 |
| |
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
Sorry I don't have a good link to a copyright history yet, but my parents and grandparents are visiting this weekend, so I haven't had much computer time (they're at church now).
Here's the first two links off Google:
Copyright Timeline (US):
http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
History of Copyright (UK):
http://www.intellectual-property.go...ght/history.htm
Only skimmed it, but this looks reasonable:
Copyright and Authors:
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_10/ewing/
--"Once it leaves their possession, the new owner can decide what to do wiht it."
Unfortunately, the doctrine of first sale has been seriously weakened lately. Hopefully people will start to wake up to it and fight back, but so far it's been too subtle for most to be affected.
Worst offenders here right now are the software companies. Suing people for selling their legally purchased (non-returnable) software on eBay, and the like. The whole license vs. sale sleight of hand.
--"Work is."
Work is a verb, not a noun. You can hire work or perform work, but how do you own an action?
--"I call BS. The term "intellectual property" was invented in the 19th century."
But is nevertheless used to confuse. "Intellectual Proprety" is a blank term used to cover trademarks, trade secrets, patents, and copyright. As I keep saying, these four areas of law are very distinct, and cannot be conceptually, legally, or professionally mixed together. People using the term "IP" these days usually either a) do not understand what they're talking about or b) are trying to make sure you don't understand what they're talking about.
--"I'm saying terms invented in the 19th century are definately not intended to confuse in their 21st-century context."
It's just newspeak. Lots of terms in use these days don't mean the same as they did when they were created, and in many cases the confusion is deliberate on the part of the people who have co-opted the term from the original usage.
--" I'll leave this by saying that I side with the creators and owners,"
The thing is, so do I. Which is why I'd much rather buy CDs or MP3s direct from the band(which I do when I can), go to their concerts, etc, than pay the music label. Read up on what even many of the big-name bands say about the much labels. They steal from the artists more than anyone else does.
Same for video, and print. You should see my book and DVD collections. Doesn't mean I like the major studios (who have a very small presence in my collection), but I am perfectlywilling to pay for works I enjoy. Doesn't mean I have to like the middle-men who leach off the actual creators, nor should I support the middle-men's attempts to change the laws to protect their business model.
Wraith
"I am always ready to learn although I do not always like to be taught."
-- Winston Churchill
Last edited by Wraith on 29-05-2005 at 21:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
--"That's incorrect in so many ways, a few of which you illustrated in the sentence right after your claim."
Name one. |
"You can pay for work." Prepositional phrase, "for work". Work is the object. Therefore, work is a noun. |
You can pay for work [to be done].
But the word "work" is a noun, if you think of it in the sense of "That is his great master work"
I think Wraith unfortunately made a grammar statement that is wrong, but that does NOT invalidate his statement. One can not OWN actions in a monetary sense, as they disappear the second the action is done. One can perhaps own the result of the action (the sense in which work is a noun), if that is a tangible product.
But how does this whole notion of "work" make sens whern you look at something like trademarking "The Magic Kingdom"? The people at Disney did not invent the words, nor the phrase, nor the structure. They used common words to create an easy to make sentence (Who knows how many writers used that idea before), and they used to to advertise their product.
Does Disney OWN that phrase? Do people have to pay them to use it? If I decide to write a book about a Magic Kingdom, must I ethically send a check to the Disney Corporation?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
General question: if IP is bollocks, how is plagiarism wrong?
|
Well when you plagiarize you pass it off to be your own work.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
 Where does denying payment from a sale come into this?
|
Again give me a break, it's just idiot to claim that copyright infringements do not impede one's ability to distribute his work, as if distribution wasn't about the expectation of being paid for the work you did that other people will benefit from.
quote:
That is, a person's work in doing something should be reconized. Claiming credit for other people's achievements is a whole other argument, really, and has little to do copyrights... |
No, not at all. If something isn't property, what's wrong in claiming it's yours? Claiming the sky is mine is silly, but it sure isn't "wrong".
The idea here is not to debate uselessly about hypothetical questions, but rather to bring to the table this simple consideration: when you claim that something is one's property, you do it through a chain of causality that includes necessary and/or sufficient conditions (these conditions may include, but aren't limited to, personal work, resources consumed, money paid, etc).
"Theft" requires a prior definition of property (which the aforementioned chain of causality allows). If you define property through the possibility of theft, you're commiting a logical circle.
-->property is what can be stolen -->theft is unallowed deprival of property is a fallacy, unless you can define first how and when there is allowed deprival of property.
This is where a chain of causality comes into play: why can't any course of events that leads to you being granted ownership over something, entails the impossibility of the item in question being non-physical?
Now I know what I'd probably be told: but you can't properly define ownership over a trademark, a concept, a patent, etc, and worse still, there are different kinds of IP anyway.
Again I call for BS. Laws are made of semantic concepts and are applied by human beings who have to consider both the spirit and the letter of the law, and pit them with the circumstances of the situation they're evaluating.
Just like ownership over material property can't be unlimited (natural resources under a land do not belong to the owner of the land, pens can't be used to pluck out a coworker's eyes), ownership over abstract concepts is not unlimited. The concept of unlimited use itself is contrary to property; it would equate to natural property, a self-defeating proposition. Thus it is meaningless to reject IP on the basis that it must have limits; it has always had anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Speaking from the perspective of an artist whose livlihood is impacted by these various regulations, I have this to say:
* If someone downloads my works without paying for them, I do NOT feel that I am being cheated in any way, shape, or form. I write my books so that they may be READ. That's the point. The more people who read them, the happier I am. My HOPE is that people will have enough respect for me as an artist, as a human being, that they'll be willing to pay for the work, and thus, allow me to continue to write more stuff that pleases them, but this is very much on the honor system. There's no way, even with stringent anti-piracy laws, that I can make SURE that everyone who has read my works has bought and paid for a copy.
* Aside from that, if it's not a crime to buy (legally pay for) a book and loan/give it to a friend when I'm done with it, then I don't see a problem with loaning/giving a pdf copy of that same work. Just because the pdf copy can be endlessly replicated does not invalidate the exchange, as we currently have no way to prove that the exchange wasn't legit, and given that people are innocent till proven guilty in the nation of my birth, I must respect that. (ie., there's no way I can look at a pdf and tell at a glance if it was a legally bought and paid for copy, or if it was a copy OF the legally bought and paid for copy, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, I must accept the person's word...honor system).
* Ultimately, if someone does get their hands on a copy of my work "illegally" (term used in quotations because I don't believe it to be a crime, and anyone on this board could come up to me and outright TELL me they read such and so book of mine without paying a cent, and my only response would be "what did you think?"), if they enjoyed it, there's a good chance that they'll a) tell friends and recommend it, and/or b) go buy a copy to show their support for the artist. Both are good things.
* The real people who are taking the hit here are the publishers, who rob both sides (the artists, by generally paying them chicken feed for their work, and the consumers, who are grossly overcharged FOR the work). Stick it to the man! 
* disclaimer: I realize that not EVERY artist shares this opinion, but I'd be greatly surprised if I was in the minority.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Again give me a break, it's just idiot to claim that copyright infringements do not impede one's ability to distribute his work, as if distribution wasn't about the expectation of being paid for the work you did that other people will benefit from.
|
As the music, game, movie, and books industries show, it is possible to make enormous sales despite the constant "disturbance" of copy right infringments, which supposedly make these thigns harder to sell for some mysterious reason.
quote:
No, not at all. If something isn't property, what's wrong in claiming it's yours? |
Maybe you should read what you quoted. 
Work done is the so-called "property" of the person who did it, in that they can claim to of done something.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2005 08:21
|