the first thing that came into my head. If you want a more prosaic
example, let's say I'm driving at 75mph on the motorway when the official speed limit
is 70. Strictly speaking I'm breaking the law, but no-one would care, the police
wouldn't stop me for it, it's illegal but not the end of the world. The point I was
aiming for was that you can break laws without violating moral precepts.
> one ought to be
> willing to give up one's liberty to oppose such a law, prison being
> preferable to assent. That is a very far cry from being allowed to
> take what one pleases if the law is an irritant. You are free to
> argue that the two things are morally equivalent, but not entitled to
> be ceded the moral high ground for raising that line of argument.
I wasn't talking about taking what one pleases because of irritation or inconvenience,
nor particularly trying for moral high ground. All I'm really trying to say about this
is that there is, for me, a gap between the laws and the morality of the situation.
That in terms of my personal morality, I believe that there are times when copyright
violation is acceptable and times when it is not. But obviously morality is entirely
subjective, so your views may differ.
Simon
domino wrote:
> Well, you know I don't quite buy your portral of the author as a poor
> innocent duped by the giant corporate...... Especially in this case,
> where the Harry Potter books were so famous, and selling so well, that
> if she'd wanted to hold out for a different deal, she coulda shoulda
> woulda done.
Mija has answered the Harry Potter issue very well and I agree with what she said.
Rowling's deal pre-dates the period of big success.
> but then, how do you distinguish between
> a fansite enthusing about Harry Potter and maybe showing a couple of
> clips/pix and one which claiming to be a fansite reproduces the entire
> script, fully illustrated?
With an extension of the fair use concept that already exists in respect of things like
reviews. Cases are examined on their merits.
> Whilst i agree that where fansites are concerned, the bargaining may
> be unequal, but in the case of the artist, I don't buy that.
>
> After all, the artist/author.creator has a commodity (the opus) which
> the big companies *want* - that sounds like a pretty good bargaining
> position to me.
I disagree, because whilst the big company may want the product, it's rarely going to be
a make or break issue for them. There will be other budding creators, other new
properties, it's not the end of the world if they miss one unless it's something
particularly revolutionary. The creator, however, just has their one product. If they
can't sell it without accepting unfair terms, they either accept the terms or fail to
achieve anything.
> And with the internet nowadays, creators don't necessarily have to
> rely on the big corporates to get an audience.
Hmmm, not sure about that. The internet is not a good medium for *commercial* success,
and is nowhere near as widely accessible as traditional media. Internet users are still
a minority, and only a minority of internet users spend money online.
> There are a lot of upcoming bands who manage to survive with live gigs
> and the internet.
I think it depends on what you mean by "survive". I don't know of one which achieved
anything more than a hand-to-mouth existence that way. But if you know of one that did,
please enlighten me because I'm no expert on the music business.
> > Since the record companies are effectively
> >a cartel, if you want a major release, you have to do what you're told.
>
> In which case, the cartel should be broken - and I believe there are
> laws which would do this as it is anti-competitive.
I would say that there are laws which are *intended* to do this, but I don't think they
work. Think about car pricing and CD/DVD pricing in Britain. Think about BT, think about
Microsoft. My personal view is that the current state of competition law is that it is a
complete joke. People have been looking into the car pricing cartel for years now, but
you and I still pay more than people in mainland Europe. Granted it's changing slowly,
but this is a cartel which has been actively investigated for years now and still
manages to survive.
> > Simple, Disney buy up the
> >European distribution rights to Miyazaki's work and then just refuse to release
> >them.
>
> But to me that doesn't make sense - after all, if Disney owns the
> copyright, then it would be Disney maing a profit if the movies proved
> popular
Yes, but it would be essentially competing with itself in one marketplace. One of the
main reasons given by various commentators for suppressing "Princess Mononoke" was that
it would make "Mulan" look utterly feeble. As things stand, Disney benefits from
enormous economies of scale in the production of its stuff. That benefit is lost if they
are marketing a different product in some countries.
> - and I don't imagine the sharehodlers really care whether
> their dividends come from the sale of Pinocchio or Miyazaki.
I'm not sure about this. Disney are an odd company, and very tied in around their
brands. I suspect they would take strong exception to some bunch of lousy Japs coming
along and offering us a chance to stop worshipping at the altar of the Rat God.
> > No theatre releases, no videos, nothing. I had to buy my copy of "Princess
> >Mononoke" from the US, and could only do that because I happen to have a VCR which
> >plays NTSC tapes.
>
> I had to do the same thing for a copy of The Pyjama Game.... so what?
So it's a barrier to the enjoyment of the product. Most people don't have the equipment
to play foreign tapes, don't get to hear about movies like this, and some couldn't
afford the extra cost of shipping from abroad. It's just another way of suppressing the
thing.
> There is *always* a choice.
>
> The artist could choose to take a day job in order to preserve the
> purity of his art.
>
> Or if the work is saleable enough, the artist can hold out for a deal
> where only the movie rights get sold or they have a royalties deal or
> whatever.
I can see why you think this, and I have some sympathy with it, but I also think it's a
little idealistic. It also assumes that the artist in question actually understood what
they were signing. As Mija said, not everyone can get access to the legal expertise
necessary to interpret a contract. It's also only true if you believe there is genuine
competition between companies and that a better deal may be forthcoming.
Simon
bunstinger wrote:
> You're talking about the terrorism in the 80's right?
> EVERYBODY knew 'who'. The Islamic Jihad group (based
> in Lebanon) and the governments of Iran, Libya and
> Syria in that order.
Well to be strictly accurate, Syria should be at least second, if not
top. I think Syria is the one that exposes the lie of the US position.
If the US took action for the reasons it claimed, then it should have
been pummelling Syria for years. Syria sponsors both Islamic Jihad and
Hamas, has killed tens of thousands of its own citizens, has an
appalling human rights record, and yet remains strangely untouched.
The irony is that if Britain had followed the same line of approach and
bombed nations who were sponsoring terrorism, we'd have had to bomb New
York ! For years groups such as Noraid collected money from Irish
Americans and channelled it to the IRA, who used it to buy weapons and
training for attacks against Britain. Britain has suffered more
terrorist attacks funded by US money than by the whole of the Middle
East combined. The real irony is that the IRA got a lot of their
training in Libya; so while Reagan was busy denouncing Libyan camps and
bombing Tripoli, US citizens were funding those same camps, albeit
indirectly.
As to randomness, I was much amused by the recent adventure in the Gulf,
where American pilots actually managed to miss the COUNTRY they were
aiming at, and instead of hitting Iraq bombed a small village in Iran.
"Dropping bombs at random" seems about right to me.
Mr James Slipper
PD, your ill thought out Jingoism is an insult to the international
community of SSS and furthermore is probably a source of embarrassment
to your fellow Americans.
I have no time at all for any Goverment or nation that seeks to
subjugate citizens of another country for any means, let alone the
desire to promote global capitalism.
And yes, I include my own birth nation.
Policing, my arse!
Oh and btw. Britain used to have an Empire, Rome used to have an
Empire, they were considered to be the most powerful nations in the
world in their time. Both of their Empires lasted a considerable
amount of time, both plundered and forced their ideas on many other
"naughty little countries"
Guess what.Both came down to earth with a resounding bump.
History does not begin with the founding of the United States.Look out
PD the clock is ticking.
James Slipper
Writing on the internet, hmm I believe writing was invented quite some
time ago, possibly before 1776 and quite a distance away. "The
privilege of the internet" Tosh!
Michele
Michele
Personal Dad
"The
> privilege of the internet" Tosh!
[smile] we built it slipper.
Thank you for reading my stuff -- it is always fun to engage such a large
diverse group in a spirited exchange of ideas - - and to arouse such
feelings from an offhand comment - - splendid! as I think you "chaps" would
say
Kind Regards
PD
p&e
AprilC
affairs, but what I have to ask now is...
>"Mandy, I am very disappointed by your behaviour. Take your knickers
>down and come here so I can spank you."
>Mandy sighed and started to bare her bottom. It was so unfair !
>It wasn't as if anyone was going to miss Great Aunt Emma
...is this a quote, and if so where from?
April
KaThS...@webtv.net
I am just another lurker here on sss and it has always amazed me that
with so many bright and intelligent posters that post here no one ever
tells this "ladi" what a pompous, self-righteous ass she actually is.
Starship
>
> The only Paul Boyer I'm familiar with is the physicist (probably best
> known as the author of _God and the New Physics_), whom I hope would
> never act in such an unprofessional manner.
Ack! Paul Davies is the physicist. I do know a Paul Boyer, but he one of
the editors of _Fine Scale Modeler_ magazine. (Coincidently, also
headquartered in Wisconsin.)
Mija
>
>Starship wrote:
>>
>> The only Paul Boyer I'm familiar with is the physicist (probably best
>> known as the author of _God and the New Physics_), whom I hope would
>> never act in such an unprofessional manner.
>
>Ack! Paul Davies is the physicist. I do know a Paul Boyer, but he one of
>the editors of _Fine Scale Modeler_ magazine. (Coincidently, also
>headquartered in Wisconsin.)
's okay Starship. The other Paul Boyer (at wisc.) won a
Nobel Prize in Chemestry. I assumed he was the one you meant.
Peace,
Mija :)
sarah nada
>> Is sloppy quoting a spankable offense?
and Simon answered:
>No, it's just the kind of behaviour one expects from Americans ! <big grin,
>just kidding>
It's mighty nice of y'all to cut us that kind of slack, but how are we supposed
to learn anything without regular spankings?
Sarah
sarah nada
>Not sure about sloppy quoting, but replying to your own post
>definitely is. Tsk tsk ;)
I'll have to add it to my list... any ideas as to the official penalty?
Sarah the scofflaw
[p/e]
sarah nada
>Policing, my arse!
>
>Oh and btw. Britain used to have an Empire, Rome used to have an
>Empire, they were considered to be the most powerful nations in the
>world in their time. Both of their Empires lasted a considerable
>amount of time, both plundered and forced their ideas on many other
>"naughty little countries"
>
>Guess what.Both came down to earth with a resounding bump.
They did, didn't they? Makes the rise and fall of empires seem almost cyclical
or something...
Sarah, pondering
Mija
>'s okay Starship. The other Paul Boyer (at wisc.) won a
>Nobel Prize in Chemestry.
And one in chemistry.
Doh!
M.
Mr James Slipper
an "offhand comment". Well that didn't take long, apology accepted my
friend.
Awesome! as I believe you "dudes" are prone to say.
(smile) Do you think he missed my point regarding communication.
Al the best.
James
Jessica
American Foreign Policy thread is I thought I'd make this my first
official off topic post - go me.
I'm not going to comment on copyright in general, people have already
said most of the things I think, and although anti-capitalist I'm not
enough of an anarchist to defend the idea that property rights
BitOTrouble wrote:
> As an annoyingly amoral/moral person I feel compelled to rephrase this
> question:
>
> What are justifications for breaking the law?
>
> 1) Civil disobedience--you don't believe the law is just and are willing to
> accept the consequences (perhaps like Thoreau, to be thrown in jail) to
> protest the injustice.
>
> 2) You decide that laws are for other people and will only comply with laws
> that don't inconvenice you.
>
> IMHO:
>
> # 1 is moral
>
> # 2 is for people of questionable ethics
Jessica
I'll try again.
Since I have yet been able to figure out how tongue in cheek the
American Foreign Policy thread is I thought I'd make this my first
official off topic post - go me.
I'm not going to comment on copyright in general, people have already
said most of the things I think, and although anti-capitalist I'm not
enough of an anarchist to argue that 'information wants to be free'
(actually I'm not one for overarching arguments about anything).
However one of the arguments, which was made most succiently by
BitOTrouble but implicit in many other posts, really surprised me.
BitOTrouble wrote:
> What are justifications for breaking the law?
>
> 1) Civil disobedience--you don't believe the law is just and are willing to
> accept the consequences (perhaps like Thoreau, to be thrown in jail) to
> protest the injustice.
>
> 2) You decide that laws are for other people and will only comply with laws
> that don't inconvenice you.
>
> IMHO:
>
> # 1 is moral
>
> # 2 is for people of questionable ethics
I understand that this is quite a widely held belief but I'd think
*here* people would see that in reality it wasn't that easy.
Maybe there are some people who know enough about their local assault
laws to know that they've never broken them, or been party to breaking
them (and there are those of us who have never had the opportunity to
break them <sniff>), but there are a lot more who don't know where they
stand - or who know that their kink is illegal (I'm thinking particuarly
of Britain).
I wouldn't say to them that the choice is either civil disobedience -
openly flouting the laws in order to get them changed - or to not play.
If you believe a law is wrong (and I we would think we could reach a
pretty strong consensus on this newsgroup that people should not be
prosecuted for sexual acts which are *fully* consensual - if I hadn't
been around long enough to know that there is never consensus on
anything) then I don't think that you can argue that breaking it is also
wrong. I don't think that people have to challenge the law at the level
of civil disobedience to earn the right to break a law which they
believe is wrong.
Oh and by the way I've saved all the arguments made about copyright and
I'm going to distribute them in a pamphlet given away freely from the
Assville bookshop once it's open - I hope no-one minds <g>
Jessica
Personal Dad
content to focus on substance.
What is the old saying -- if you have the facts, argue them. If you don't,
attack the messenger. You do it better than most, with style and wit.
Of course, as you know, the problem created by my "foreign policy" remark
was that I stated an uncomfortable truth. And uncomfortable truth sticks to
the skin like napalm, and burns. The fumes permeate your lungs, until you
are spitting bile.
To his credit, Simon sought to argue substance but could not. Everyone else
personalized it, or attacked style. Except of course "Slipper" who imagined
an apology and then failed to distinguish the imaginary apology from the non
existent retraction.. And you, my friend, who chose to snipe from a safe
distance.
But that is the problem with uncomfortable truths when they come out at the
dinner table. Those made most uncomfortable by it sputter some. The fellow
with the "big mouth" might even be asked to leave the table - - but the
uncomfortable truth remains, long after the dishes are washed and the
snifters are tossed in the fireplace.
PD
Barrister wrote
While I've seen much better trolling than you do, I haven't seen
> the level of smarmy-ness exceed very often. You are to be commended.
sarah nada
>Of course, as you know, the problem created by my "foreign policy" remark
>was that I stated an uncomfortable truth. And uncomfortable truth sticks to
>the skin like napalm, and burns. The fumes permeate your lungs, until you
>are spitting bile.
<snicker> What a totally specious argument. If I say something nasty about your
mother and you take exception to it, does it mean I've stated an uncomfortable
truth? Or does it just mean you think I'm wrong?
Sarah, not meaning any actual disrespect to anyone's mother
Don A. Landhill
<8acalt8n87jb1fq3s...@4ax.com>, domino wrote
>
>On 17 Jul 2001 13:51:32 -0700, Mija <mij...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<snip>
>OK - I'll find a different example.
>
>My website is full of pictures of me taken by Master. Our copyright.
>
>Quite a few folk enjoy these pix and have saved copies of them for
>their own personal use.
>
>Suppose for whatever reason I decide to close my website and withdraw
>my pictures.
>
>Does that give anyone who has saved the pictures the right to create a
>website to 'share' my pictures with the world? Even if he *doesn't*
>make a profit from them?
>
>It doesn't cos they are my property.
I firmly agree.
>
>And if I had chosen to sell them to a corporate and *they* withdrew
>them, I may think that sucks, but it would be their property and they
>would be legally allowed to withdraw them. Just cos you don't happen
>to like that decision doesn't make it alright to distribute the
>pictures without their permission.
>
Of course, may authors/creators include a clause in the contract which states
that if the work ceasaes to be available from the purchaser, the original
creator has th right to make and sell copies, or to make a deal with a different
publisher. Details vary, including how long something must be "out of print" and
the exact way that "in print" is measured. It could be argued that a contract
which has no such clause (or an ineffective one) is abusive, and not morally
binding, *if* the author wants the item in circulation.
>>See comments above. I think it comes down to him wanting the
>>students to read the text so he could teach the class.
>
>His choice - he could have chosen a different text, he could have
>asked the students for money upfront to buy second hand books.
>
>>I guess I don't see it the same way. The publishers and author
>>lost nothing more by the copies passed out than if we'd bought
>>100 first additions and sold them. Either way they get nothing.
>
>Oh well - that's ok then?
>
>>When something's no longer in print, I don't see that copyright
>>is an issue any longer. The publisher has the right to print
>>and chooses not to. Fine. But they don't get to keep the information
>>from circulating.
>
>Whilst I think there is some grounds for breach of copyright when
>stuff is being withheld maliciously, I don't think this was the case
>with your professor. He had several choices open to him and he chose
>to break the law. Now that's not the end of the world, and it's not a
>very serious breach of the law (no one got killed) *but* he had other
>options and chose to break the law instead.
>
There is at least an argument that the retention of copyright in such a case
provides an incentive to republish. Often, though, it is not enough of an
incentive. This is one reason for the existance of the copyright clearence
center, where for a reasonabel pre-set fee (far less than the one mija mentiond
earlier in this thread) legal permission to copy out-of-print items can be
obtained. However, any publisher can choose whether to participate or not.
Maybe participation should be legally required?
>> Personally, I think "fair use" should include
>>copies made of materials that are no longer in print for academic
>>use.
>
>I agree.
>
>> But it doesn't.
Actually it does, but only up to a point. It might be that the case Mija
outline (an entire book (short novel, not a text) for each member of a class of
100) would be held to be fair use, in the circs. I suspect not. A chapter for
each student would clearly be fair use, on past cases in the US.
----
-Don A. Landhill <Dlan...@aol.com>
See my stories and those of SamPast and others at
<http://www.geocities.com/dlandhill/>
Alex Birch
posted...
>
>>
>>Guess what.Both came down to earth with a resounding bump.
>
>They did, didn't they? Makes the rise and fall of empires seem almost cyclical
>or something...
>
>Sarah, pondering
>
the Roman Empire and probably the British one too. It is a danger which the US,
now the only global superstate, would do well to heed because power can become
a heady brew of arrogance and contempt for the views of others as PD has proved
conclusively. Sticking with the historical cliches there is the 'Those whom the
Gods wish to destroy first make mad' and if PD is a typical example of American
right wing opinion then I'd say hes first in the queue for the strait jacket.
Alex
'Death is nature's way of telling us to slow down - Woody Allen'
Mr James Slipper
> But that is the problem with uncomfortable truths when they come out at the
> dinner table. Those made most uncomfortable by it sputter some. The fellow
> with the "big mouth" might even be asked to leave the table - - but the
> uncomfortable truth remains, long after the dishes are washed and the
> snifters are tossed in the fireplace.
>
Interesting. Your conviction to your point waivers like a particularly
waving thing that's caught in a waivering breeze.
Can we at least agree then that you really shouldn't come to dinner?
Especially as "snifters" are glasses of brandy and my brandy glasses
cost a freakin mint.
James
Starship
Mija wrote:
>
> The ever charming and witty Starship wrote:
Sheesh Mija! What's the matter with you? How are we supposed to have an
argument if you're gonna go and say stuff like that?
--
Starship - blushing
Personal Dad
> Interesting. Your conviction to your point waivers like a particularly
> waving thing that's caught in a waivering breeze.
I won't disagree with you on this Slipper. Actually, I seldom have strong
commitments about my "points." They are all just ideas, they live or die on
their own. To me, it would be boring to post something I was 100% sure of --
all that assures is that I won't learn anything from it. More challenging
to take and argue something I'm not sure of -- those are the kinds of
discussions where you learn something. You can be very perceptive, sir.
Take this little argument over foreign policy. I might have said that I
thought, on balance, that American foreign policy was a positive force over
the past 55 years. Some might have disagreed with me, but most would have
accepted it as a very bland centrist sentiment that was hard to agree or
disagree with.
I might have said that all of American foreign policy was fundamentally
designed to protect American business interests and to achieve military and
political and economic domination of the world. If I had, the left wing of
the group would have embraced me as one of their own, sarah nada would have
thought harder and longer before declining my spanking invitation, and Haron
and I would be exchanging emails in which we compared our collections of Tom
Lehrer albums (I had a complete set before a certain SO did spring
cleaning).
Instead, I combined the two propositions, injected some mild spanking
metaphors for spice, and succeeded in wadding up panties all over the
fucking globe. To me, that is an "interesting" result. Not as interesting
as spanking sarah -- but that wasn't gonna happen anyway. [smiles]
Now as to important matters -- what kind of snifters do you use? Personally
I am partial to Baccarat crystal -- but I use the Macy's bar ware for
snifter tossing.
Kind regards
PD
p&e
Personal Dad
if PD is a typical example of American
> right wing opinion then I'd say hes first in the queue for the strait
jacket.
Hmm . . . so if I am not a typical example of American right wing opinion
you would not say it? that hardly seems fair. . . .
PD
Starship
>
> Slipper said:
>
> > Interesting. Your conviction to your point waivers like a particularly
> > waving thing that's caught in a waivering breeze.
>
> I won't disagree with you on this Slipper. Actually, I seldom have strong
> commitments about my "points."
Ha! You see, Sarah; I was right. He *is* a Democrat. ;)
--
Starship - suddenly inspired to go have another look at that picture of
Rush Limbaugh spanking Jane Fonda
Alex Birch
Yep..bit of bad sentence construction on my part but my opinion of your
contemptuous attitude remains the same.
Alex
Personal Dad
> >
> Yep..bit of bad sentence construction on my part but my opinion of your
> contemptuous attitude remains the same.
>
> Alex
[sigh] . . . you are certainly entitled to your little opinions . . . of my
. . . "attitude" . . . . But, I do wonder what insecurity is it that makes
you so sensitive? Is there some reason why certain Europeans instantly
forgive themselves for being contemptuous of Americans, but the tears start
streaming down your aggrieved little faces when your own little feelings are
slighted in any way? Do you not see that you are responding like a
petulant child . . . oh well, I guess not . . . let me know if you ever
have an interest in substance . . . until then, why don't you just run along
and play, little . . . whatever. {BTW, not to be disrespectful, but, are
you male or female?}
PD
Alex Birch
<OE31iixjnzi95...@hotmail.com>, "Personal posted...
flame on SSS particularly as we are a spanking newsgroup and not a foreign
policy one. Incidentally maybe its you who has the gender problem. Dont you
think all these <sighs> and references to 'our little faces' , 'little
feelings' and 'running along to play' are more typical of Barbara Cartland than
the John Wayne gung ho figure you are trying so hard to be?
Oh and please, if you are going to persist with this inanity, just reply to the
group, OK? I dont need any more of your shit in my mailbox.
Personal Dad
flooding my own mailbox with gibberish, Alex Birch, person of indeterminate
gender and undiscernable intelligence, wrote:
> Oh and please, if you are going to persist with this inanity, just reply
to the
> group, OK? I dont need any more of your shit in my mailbox.
So there it is. The last idiotic attempt to disparage the truth of my
proposition by inventing imaginary hurt feelings and then arguing about my
manners. The left was much more interesting in the old days, at least then
they had a program. All that's "left" now appears to be a bunch of whining
crybabies. And people seriously wonder why there is no alternative to
Americans running the world for a while . . . . Sheesh!
PD
PS to the next Ms/Mr Manners that wants to sanctimoniously lecture me on my
"tone" -- clean up your own act first. I didn't dish this stuff out to
anyone who didn't richly deserve it. Anyone care to contradict that
proposition? Nope? Didn't think so.
Pam
Pam
Remove my panties before responding. :)
sarah nada
>> I won't disagree with you on this Slipper. Actually, I seldom have strong
>> commitments about my "points."
and Starship answered:
>Ha! You see, Sarah; I was right. He *is* a Democrat. ;)
Hmmph. I hope you're proud of yourself for making me laugh so hard that Dr.
Pepper came out my nose (you running dog of capitalism, you).
Sarah
PS- That stuff is carbonated. Ouch.
sarah nada
>Oh hell..you ALL need a spanking. THERE..on topic.
Are you volunteering, Pam? 'Cause if so it sounds kind of intriguing.
Sarah
sarah nada
>PS to the next Ms/Mr Manners that wants to sanctimoniously lecture me on my
>"tone" -- clean up your own act first. I didn't dish this stuff out to
>anyone who didn't richly deserve it. Anyone care to contradict that
>proposition? Nope? Didn't think so.
Never underestimate the power of manners. I know you'll find some who disagree
or think it's irrelevant, but when I meet a top with good manners I get the
impression that s/he speaks softly but carries a big stick. And that's hot.
Sarah
Personal Dad
> Never underestimate the power of manners.
Ummmmhh . . . that *was* my point, sarah. Glad we agree, I guess.
PD