 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Electronics / May 2006How to stop Piracy?
Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame. Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software company. He asked me about the electronic design industry in China. He told me that everyone knows that China is a huge market but most company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy. Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the piracy problem? Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance! Seeking for a customer centered PCB fabricator with high-quality and most cost-effective service? SynKore is your perfect option! Send email to sales@synkore.com or visit www.idealpcb.com, www.advpcb.com, >Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame. >Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thank you in advance! --- Simple. For every instance that a pirated item is dicovered in China, the Chinese government will pay the injured party the full retail price of the item in the injured party's currency. Either that, or kill the pirates.  SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >> Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre >> Dame. Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Either that, or kill the pirates. If you make the software free there is no need for piracy. SignatureAlexander _______________________________________ We are what we repeatedly do. - Aristotle, > If you make the software free there is no need for piracy. If you make everything at Wal*Mart free there is no need for shoplifting. > If you make the software free there is no need for piracy. Um, so how would a software business function. Maybe software should be resonably priced. Regards Dave >> If you make the software free there is no need for piracy. > > Um, so how would a software business function. people would pay it money to write software. Bye. Jasen >> --- >> Simple. For every instance that a pirated item is dicovered in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >If you make the software free there is no need for piracy. --- You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in the first place. It's not. Theft is theft, and the fault lies in the thief and, in the case of China, with the mindset of the Chinese government, which considers all non-Chinese to be barbarians and barely worthy of recognition, so stealing from us is condoned and is considered to be not much different than taking a brightly colored colored stone from a dog who dug it up and is playing with it. Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, you f.cking a.shole. Grrrrr.... SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>> --- >>> Simple. For every instance that a pirated item is dicovered in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Grrrrr.... Dammit, John! Could you be more direct? I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean ;-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline > You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults > that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in > the first place. > Theft is theft Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. Bye. Jasen > > You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults > > that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bye. > Jasen That's an opinion at odds with the masses (of non-thieves, anyway). Ken >> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults >> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. --- Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws, would there? Taking something written by someone else and using it without the author's permission is theft. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>> Theft is theft >> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. > > Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws, > would there? If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws. Take note that copyright only applies to works with creative content. Trivial stuff is not covered. Thomas >>>> Theft is theft >>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Thomas Ehhhh? ANYTHING can be copyrighted, but common usage words have been adjudicated out (for the most part). ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline >> Take note that copyright only applies to works with creative content. >> Trivial stuff is not covered. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ehhhh? ANYTHING can be copyrighted, but common usage words have been > adjudicated out (for the most part). Well, you can probably copyright anything, but that does not mean that the copyright is valid. I remember a business delivering a text to someone who converted tags into html by using a script. Later, the business went elsewhere with their site and took the generated html with them. The original converter claimed copyright, but this was ruled against for lack of creative content. Another limitation is independent creation. If I would write the text "best quality in town - come today for best offer" that could be construed as creative. However, if someone else wrote the same text it could likely be an independent creation and him using that text would not be a copyright violation. Which doesn't mean you can't sue, but that's another thing. Thomas >>>> Theft is theft >>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws. --- That's ridiculous. It _is_ theft, and that's why the laws are in place; to deal with the crime when it's committed. --- >Take note that copyright only applies to works with creative content. >Trivial stuff is not covered. --- Since the act of writing is in itself creative, (unless you're copying something which somebody else wrote) copyright applies to all written work. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>>>> Theft is theft >>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > place; to deal with the crime when it's committed. > --- not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime in the free world. It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer Bye. Jasen >>>>>> Theft is theft >>>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime >in the free world. --- Don't hand me that "legal definition" crap, Jasen, you're not even remotely close to being a lawyer. 1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the infringer stole that income from the author. 2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally. --- >It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer --- Read this: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.misc.] >>>>>>> Theft is theft >>>>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Don't hand me that "legal definition" crap, Jasen, you're not even > remotely close to being a lawyer. It's not crap. it came out of a dictionary verbatim. if you think I'm wrong correct me. Insults are a sign that you fear that you are losing the argument. > 1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of > the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been > infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the > infringer stole that income from the author. that's not neccesarily true, there are two ways to not infringe copyright one is to purchase the licence the other is to not use the work. most people choose the latter. > 2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally. > --- definately... [copyright infringement] >>It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 ok, yeah, there are exceptions, like when it's being done for commercial gain. SignatureBye. Jasen > > That's ridiculous. It _is_ theft, and that's why the laws are in > > place; to deal with the crime when it's committed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer 1. Copyright infringement is in the criminal codes in most countries in the world, laws were unified recently to ease world trade. 2. Theft too is a civil matter between thieve and victim, not only a criminal one between thieve and the people. Any crime comitted gives the victim a right to compensation against the criminal, at least in theory. Whether or not that right can be enforced in practice is a different matter. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.electronics.] >>> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults >>> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws, > would there? if it were the police would be going after copyright infringers. > Taking something written by someone else and using it without the > author's permission is theft. no it's not. SignatureBye. Jasen >["Followup-To:" header set to alt.electronics.] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >if it were the police would be going after copyright infringers. --- Not initially, since copyright infringement isn't a crime of violence. --- >> Taking something written by someone else and using it without the >> author's permission is theft. > >no it's not. --- So, you think it would be OK for you to make and sell (or give away) photocopies of Win's book? Don't be absurd. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.electronics.] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > violence. > --- neither is shoplifting, or car theft. >>> Taking something written by someone else and using it without the >>> author's permission is theft. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, you think it would be OK for you to make and sell (or give away) > photocopies of Win's book? no. there's laws against that sort of thing. Bye. Jasen >>>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.electronics.] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >neither is shoplifting, or car theft. --- So, then, you admit that copyright infringement is a non-violent crime? --- >>>> Taking something written by someone else and using it without the >>>> author's permission is theft. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >no. there's laws against that sort of thing. --- And there aren't any against copyright infringement? Your'e a f.cking idiot, Jasen! SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>> Not initially, since copyright infringement isn't a crime of >>> violence. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So, then, you admit that copyright infringement is a non-violent > crime? I admit it's non violent. I do not conceed that it is criminal in all instances. >>>>> Taking something written by someone else and using it without the >>>>> author's permission is theft. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And there aren't any against copyright infringement? I did not say that. Bye. Jasen >>>> Not initially, since copyright infringement isn't a crime of >>>> violence. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I admit it's non violent. I do not conceed that it is criminal >in all instances. --- If it's illegal to infringe a copyright and it's infringed, then a crime has been committed regardless of your condescending concession. --- >>>>>> Taking something written by someone else and using it without the >>>>>> author's permission is theft. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I did not say that. --- Then you must admit that if there _are_ laws against copyright infringement and those laws are broken, a crime has been committed. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>>>> Not initially, since copyright infringement isn't a crime of >>>>> violence. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > crime has been committed regardless of your condescending > concession. There's a difference between illegal and criminal. copyright law for the most part is civil law and not criminal law. SignatureBye. Jasen >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:11:00 -0000, Jasen Betts <jasen@free.net.nz> >> If it's illegal to infringe a copyright and it's infringed, then a >> crime has been committed regardless of your condescending >> concession. > >There's a difference between illegal and criminal. --- No, there isn't, there are only differences in the severity of the illegal act (the crime) committed. --- >copyright law for the most part is civil law and not criminal law. --- Theft is theft, and is a crime no matter how hard you squirm around trying to categorize it as something else. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults >> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> not much different than taking a brightly colored colored stone from >> a dog who dug it up and is playing with it. If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is small issue comparing to their police role here and there. >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, >> you f.cking a.shole. I guess now is their time. Europian nations were stealing from the world for centuries (and still do in some ways). What would you do if you have 2 bilion of people, mainly poor? You will go to every vilige to shot down every small pirate factory when you can't offer something better? Anyway, I don't try to defend the pirates, just the global picture is not that simple Goran >>> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults >>> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is >small issue comparing to their police role here and there. --- We treat our friends well, and we treat our enemies and our friends' enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change the attitude of the Chinese government. --- >>> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >>> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, >>> you f.cking a.shole. > >I guess now is their time. Europian nations were stealing from the >world for centuries (and still do in some ways). --- So what? Two wrongs don't make a right. --- >What would you do if >you have 2 bilion of people, mainly poor? You will go to every vilige >to shot down every small pirate factory when you can't offer something >better? > >Anyway, I don't try to defend the pirates, --- Of course you do. You're saying that because they're poor and can't afford to buy software legally it's OK for them to buy it cheaply from someone someone who has stolen it. --- >just the global picture is >not that simple --- You don't have a clue. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > > > You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults > > > that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change > the attitude of the Chinese government. I would say you (US Gov.) mind your interests only (as anybody else). And I don't believe we here can change the attitude of he Chinese government. Their mind their own interests, and at the moment I guess piracy is not their main warry. They don't have big music or sw industry to protect. They have many unemployeed. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > from someone someone who has stolen it. > --- Buying pirate CDs would not concerning me so much. Big producers are the problem. If somebody opens a shop near you and you can get there cheap software, is not you the one that makes the crime. > >just the global picture is > >not that simple > > --- > You don't have a clue. I know. Goran >>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of >>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic > is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change ^^^^^^ > the attitude of the Chinese government. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Key, can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking? Thanks! Rich SignatureElect Me President in 2008! I will: A. Fire the IRS, and abolish the income tax B. Legalize drugs C. Stand down all military actions by the US that don't involve actual military aggression against US territory D. Declare World Peace I. >>>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of >>>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Key, can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking? Seems like you've got your own stash: ------ / / / -- / Elect Me President in 2008! I will: A. Fire the IRS, and abolish the income tax B. Legalize drugs C. Stand down all military actions by the US that don't involve actual military aggression against US territory D. Declare World Peace I. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of >>>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Key, can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking? You'd also have to change the attitude of 1.3 bn people. Might be easier to change the attitudes of the few hundred millions who are whining about it. Just one mobile phone company (China Mobile) has >200 million customers! It's interesting that, in some ways, the governments in countries such as China is actually more answerable for *results* than those in democracies. In free-market democracies, you supposedly get what you vote for (though you'll probably not be asked questions that could yield answers that threaten powerful interests unless there's an even more powerful domestic interest that is fighting it in public). If things go wrong, it's the market, it's what you voted for, it's always someone else (or no one at all) that's to blame. Historically, monarchies and other totalitarian governments have had lower steady-state total tax loads than democracies-- part of the reason a capitalist economic system can do well in conjuction with such systems. I don't have a problem with copyright laws one way or the other.. I could imagine there being very strong or very weak laws. It's not a moral issue, IMO, just a contract that uses public funds to enable a passive royalty collection scheme for companies who develop IP. There are ways to survive and prosper whatever the rules are. IIRC, the US conveniently ignored the IP owned by England for a couple of generations until had some of its own to protect internationally for its own companies. Similarly, when money can start flowing in both directions you can be pretty sure they'll be more interested in buying in (or not). Same goes for India and Russia where piracy is everywhere, and for the ME, where piracy is the highest in the world, IIRC. You don't hear much about the latter places because the US is fixated on a 'containment' policy, and China-bashing is 'in' once again, including the currency valuation red herring. BTW, there's a very popular love song* in China that's been performed by a bunch of different artists. One such artist was a 21-year old girl named Xiang1-Xiang1. She did it with a PC and a microphone, no studio, and gave away the music on the internet. She's made a small fortune from it, and has been signed by the UK music company EMI and has released at least one CD. In a different world she would have made a big fortune (or, more likely, nothing at all). * Lao3 Shu3 Ai4 da4 Mi3 (Mouse loves rice). The metaphor loses something in the translation. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, > you f.cking a.shole. Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there. 'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as many copies as you like for little or no cost. If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy. It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from someone. >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as >many copies as you like for little or no cost. --- True, but if the pattern of dots isn't of your own making, then copying them without the permission of the person who organized them is stealing. Same a Xeroxing a book or counterfeiting cash is stealing. --- >If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy. --- But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they bought the software instead of copying/stealing it. --- >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from >someone. --- Actually, it's not. They're both taking something from someone without permission. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > --- > But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they > bought the software instead of copying/stealing it. > --- While this is completely true, I think the software industry's estimated losses due to piracy are greatly inflated by one thing. I believe that only a small amount of pirated software would have actually been bought had the pirate not been able to steal it. There is no loss if income if the pirate would never have bought it anyway. I also think that some piracy actually results in increased sales. In particular with things like PCB layout software. Most legitimate businesses buy the EDA tools they need. But home hobby guy is never going to shell out $5000 for a PCB layout program like Protel (I bring this one up because there used to be cracks for it all over the net). But when that home hobby guy gets a real job and the pointy haired boss asks what PCB software they need, he will immediately suggest Protel because that's what he knows how to use now. Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe. >>--- >>But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it > isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe. That's pretty much my position - it becomes a "Bad" thing when companies think they can use pirated software though, even on an 'unofficial trial' basis. I'd add that there's no indication that innovation or profits have suffered due to piracy. Piracy has been going on since the industry started - I seem to recall some people have written some new software, done some new things, made a bit of money...... Cheers. Ken > Piracy has been going on since the industry started - I seem to recall some > people have written some new software, done some new things, made a bit of > money...... Bill Gate's original plea to stop piracy 30 years ago: http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html Microsoft's take on it these days: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-micropiracy9apr09,0,414067.story >> Piracy has been going on since the industry started - I seem to recall some >>people have written some new software, done some new things, made a bit of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Microsoft's take on it these days: > http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-micropiracy9apr09,0,414067.story Hearing any bleats by Gates about piracy makes me want to dredge up reports of old law-suits, but what the heck, it's lunch-time..... Ken > Hearing any bleats by Gates about piracy makes me want to dredge up > reports of old law-suits, but what the heck, it's lunch-time..... Repost: "[...] a thread was started about Bill Gates' famous "open letter" calling all hobbyists "thieves" because we were all stealing "his" software. This led into a discussion of why Mr. Gates was "asked to resign" from Harvard. Someone pointed out the whole story was located on the "Boston Globe's" website. [ To those outside of the U.S., the Globe is to Boston what the Times is to London...not prone to hyperbole. ] So I checked out the website & found that Mr Gates & Mr. Allen had used Mr. Gates' account on Harvard's DEC-10 to write M.I.T.S. 8080 & 6800 BASICs [Microsoft's _only_ software products at that time.][Bill Gates & Paul Allen were Microsoft's only employees at the time also.] The "powers that be" at Harvard learned of this & were ready to expell Mr. Gates because "all students at Harvard sign a form making all software developed on the University's computers public domain." In order to keep from being expelled from Harvard and to be allowed to resign, Mr. Gates signed over all rights to Microsoft's products to the public domain. After leaving Harvard, Mr. Gates seemed to forget this & continued to market both the 6800 & 8080 BASICs. Unfortunately [for him] it is all a matter of public record.[...]" Signaturehttp://www.flexusergroup.com/ >>Hearing any bleats by Gates about piracy makes me want to dredge up >>reports of old law-suits, but what the heck, it's lunch-time..... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > market both the 6800 & 8080 BASICs. Unfortunately [for him] it is all > a matter of public record.[...]" I didn't even know that one, but now can add it to the list of things I forget about him. :-) MS has been involved in all manner of 'acquisition' of interesting add-ons for their crappy software suite. Cheers. Ken >> Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it isn't >> all as bad as some people would have you believe. >> > That's pretty much my position - it becomes a "Bad" thing when companies > think they can use pirated software though, even on an 'unofficial > trial' basis. The 'trial' thing is not that bad. One of the reasons open source is doing well is that there is no need to go through purchasing and lawyers to try it. Software vendors have traditionally been ignoring unauthorized copying whenever they felt it was best for their business - for example student or private use. > I'd add that there's no indication that innovation or profits have > suffered due to piracy. Piracy has been going on since the industry > started - I seem to recall some people have written some new software, > done some new things, made a bit of money...... It seems clothing designs only have very limited protection in Europe - changing a number of details (5 or 8?) is enough to have a new creation. This doesn't seem to harm industry creativity at all... The same would apply to look-and-feel copyrights on software. What happened to those? Those were a license to print money, not a stimulus for creativity... Thomas >Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it >isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe. Supposedly Autodesk has greatly profited from this "free trial" distribution. As long as most companies of any size pay, they are rolling in the money. Thus, they aggressively go after corporations they think might not have a (or enough) license(s). One of the problems is that when I get a dude in Russia or India to draw up some parts for me, I can be fairly sure that they are using cracked copies. The guy down the street with the full license and maintenance contract is finding it doubly hard to compete since the wages are much higher and so is the overhead. It's a pittance on a small job, but the pittances add up.. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >> Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it >> isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rolling in the money. Thus, they aggressively go after corporations > they think might not have a (or enough) license(s). Autodesk probably likes you to use this at home for free. The more people can use the software the more they can sell. And really no-one would buy this privately at full price, so there is no money lost to them (though they could sell training). Which makes your explanation likely. Of course they could produce a (limited) student edition... Thomas > >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stealing. > --- Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's in the public domain. Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread.. > >If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy. > > --- > But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they > bought the software instead of copying/stealing it. > --- Rightfully yours my a.s. Unless you are referring to your right to pay an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise. > >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from > >someone. > > --- > Actually, it's not. They're both taking something from someone > without permission. The permission came when the information was released to the public domain. >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's >in the public domain. --- Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you don't know the difference between a public market and the public domain. I suggest that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees fit. Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the works are abridged in any way. --- >Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread.. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Rightfully yours my a.s. Unless you are referring to your right to pay >an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise. --- That "armed group" you refer to is the government and it does exist for, among other reasons, to assure that my monopoly enterprise will be protected for the term of the patent or copyright. --- >> >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from >> >someone. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The permission came when the information was released to the public >domain. --- Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the public domain then it remains the property of the author. Get informed; read this: http://www.copyright.gov/ SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > John Fields > Professional Circuit Designer John, its no wonder he doesn't understand. He's post from a IP assigned to Switzerland inetnum: 130.92.0.0 - 130.92.255.255 netname: UNIBE descr: University of Berne descr: Berne, Switzerland country: CH admin-c: FB61 tech-c: FB61 tech-c: CH791-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: SWITCH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered person: Fritz Buetikofer address: University of Berne address: Computer Services Department address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6 address: CH-3012 Berne address: Switzerland phone: +41 31 631 3843 fax-no: +41 31 631 3865 e-mail: btkfr@id.unibe.ch nic-hdl: FB61 source: RIPE # Filtered person: Christian Heim address: University of Berne address: Computer Services Department address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6 address: CH-3012 Berne address: Switzerland phone: +41 31 631 3872 fax-no: +41 31 631 3865 e-mail: heim@id.unibe.ch nic-hdl: CH791-RIPE source: RIPE # Filtered SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > John, its no wonder he doesn't understand. He's post from a IP >assigned to Switzerland [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >nic-hdl: CH791-RIPE >source: RIPE # Filtered I don't think it's as much a question of determining where they're from as it is determining where they're coming from. If, indeed, he's an academic, then we have among us one who rails against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that > fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee. Now I'm curious.. are you talking about reproduction a la "Brave New World"? And where is the connection? Are Intellectual property laws are a step in that direction? > >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you don't know the > difference between a public market and the public domain. Pretty much correct. Or rather, I don't think there should be a difference. My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them. > I suggest > that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees > fit. Of course in reality, the idea is available to the public as soon as they see it. The only problem is, the patent law forbids them from using it for innovation, business, health, scientific research, etc. > Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public > dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that > doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the > works are abridged in any way. You may want "exclusive rights" to some information, but the reality is that once somebody else knows that information you no longer are the exclusive holder of the information. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > be protected for the term of the patent or copyright. > --- True. I would prefer a capitalist or free market system, and I think it may come sooner rather than later. Of course until then we must live within the current system to avoid the consequences. > >> >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from > >> >someone. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the > public domain then it remains the property of the author. If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it. > Get informed; read this: > > http://www.copyright.gov/ That's what I'm complaining about! Cheers - shevek [snip] >> --- >> Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the >> public domain then it remains the property of the author. > >If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it. [snip] >Cheers - shevek Publishing something so that books can be sold and read is wholly different from you turning around and copying said material for your own profit. I find that those against IP laws are generally those who aren't "IP", intellectually prolific, you're just a common thief. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline >> >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >> >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Pretty much correct. Or rather, I don't think there should be a >difference. --- Why not? Say you generate a killer app which your university pays you to design and puts into the public domain. Kudos to you, but no financial gain other than your salary. OTOH, you quit the the university and do it all yourself and sell what comes out of your brain. Big difference, no? --- >My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on >IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them. --- Apologies accepted, as long as they'll keep you subservient...;) Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the inventor? Aren't you one of us? Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and for you to be able to profit from them? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > >> >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Big difference, no? > --- Yes, but neither scenario requires intellectual property protectionism. Quit the university, start the company that produces the design, and keep the company competitive. You don't need to sue copyright violators to do good business. > >My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on > >IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and > for you to be able to profit from them? Thanks for humoring me:) I suppose my ideas now will become.. property of google? > Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the > inventor? Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves financially, despite their patents. In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition. Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or agribusiness. And do you really think it's helped the arts? Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of diagrams and designs. cheers - shevek >> Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the >> inventor? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves > financially, despite their patents. Look what it costs to pursue a patent issue. Out of reach for most inventors - only accessible to large business. And even those form a cartel to limit costs within - but it gives them leverage to kick out those nasty startups. > In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent > lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the > money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition. In software, an 'patentable invention' seems to be very easy to create - except for the lawyerese. Now whenever you write software you got to check all those patents to see if you are infringing. If done correctly this would make software costs be 99.9 % legal and 0.1 % engineering. I can't think that is good for innovation. > Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of > diagrams and designs. That's why it is there - for protection you have got to publish. Still I wonder why one would accept patents - which are laws forbidding to produce something for profit - seeing that they are written as vaguely as possible and not checked by a representative process. In a time when the number of inventors was very limited (because tools were not generally available) and innovation was slow, the patent system worked fine. A limited number of patents, and inventors generally being inside a business, made sure the resources needed were not too great. But nowadays - Joe Random can afford to file his patent for whatever voice recognition algorithm he has figured out. Getting his income from it is something different - it needs huge investment in legal costs. As far as the level of inventions: a recent application was for a TV that disallows chaning channels while in a commercial. It IS new, I agree, but is it a technical invention, or merely so stupid as not to have been published before? Still it may bit someone someday whenever teh principle is applied to something useful. Thomas > As far as the level of inventions: a recent application was for a TV > that disallows chaning channels while in a commercial. It IS new, I > agree, but is it a technical invention, or merely so stupid as not to > have been published before? Still it may bit someone someday whenever > teh principle is applied to something useful. Novelty is not the only criterion. It has to boil down to technology and it must be a significant step (and the latter I doubt very much in your example). In addition there are a couple of restrictions like that an invention must not be immoral. And something that restricts peoples freedom may very well be considered immoral. As I said before, patent protection itself is a good idea, but its practical application has degraded badly in the last 20 years or so. >> >> >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >> >> >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >keep the company competitive. You don't need to sue copyright >violators to do good business. --- The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_ intellectual property, it's whether someone else has the right to use it without your permission. If you think they do, then we are fundamentally in disagreement and the argument can't proceed until that disagreement is resolved. --- >> >My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on >> >IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves >financially, despite their patents. --- Speaking of business, one of the things I've learned is that if you're looking for investors for a start-up to build and sell a widget of some kind, and they're honest, they won't even talk to you until you've at least filed for a patent. That way, their investment will be covered to the extent that the courts will support. The reason that many inventors and artists _don't_ do well isn't because of a failing in the system, (although, God knows, it's not perfect) it's because they're lousy at business and let themselves get talked into all kinds of really lousy deals, like the one a lot of newbies get suckered into, taking the risk for "a portion of the profits", LOL! --- >In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent >lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the >money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition. --- Patent lawyers aren't so bad, a good one'll cost about $10k, and if you want to do it yourself it's just the government filing fees you'll need to come up with, a couple of thousand, I think. --- >Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or >agribusiness. --- It's not the system, it's how it's been allowed to be manipulated by business that's the problem, I think, but what did you have in mind, specifically? --- >And do you really think it's helped the arts? --- Definitely. If others could steal your work by copying it, taking credit for it by pretending it was theirs and selling it without fear of retribution of any kind, what would be the incentive to keep on producing other than the basic creative urge itself? --- >Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of >diagrams and designs. --- Hmmm...??? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > >> >> >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > the argument can't proceed until that disagreement is resolved. > --- The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this "intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all. > >> >My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on > >> >IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > portion of the profits", LOL! > --- Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of investors rich for example. > >In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent > >lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you'll need to come up with, a couple of thousand, I think. > --- Maybe even less. However the lawsuits will cost a lot more. > >Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or > >agribusiness. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > specifically? > --- "bio-piracy", the patenting of genes, e.g. used to sue farmers who plant the same seeds they've used for generations. Keeping drugs at elevated prices. Keeping research secret. For three.. > >And do you really think it's helped the arts? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > keep on producing other than the basic creative urge itself? > --- To sell concert seats. To sell the original paintings. To spread the good word. Fame and fortune are still incentives without the government protectionism. Instead we have artists trying to be the next "one hit wonders".. I would argue that the arts have suffered greatly from government protectionism. > >Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of > >diagrams and designs. > > --- > Hmmm...??? It's all public domain. The public has access to it. Why not archive inventions like that? A good idea. Cheers - shevek [snip] >The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this >"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all. [snip] >Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them >money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that >is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of >investors rich for example. [snip] Sheeeesh! Another f.cking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything. Don't go away mad, just go away ;-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sheeeesh! Another f.cking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the > real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything. I'd love to hear a counter-opinion. That's why I'm posting here. However it looks like you are unwilling to provide me with one. What do you think I an unaware of re: how the real world operates? >> [snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >However it looks like you are unwilling to provide me with one. What >do you think I an unaware of re: how the real world operates? The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours" without any effort on your part. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > >> [snip]d operates? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights here. The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter. It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't contain protons. Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists? :) >> >> [snip]d operates? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't >contain protons. Intellectual property IS personal property... there is no difference. >Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists? >:) Shove it! ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > >> >> [snip]d operates? > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Intellectual property IS personal property... there is no difference. How so? Certainly not legally or physically.. > >Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists? > >:) > > Shove it! You first. Who is arguing for government control of the marketplace? Not I. How am I a socialist? On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:17:42 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> >> [snip]d operates? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists? > :) So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? You don't exist? Thanks, Rich > So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? > You don't exist? No, just that you don't exist! ;-) SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? >> You don't exist? > > No, just that you don't exist! ;-) Well, I know I exist, because I can feel me. I know the St. Louis Gateway Arch exists, because I've been up it. (well, that doesn't guarantee that it _still_ exists, but physical matter pretty much stays put per Newton). And so on. I'm pretty sure _you_ exist, at least on some level of reality, because if you were imaginary, you wouldn't constantly be bitching about your aches and pains. Have you ever tried feeling into your pains to ask them what their message for your spirit is? There might be some ideas you could look into here: http://www.godchannel.com/4steps.html Good Luck! Rich > >> So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? > >> You don't exist? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Good Luck! > Rich You would probably "feel the pain" if you weren't drunk all the time. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? >> You don't exist? > > No, just that you don't exist! ;-) Grease doesn't exist? You cracked the code? SignatureKeith > >> So, you're saying that ideas don't exist? Consciousness doesn't exist? > >> You don't exist? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Keith Its obvious, if you'll just look for the signs. ;-) SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> --- >> The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this >"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all. --- You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics. Wanna go back to that kind of a life? I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue. Goodbye. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without > intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, > no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics. > Wanna go back to that kind of a life? > > I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue. Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became considered ownable "intellectual property" >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became >considered ownable "intellectual property" What a pile of BS. "Traditions"? What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented and/or copyrighted? They say, "Ignorance is bliss". You must be very deeply into that state ;-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without > >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented > and/or copyrighted? Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies. To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly ignore the fact that they existed without it. >> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without >> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly >ignore the fact that they existed without it. Huh? Sounds like double-talk to me. Anything know to the public beforehand CAN NOT be patented or copyrighted. Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example. ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > >> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without > >> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example. Beowulf >> >> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without >> >> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Beowulf Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf? You're being vague and ignorant again... you are about to become amongst those of the great ignored ;-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > >> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to > >> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before > >> >the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies. > >> >To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly > >> >ignore the fact that they existed without it. > >> Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example. > > > >Beowulf > > Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf? No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the concept of copyrights. >> >> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to >> >> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the >concept of copyrights. Can you refer me to a copyright on the work? ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > >No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the > >concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption > >that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the > >concept of copyrights. > > Can you refer me to a copyright on the work? Of course not - which is exactly the point. It's an example of a creation that managed to get created even in John Field's supposedly dull and monochrome world without intellectual property. I can however refer you to a copyright on the modern story "Grendel" - as a demonstration on how much modern creativity owes to the public domain past. > Of course not - which is exactly the point. It's an example of a > creation that managed to get created even in John Field's supposedly > dull and monochrome world without intellectual property. And it is indeed interesting to see that 'intellectual property' is not absolute. Actually there are different kinds like trade marks, patents, copyrights, and so on. Which leads to the observation that there exist "intellectual things" which currently can not be owned. Things invented before is supposed to be one; trivial things another. There must be a reason the ownership of this 'property' is not absolute. And oh yes: please talk about the kind of ownership. "Intellectual property" as a term is very vague and a sign of lawyer-speak. "Gazweezmo version 6 is our 'intellectual property'" - yes, what about it is? The name? The copyright on the packaging? The copyright on the code? A patent on any oinvention that's inside? By using the vague term, lawyers try to use the law they like best to apply to the whole - probably even to the product idea (like Philips' great 'you can't zap away from the commercials' invention). Thomas >> >> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to >> >> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the >concept of copyrights. --- You seem to think that we still live in that time. We don't. Fast forward about a thousand years into the future from then and it becomes apparent that the need for copyright has come about precisely because of the need for artists to be protected from the wolves who would otherwise prey upon them. Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit, under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives. In fact, all you're really interested in being able to do is graze, free range, on what's out there for your own benfit. That kind of attitude and behavior can only contribute to the theft of resources from the artist, quite conceivably lowering his output and diminishing any enrichment our lives might attain from that source. Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and your ilk would be the first to cry wolf. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >Beowulf > You seem to think that we still live in that time. We don't. Fast > forward about a thousand years into the future from then and it > becomes apparent that the need for copyright has come about > precisely because of the need for artists to be protected from the > wolves who would otherwise prey upon them. I assume by wolves, you mean record companies? You're first mistake is to assume that the way things have turned out is the only positive path of development that could have occured. > Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right > to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit, > under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives. Your second mistake it putting words in my mouth. How do you know my views? I haven't actually expressed any - I merely pointed out counterexamples to your argument. > In fact, all you're really interested in being able to do is graze, > free range, on what's out there for your own benfit. That kind of > attitude and behavior can only contribute to the theft of resources > from the artist, quite conceivably lowering his output and > diminishing any enrichment our lives might attain from that source. Third mistake: continuing off on a tangent > Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with > people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and > deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe > was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and > your ilk would be the first to cry wolf. Fourth mistake: triggering Godwin to try to end an argument you realize you're loosing... Fifth mistake: assuming the present status quo will persist. For software and music recording it clearly won't. In the case of software, because the industry is rapidly outgrowing traditional publisher/monopoly concepts of copyright. In the case of music recordings, because copyright is so divorced from it's alleged purpose that an increasing segment of the public would no longer support the law if it were put to referendum. That doesn't mean that the alternative to the present system is no system; but it does mean that thiings will continue to change. > > Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with > > people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fourth mistake: triggering Godwin to try to end an argument you realize > you're loosing... What do you mean by "triggering Godwin"? Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the proability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Wher's the trigger? >> >> >Beowulf > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I assume by wolves, you mean record companies? --- No, pirates. Artists enter into deals with record companies. The deals may not be to the advantage of the artists, but that's just the result of the artist's ineptitude at business. --- >You're first mistake is to assume that the way things have turned out >is the only positive path of development that could have occured. --- It's not "you're" it's "your", and why would you assume that? The fact that I support patenting and trademarking give you no information whatever about my thoughts as to the possibility of alternate development paths existing. --- >> Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right >> to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit, >> under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives. > >Your second mistake it putting words in my mouth. How do you know my >views? --- You're mistaken, again. I haven't put words in your mouth, I've made clear what kind of person I think you are. --- >I haven't actually expressed any - I merely pointed out counterexamples >to your argument. --- That's not true. Your: "Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became considered ownable "intellectual property" " sounds to me like your view, at that particular point in time, was that I had made an ignorant assumption. --- >> In fact, all you're really interested in being able to do is graze, >> free range, on what's out there for your own benfit. That kind of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Third mistake: continuing off on a tangent --- LOL, everything's a mistake when it doesn't go exactly like you want it to, isn't it? --- >> Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with >> people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and >> deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe >> was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and >> your ilk would be the first to cry wolf. >Fourth mistake: triggering Godwin to try to end an argument you realize >you're loosing... --- Another error. I'm not trying to end anything, I'm loosing an argument on you which you can't seem to cope with and keep whining "mistake" instead of countering logically. In this instance, _you_ were the one, not I, who cited Godwin in an attempt to stop the argument instead of offering proof that your attitude isn't Nazi-like. --- >Fifth mistake: assuming the present status quo will persist. --- What makes you think I assume that? --- >For software and music recording it clearly won't. In the case of >software, because the industry is rapidly outgrowing traditional [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >alternative to the present system is no system; but it does mean that >thiings will continue to change. --- Platitudes and opinions. Blah, blah, blah... SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right > >> to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I haven't put words in your mouth, I've made clear what kind of > person I think you are. Which is exactly my point - you are arguing against your unfounded assumptions of my views, rather than against the substance of what i've actually said. In fact you don't seem to have challenged the substance at all yet. > >I haven't actually expressed any - I merely pointed out counterexamples > >to your argument. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sounds to me like your view, at that particular point in time, was > that I had made an ignorant assumption. Yes, because you ignored obvious counterexamples to your suggestion that certain types of intellectual property would not exist without protection; the counterexamples being that they were established fields of practice before they were protectable. > Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with > people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and > deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe > was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and > your ilk would be the first to cry wolf. It's the entitlement attitude, that got engendered when the government started getting into the nanny business. Thanks, Rich > Other than the Nazi aspect of it, thievery = nazism? hmmmm.... >I don't understand what it is with people like you who >think it's OK to take other people's work and >deal with it as if it were your own, I'd say that the desire for a free lunch is basic instinct, right behind self-preservation and sex. The fact that there is no free lunch (but plenty of plunderable lunches) is attributable to the second law of thermodynamics. I find it interesting, that people rarely link the laws of nature to human morality. > but I'm sure that if the shoe > was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and > your ilk would be the first to cry wolf. Of course. Consistency and ethics are inconveniences, obstacles to the free lunch. Mark >>> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to >>> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ...Jim Thompson I think what cs_posting is trying to say is that there have been people making stuff up for thousands of years, and nobody ever had to make up an artificial category of "intellectual property" in order to get paid, until quite recently. That's probably true, if you're looking at cave-man days. But then God created Thieves. The rest of the story I leave as an intellectual exercise for the reader. ;-) Cheers! Rich >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before >the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies. >To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly >ignore the fact that they existed without it. That's absurd, and is tantamount to saying that writing would have been impossible before the invention of the typewriter. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to > >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's absurd, and is tantamount to saying that writing would have > been impossible before the invention of the typewriter. You've just argued cs_posting's point (that external items -- IP, typewriters -- are not a requirement for art, etc to be produced). Steve >> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to >> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You've just argued cs_posting's point (that external items -- IP, >typewriters -- are not a requirement for art, etc to be produced). --- I disagree. Art _can't_ be produced without external items, but that wasn't cs_posting's point. What he was trying to do was to ridicule me by implying that I couln't understand a relationship as blatantly obvious as the one I illustrated. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became >considered ownable "intellectual property" --- Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property (which is the way to do it) belongs to them. let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up... Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell them the data. Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you? To someone else? Who? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what > something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone > thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which > allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property > (which is the way to do it) belongs to them. Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property. > let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up... > > Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a > way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets > around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell > them the data. Data? From what input? For what purpose? The irony of course is that calculus would not be protectable even if first discovered today. > Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who > knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the > data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you? Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Yet there are lots of advances ongoing there as well... >> Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what >> something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as >granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property. --- The point you seem to be incapable of understanding is that granting them ownership isn't necessary. The fact that the idea was theirs in the first place makes them inherently the owner of the idea and whether they choose to develop that idea commercially themselves or license someone else to do it is none of your business. Why do you think we say, without even thinking about it, "That was my idea", or "That was her idea"? It's because it's so obvious it doesn't need explaining. Except, perhaps, to you. Same like with kids. We don't need anyone to to tell us they're ours, they just are. In the same vein, your tacit assumption that those who originated the idea need to be granted the right to _use_ the idea smacks of that you think you should be in control of what they do with what's theirs. Not a pretty picture. Say I get an idea about writing a poem which makes you look like a Nazi, since you do. According to your rules, prior to publishing it here I'd have to send it by you for approval and unless it was couched in terms which you considered to be innocuous (that wouldn't be too hard to do, I think) it would never see the light of day. Who needs that kind of crap? None of us. --- >> let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Data? From what input? For what purpose? --- It doesn't matter. The point is that it was _my_ method which yielded the data, and using _my_ method I can demonstrate that I can predict the future. It's easy. I'll tell you where your anus will be one year from today, today, and if you go and look for it a year from now and it's precisely where I said it would be you'll know I was right. Still, It's _my_ method. I own it, and unless I choose to share it, for whatever reason, it will go with me to the grave. --- >The irony of course is that calculus would not be protectable even if >first discovered today. --- That's ridiculous. The secret is to not disclose. --- >> Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who >> knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the >> data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you? > >Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Yet >there are lots of advances ongoing there as well... --- As always, ignorance is the best posture to assume. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > It's easy. I'll tell you where your anus will be one year from > today, today, and if you go and look for it a year from now and it's > precisely where I said it would be you'll know I was right. > > Still, It's _my_ method. I own it, and unless I choose to share it, > for whatever reason, it will go with me to the grave. Ah, but if I can make the same prediction, using my own method, even if the method duplicates your own, if you haven't disclosed it, then it's mine as well, wouldn't you say? Which is why they have all these copyright laws and what-not? As a matter of fact, I have a real-life story about something very much like this. It was one of the semi-finals or finals in some foo-foo college class, and there was a big flap that someone had cheated because these two students' answer sheets were so similar. After investigating, they couldn't find any evidence that either had cheated - this was a lecture class of about 300, and they were essentially sitting in opposite corners of the auditorium - they just, coincidentally, happened to come up with exactly the same answers. I think the thing that made the authorities so suspicious was that it was an essay test. =:-O But, whoever gets it to market first wins, right? ;-) (BTW, I can also predict the position of people's ani, barring disaster (pun initially unintended, but I'm leaving it in. %-D ) Thanks! Rich > In the same vein, your tacit assumption that those who originated > the idea need to be granted the right to _use_ the idea smacks of > that you think you should be in control of what they do with what's > theirs. In John's dictionary, the word "tacit" is apparently defined as "neither present nor even hinted at in the post I'm replying to" I'm really curious where you came up with this idea that I was arguing anything along the lines of "those who originated the idea need to be granted the right to _use_ the idea" That's your invention, not mine. > > In the same vein, your tacit assumption that those who originated > > the idea need to be granted the right to _use_ the idea smacks of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > granted the right to _use_ the idea" > That's your invention, not mine. Ah, I think I've figured it out. John is unable to comprehend the possibility of a system in which ideas are not ownable or treatable as virtual property. As a result, when I suggested that recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to use the invention as virtual property, he translated the rules of the ideas-as-property system to erroneously conlude that the inventor would not be allowed to make _practical use_ of the idea. Wheras the opposite is true - if ideas are not ownable property, then anyone can make use of them. Since there's been a lot of jumping to conclusions, I feel the need to point out that I have not recommended a switch to such a system. What I have done is tried to point out that ideas as virtual property is a recent construct and not the only possibility - to the practical end of reminding everyone that these conventions are open to debate, and while they are unlikely to be abandoned, they are certain to be modified over time. > >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they are unlikely to be abandoned, they are certain to be modified over > time. Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and beneficial. More and more these questions are being brought up in mainstream press, e.g. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/ipmyths.htm Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue: 1) Communication technology. As people are better able to communicate, those who would try to prevent communication to maintain an IP monopoly are left with little recourse but to model their business plans in a more capitalisitic fashion. Unenforceable legislation is doomed. 2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are using the system in more and more detrimental ways. Nobody minds too much if e.g. publishers can skim a little more profit, but when corporations don't let you re-plant your seeds or claim to own your DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something is wrong. Cheers - shevek > 2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has > also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something > is wrong. Re-plant your seeds? How the hell do you do that? The seed becomes the plant. The seeds from those plants are not the same as the seed that grew them because they were grown from a hybrid seed. If you use seeds from those plants you will not get the same quality from the next generation. They revert to one of the varieties that comprised the hybrid, all of which are smaller and less hardy. SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida > Re-plant your seeds? How the hell do you do that? The seed becomes > the plant. The seeds from those plants are not the same as the seed > that grew them because they were grown from a hybrid seed. If you use > seeds from those plants you will not get the same quality from the next > generation. They revert to one of the varieties that comprised the > hybrid, all of which are smaller and less hardy. Sometimes this hybrid issue is a natural result of trying to include positive end-user charactersitics. But sometimes it's an artifical issue introduced merely to prevent replanting part of last year's harvest. Google "terminator gene" And sometimes it's purely a legal "virtual property" issue - ie, biologically possible to replant from the previous year's harvest, but legally prohibited - and enforced typically be seed company inspectors driving around checking unlicensed fields for plants with a proprietary characteristic, such as herbicide resistance. >Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still >further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/ipmyths.htm --- The mainstream press??? LOL, You cite a badly thought out and unimplementable plan by an obviously socialist publicist, and a set of opinions decrying the protection of intellectual property with an avenue provided for dissemination, but with no avenue provided for disagreement. Yeah, that's the kind of sh.t I can get behind... --- >Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue: > >1) Communication technology. As people are better able to communicate, >those who would try to prevent communication to maintain an IP monopoly >are left with little recourse but to model their business plans in a >more capitalisitic fashion. Unenforceable legislation is doomed. --- Tricky. You spout a lot of sh.t and then end it with a sentence which is true, making it seem like what went before must also, therefore, be true. --- >2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has >also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something >is wrong. --- What's wrong is that people like you report not the unvarnished truth, but just enough of the truth with enough of the details obscured to suit your cause. For example, let's look at the issue of genetically engineered high-yield corn. It's not like the formula for it came with no effort expended and, once it was developed, the deals made regarding its cultivation were unilateral. Basically, it's buy the seed, plant it, and sell (say) three times what you could with the old seed corn, but if you want to use the new seed you have to agree to buy it every time you plant a new crop instead of saving some of the harvest to use as seed corn. If you don't want to agree to the deal, then don't. But if you do, and you raise a second crop with seeds which you agreed not to plant, then you're clearly in violation of the contract. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still > >further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Yeah, that's the kind of sh.t I can get behind... In what way is a more free market "socialist" ? What part about letting entrepeneurs use publicly available information to create products for consumers is socialist? If anything is socialist or communist about this issue, it is government creation of a monopoly. Patents were originally monarchistic - allowing those favored by the crown to control a market. --- > >Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue: > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > If you don't want to agree to the deal, then don't. Unfortunately that's not an option under current intellectual property law. You aren't asked if you want to agree to the deal; rather, you are forced. > But if you do, and you raise a second crop with seeds which you > agreed not to plant, then you're clearly in violation of the > contract. Yes, if you agreed to such a contract. Instead, people who haven't agreed to such contracts are being shut down. >> >Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still >> >further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >What part about letting entrepeneurs use publicly available information >to create products for consumers is socialist? --- The part that makes you think that just because information is publically available it's free to use indiscriminately. It's not. We live in a capitalistic society in the US, and when the information is disclosed, for the betterment of mankind as a whole, the discloser of the information is given, in return, the privilege of being able to use the idea, exclusively, for his own financial gain for a limited time. In a socialistic society such as you advocate the idea would, at the moment of disclosure, become the property of the collective. Or, perhaps, from your point of view, it would become the property of the collective at the moment of conception and failure to divulge it would result in punishment of some kind. --- >If anything is socialist or communist about this issue, it is >government creation of a monopoly. --- You need to brush up on your social studies. Monopolies are anathema to socialism and communism. --- >Patents were originally >monarchistic - allowing those favored by the crown to control a market. --- But that's no longer true, so what's your point? The only parallel between that and what's done now is that in return for disclosure (for not keeping the idea secret), the government (the monarchy) will give the discloser (the favored person) a license to a monopoly for a limited time. Fair exchange, I'd say. --- >> >Two factors that I see leading to a paradigm shift on this issue: >> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >law. You aren't asked if you want to agree to the deal; rather, you >are forced. --- That's not true; no one is forcing you to buy the genetically engineered corn. You can always plant plain old corn and there'll always be a market for it. However, if you want a threefold increase in your output then you buy the genetically engineered corn at the price asked. Simple. Someone spent a lot of money taking the risk of figuring out how to get that yield increase, and they need to be compensated for that. That compensation includes their being able to maximize their return on their investment, and it's really none of your business how they do that. But, as always, if you have a bitch, take it to the courts. --- >> But if you do, and you raise a second crop with seeds which you >> agreed not to plant, then you're clearly in violation of the >> contract. > >Yes, if you agreed to such a contract. Instead, people who haven't >agreed to such contracts are being shut down. --- It's called competition. If you want to be in business you do what it takes to get your share of the market. If you don't, someone else will. But, that's not what this is about, is it? What you're advocating is that any and all information disclosed be placed in the public domain, which is just plain old socialism. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >Thanks for your help on this issue CS. I will go out on a limb still > >> >further, and say that a switch to such a system looks likely and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Monopolies are anathema to socialism and communism. You mean like, the French train system? Or the soviet union's gas companies? Those monopolies are anathema to socialism and communism? Maybe you mean like Cuba's health care monopoly? Or perhaps China's telecommunications system? I don't think so. Government enforced monopolies are very much socialistic or communistic, as I understand these terms. --- > >Patents were originally > >monarchistic - allowing those favored by the crown to control a market. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > you have a bitch, take it to the courts. > --- The problem is that most genetic patents are made on pre-existing sequences. Sure, a lot of work went into doing the sequencing, but doing that work was the choice of the workers. If they didn't see fair compensation coming, why did they do that work? > >> But if you do, and you raise a second crop with seeds which you > >> agreed not to plant, then you're clearly in violation of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What you're advocating is that any and all information disclosed be > placed in the public domain, which is just plain old socialism. You have it exactly backwards. Last time I checked, socialism was not defined as information placed in the public domain. I'm only suggesting that we allow competition. IP laws currenty forbid it, in a government controlled system. Not that I'm entirely against socialist institutions, for example public libraries and roads, but in this case I'm making the case against one of them: so-called intellectual property legislation. You have to at least admit that this is a case of governments deciding the course of industry and distribution. Doesn't mean you don't like it or you don't think it's a good idea, but at least admit it's socialist. Cheers - shevek > 2) Corruption. As IP laws have grown and changed, the corruption has > also grown. Now, it is easier to see the problem because people are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > DNA, and when certain prime numbers are illegal, it's clear something > is wrong. Well, Whenever someone tries to impose a 4 year minimum prison term for copying or brand falsification you know something is wrong. They are trying now in the EU. And I hope it will backfire. Take a t-shirt with you from holiday, get caught at customs, and face 4 years in prison. Minimum - no haggling. Doesn't even have to be a falsification: parallel import does the trick as well. Even then: try going to a third world country and finding a shirt _without_ a major brand name on it. Thomas > Take a t-shirt with you from holiday, get caught at customs, and face 4 > years in prison. Minimum - no haggling. I knowingly bought a fake Nike shirt in Singapore some years ago to give to a friend who has significant investments in them... wow! (And the quality was noticeably poorer than the real thing...) >> Take a t-shirt with you from holiday, get caught at customs, and face 4 >> years in prison. Minimum - no haggling. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (And the quality was noticeably poorer than the real thing...) The people who propose this kind of law promote corruption - that's my point. And I hope this proposal will backfire. Do corporations elect politicians? I thought not. AFAIK a few years ago grey imports into the EU were allowed. Now they are forbidden - corporate wants this. So you can't even take a Nike shirt that's legal in the US and bring it to Europe - not for trade anyway. And is customs is overzealous you couldn't even travel in brand name clothing :) And this is used - Volkwagen had customs impound the 'new beetle' at the time when it was available in the US but not yet in Europe. But that is a lousy car anyway. Thomas >> > In the same vein, your tacit assumption that those who originated >> > the idea need to be granted the right to _use_ the idea smacks of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Ah, I think I've figured it out. --- Finally? --- >John is unable to comprehend the possibility of a system in which ideas >are not ownable or treatable as virtual property. --- Well, that's not even remotely correct, so that can't be why you think you've figured it out, even though you might think you have. --- >As a result, when I suggested that recognizing an >inventor need not include granting them the right to use the invention >as virtual property, he translated the rules of the ideas-as-property >system to erroneously conlude that the inventor would not be allowed to >make _practical use_ of the idea. --- You just blather on with no thought at all behind it and hope for the best, don't you? The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know it. Here's the original: "Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property." And here's its second even more heinous incarnation, from above: "recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to use the invention" So, if I invent something under your system, it's not inherently mine and I don't inherently have the right to use it? You don't think that stinks? --- >Wheras the opposite is true - if >ideas are not ownable property, then anyone can make use of them. --- But ideas _are_ ownable property. Take, for example, trade secrets. --- >Since there's been a lot of jumping to conclusions, I feel the need to >point out that I have not recommended a switch to such a system. What [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >they are unlikely to be abandoned, they are certain to be modified over >time. --- Instead of just blathering on ad nauseam with platitudes and generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ stand? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know > it. Here's the original: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to > use the invention" That's your statement not mine! Why do you keep constructing outrageous straw men to argue against? > >Wheras the opposite is true - if > >ideas are not ownable property, then anyone can make use of them. > > But ideas _are_ ownable property. Take, for example, trade secrets. Only in some systems are ideas ownable property. Apparently you aren't able to think in the context of systems where they are not, long enough to form sensible conclusions about how things would work in those systems. > Instead of just blathering on ad nauseam with platitudes and > generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ stand? "Ideas as virtual propety" is an artificial enough concept that while it has substantial merit, it cannot be applied without constantly keeping in mind the fact that it's an artifical creation subject to compromise, not a mandatory state of affairs. You cannot blindly apply physical property concepts to virtual property, because the "property-ness" of virtual property is limited by the compromise that grants it status as proprety. (some would say that the ownability of physical property is also a compromise - which is true - but it's a much less precarious one than that of virtual property) cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote: > > The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know > > it. Here's the original: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That's your statement not mine! Specifically, by dropping the "as virtual property" from my original, John constructed a new statement with a nearly opposite meaning of the original, then fradulently attributed his new statement to me so that he could argue against an outrageous straw man, rather than the reasoned arguments I actually presented. >cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote: >> > The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >he could argue against an outrageous straw man, rather than the >reasoned arguments I actually presented. --- I misread your second statement and trimmed it for convenience. I apologize for that. However, my position is still that the idea is inherently the property of its originator, who should be free to do with it what he chooses. Give it away, sell it, rent it, whatever. Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how it'll be used. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how > it'll be used. Thanks John for your responses to these perhaps radical ideas. One more comment: Under IP laws, an idea does not belong to its originator, but belongs to whoever is favored by (who has paid) the governors. The originator, other people who came up with it (what idea has ever been had by only a single person?), those who appreciate the work and would build on it, and those who could use the idea to better the economy, are out of luck, at least in the lands under power of the crown - I mean the forementioned governernors. >Thanks John for your responses to these perhaps radical ideas. --- They're not radical at all, they're embodied in the philosophies of communism and socialism. --- >One more comment: > >Under IP laws, an idea does not belong to its originator, but belongs >to whoever is favored by (who has paid) the governors. --- That's not true. The idea belongs to the originator until he assigns it to someone else. --- > The originator, >other people who came up with it (what idea has ever been had by only a >single person?), those who appreciate the work and would build on it, >and those who could use the idea to better the economy, are out of >luck, at least in the lands under power of the crown - I mean the >forementioned governernors. --- That's all hogwash. In the case of simultaneous invention, the one who kept better records of the date of conception, got to the patent office first, or was more diligent in reducing the invention to practice will be awarded the patent, all at the discretion of the patent office. Those who appreciate the work and would build on it should, and then file their own patent application if they want to practice it unencumbered. Otherwise, get it to the marketplace and take your chances on getting hit with an infringement suit. Those who would use the idea to better the economy? Total and utter horseshit. Just because someone wants to infringe on another's patent or copyright and claims that by doing so the economy will be improved is a thief with an excuse. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >Thanks John for your responses to these perhaps radical ideas. > > --- > They're not radical at all, they're embodied in the philosophies of > communism and socialism. > --- OK, so communism and socialism suggest that the means of prouction should not be controlled by a central government? That's news to me.. > >One more comment: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > assigns it to someone else. > --- It belongs to the patent holder under current laws. > > The originator, > >other people who came up with it (what idea has ever been had by only a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > or was more diligent in reducing the invention to practice will be > awarded the patent, all at the discretion of the patent office. I am advocating a meritocracy or free market as opposed to this handing out of production rights at the discretion of the authorities. > Those who appreciate the work and would build on it should, and then > file their own patent application if they want to practice it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > patent or copyright and claims that by doing so the economy will be > improved is a thief with an excuse. The thief is the one holding unfair monopoly rights in my opinion. >> >Thanks John for your responses to these perhaps radical ideas. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >OK, so communism and socialism suggest that the means of prouction >should not be controlled by a central government? That's news to me.. --- Hmmm... well, then, what did you mean by "radical ideas"? --- >> >Under IP laws, an idea does not belong to its originator, but belongs >> >to whoever is favored by (who has paid) the governors. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It belongs to the patent holder under current laws. --- In the same vein as "A secret's only a secret if only one person knows about it, I believe an idea belongs to the originator of the idea until it's divulged, at which time it ceases to be "owned" by anyone. What a patent affords the patentee, or the assignee, is the right to exclude others from using the embodiment of the idea for a limited time. --- >I am advocating a meritocracy or free market as opposed to this handing >out of production rights at the discretion of the authorities. --- The problem with your "meritocracy" is that, ultimately, it would degenerate into an oligarchy or worse yet, a monarchy. Consider: I'm a software pirate um... "entrepreneur" in your public domain free market world and I have the means available to copy and sell ten times the volume at half the price that anyone else can in your world. I don't think it takes much of a stretch to see what'll happen as time goes by and I acquire more and more resources. Eventually I'll control everything. --- >> Those who would use the idea to better the economy? Total and utter >> horseshit. Just because someone wants to infringe on another's >> patent or copyright and claims that by doing so the economy will be >> improved is a thief with an excuse. >The thief is the one holding unfair monopoly rights in my opinion. --- Someone is holding unfair monopoly rights in your opinion? Don't worry, they'll go broke soon enough... ;) SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >Thanks John for your responses to these perhaps radical ideas. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Hmmm... well, then, what did you mean by "radical ideas"? > --- I meant radically free market ideas. Elimination of state-mandated IP monopolies is a radical change that will not happen overnight, as industry restructures and the patent offices change their mission to focus on the library aspect. > >> >Under IP laws, an idea does not belong to its originator, but belongs > >> >to whoever is favored by (who has paid) the governors. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > limited time. > --- I agree that's what a patent affords the patentee. The argument I've been giving here is that such a system is detrimental to the economy and human progress, and is anethema to laissez-faire economics and capitalism. > >I am advocating a meritocracy or free market as opposed to this handing > >out of production rights at the discretion of the authorities. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Eventually I'll control everything. > --- This is indeed a potential problem. If you can keep the prices down as you say, and produce good products still, you will drive out all competition. Then, you can raise the prices. Then, when competition returns, you can lower prices again to drive them out of business. We could also debate anti-trust laws here, but as far as IP laws go, they mean that you will control everything from the start - by law. Hardly an improvement! > >> Those who would use the idea to better the economy? Total and utter > >> horseshit. Just because someone wants to infringe on another's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't worry, they'll go broke soon enough... ;) Touché.. I set myself up for that one. >> --- >> Hmmm... well, then, what did you mean by "radical ideas"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >industry restructures and the patent offices change their mission to >focus on the library aspect. --- What you seem to be advocating is an anarchistic marketplace, and should such a thing come about, then I think "industry" would respond by becoming more and more secretive and relying more and more on trade secrets than on patents for protection. Also, should that happen, there'd be nothing for the patent office to archive, would there? --- >> --- >> In the same vein as "A secret's only a secret if only one person [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and human progress, and is anethema to laissez-faire economics and >capitalism. --- You say that as if it were fact, but your "argument" is merely a hollow opinion devoid of proof. --- >> --- >> The problem with your "meritocracy" is that, ultimately, it would [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >they mean that you will control everything from the start - by law. >Hardly an improvement! --- Not true. IP law affords me protection and allows me to control only a small segment of the market because there will be others who are similarly protected whose protection I won't be legally allowed to usurp. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >I meant radically free market ideas. Elimination of state-mandated IP > >monopolies is a radical change that will not happen overnight, as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > respond by becoming more and more secretive and relying more and > more on trade secrets than on patents for protection. Lassaiz-faire to the max... Quite seriously though, I have some doubt how secret most ideas of practical use in commerce can remain once they are used. The bargain that is a patent dates from an era when secret knowledge was a serious problem. (guild knowledge, the design for some of America's first mills being smuggled over in an engineer's head because of English export controls on the paper documents, etc) Today it's often enough to know that something is possible or have an example of it - if you really want to understand it, you then can. Also any research funded by government should include a requirement of open publication, excepting perhaps a few narrow national security cases. Finally there are many companies realizing that it's better to share knowledge even when they know their competitors will make use of it - open source software being an example of sharing not only knowledge, but the actual product that embodies it. There's also a lot of disclosure in what amounts to bragging right publications, participation by industrial scientists in academic journals and conferences, and of course technical sales documents and data sheets. It's possible that without patent protection data sheets would only be available under NDA, but my guess is that this would not be workable on a grand scale. A few companies do work that way, but they mostly sell to a handfull of high volume customers, more specifically, they mostly sell subsytems consisting of both silicon and firmware for applications where there's no comparable complete open solution. > >> --- > >> Hmmm... well, then, what did you mean by "radical ideas"? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to archive, would there? > --- Yes, and yes. The patent houses could be transformed into the role of any other public journal.. IEEE transactions for example. > >> --- > >> In the same vein as "A secret's only a secret if only one person [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > hollow opinion devoid of proof. > --- Alas, proof in a mathematical sense is impossible in economics and social science. Which of my arguments do you find not persuasive? > >> --- > >> The problem with your "meritocracy" is that, ultimately, it would [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > similarly protected whose protection I won't be legally allowed to > usurp. An interesting argument! You defend IP law, by saying it allows one to compete fairly in a marketplace which alread has IP law? >> >> --- >> >> Hmmm... well, then, what did you mean by "radical ideas"? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Yes, and yes. The patent houses could be transformed into the role of >any other public journal.. IEEE transactions for example. --- And if frogs had wings... Your "arguments" are nonsensical and seem to be contrived for the purpose of generating an argument for arguments' sake. I have no time for that kind of crap. --- >> >> --- >> >> In the same vein as "A secret's only a secret if only one person [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Alas, proof in a mathematical sense is impossible in economics and >social science. Which of my arguments do you find not persuasive? --- All of them. --- >> >> --- >> >> The problem with your "meritocracy" is that, ultimately, it would [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >An interesting argument! You defend IP law, by saying it allows one to >compete fairly in a marketplace which alread has IP law? --- Yes, of course. You play in your yard and I'll play in mine. The reason you may have trouble seeing that is because you are, admittedly, nothing more than a common thief who really doesn't _want_ competion, but merely wants to take what's not his at his convenience. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> --- > >> >> Hmmm... well, then, what did you mean by "radical ideas"? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I have no time for that kind of crap. > --- More and more people do have time for government reform, thankfully. If not, things wouldn't get any better. > >> >> --- > >> >> In the same vein as "A secret's only a secret if only one person [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > --- > All of them. You do agree that IP laws are inherently a socialist institution, correct? > --- > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > _want_ competion, but merely wants to take what's not his at his > convenience. This entire thread has been about my arguments to allow competition, and you say I don't want it. Is that what you call playing in your own yard? How about some other unjustified insults? This "thief" business isn't getting the mileage you need here. > Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the > idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of > collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how > it'll be used. No, that is not my position at all, but you jumping to wild conclusions. My position (the cliff notes version, since you apparently couldn't understand the full version) is that ideas are not completely ownable. In some ways they are, and in some ways they are not - and in any dispute over ownership of ideas or ownership rights to ideas, the first question that has to be answered is if the subject idea can even be considered ownable property in the narrow context of the specific issue that is to be decided. On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:15:16 -0700, cs_posting wrote: >> Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the >> idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My position (the cliff notes version, since you apparently couldn't > understand the full version) is that ideas are not completely ownable. ... OK, that's clear enough. And, it happens to be wrong. If you're not the owner of your own creations, then, pray tell, who exactly is? Thanks, Rich > > My position (the cliff notes version, since you apparently couldn't > > understand the full version) is that ideas are not completely ownable. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you're not the owner of your own creations, then, pray tell, who > exactly is? Rather obviously, to the extent that an idea is not ownable, no one owns it. We can only argue about the ownership of the ownable properties of the idea, along with the question of what properties of the idea are ownable. >> Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the >> idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >considered ownable property in the narrow context of the specific issue >that is to be decided. --- Geez, that sounds pretty close to my wild conclusions. Let's see... There needs to be someone or some body who's going to decide on whether an idea is ownable, and if it is, who owns it. Did I miss something? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > Geez, that sounds pretty close to my wild conclusions. > > Let's see... > > There needs to be someone or some body who's going to decide on > whether an idea is ownable, and if it is, who owns it. Yes, in the US that would be congress, patent examiners, the courts, international treaties, and their dispute resolution organizations. > Did I miss something? Yes. Your conclusion (below) reaches far, far beyond my position > >> Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the > >> idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of > >> collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how > >> it'll be used. The principal difference being that you add the rather outrageous idea of an inventor needing permission from some nebulous body to make use of the un-ownable properties of their idea. In actually, things work the opposite way. An inventor needs the assistance of government to enforce his ownership interest in the ownable properties of the idea by preventing others from legally using it without his permission. Absent that government cooperation, and for the aspects of the idea which the government does not consider ownable, there are no legal impediments to the use of the idea by the inventor or anyone else. Since people seem to get so distracted by trying to identify the owner of things that are not ownable, I'll respond with three questions: 1) Who owns pi? 2) Who decides what I can do with it? 3) Is this state of affairs the result of action taken by a government or other entity, or is the the result of government declining to become involved in regulation of pi? (as a side note, because our language often uses the same structure to represent genetive and possesive relationships, the occasional oddity alsong the lines of "their own un-ownable idea" actually is meaningfull) On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:40:08 -0700, cs_posting wrote: >> Geez, that sounds pretty close to my wild conclusions. >> Let's see... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > or other entity, or is the the result of government declining to become > involved in regulation of pi? They haven't always so declined: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22pi+equal+to+three%22+legislation Cheers! Rich >> Geez, that sounds pretty close to my wild conclusions. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >of an inventor needing permission from some nebulous body to make use >of the un-ownable properties of their idea. --- Since you stated, above, that an idea needs to be presented to an authority of some kind in order to determine whether it's ownable or not and, if it is who its owner is, it follows that the use of the idea must be curtailed until that determination is made. After all, if it turns out that the inventor isn't the owner, and someone else is, it just wouldn't do to allow the inventor to infringe on his invention, now would it? I agree that that's an outrageous premise, but it's not mine, it's a logical consequence of your argument. --- >In actually, things work the opposite way. An inventor needs the >assistance of government to enforce his ownership interest in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >there are no legal impediments to the use of the idea by the inventor >or anyone else. --- More platitudes, and a remarkable grasp of the obvious. You spout the banal as if it were complex. ;) --- >Since people seem to get so distracted by trying to identify the owner >of things that are not ownable, I'll respond with three questions: > >1) Who owns pi? --- Now, everyone. Once upon a time, one person. >2) Who decides what I can do with it? --- Now, no one. Once upon a time, only one person _could_ do anything with it. --- >3) Is this state of affairs the result of action taken by a government >or other entity, or is the the result of government declining to become >involved in regulation of pi? --- Silly boy, it was a government action in either case, since a government acts on whether it should involve itself or not. --- >(as a side note, because our language often uses the same structure to >represent genetive and possesive relationships, the occasional oddity >alsong the lines of "their own un-ownable idea" actually is >meaningfull) --- Well, if you're writing as a linguist, I'm surprised at "possesive", "alsong", "meaningfull", "In actually", (actually, I kind of like that one) and "or is the the"... SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > Since you stated, above, that an idea needs to be presented to an > authority of some kind in order to determine whether it's ownable or > not and, if it is who its owner is, it follows that the use of the > idea must be curtailed until that determination is made. No, you have it exactly backwards. Unless someone else claims a recognized ownership right, there is no legal impediment to anyone doing anything with the idea. I'm really struggling to figure out why you missed this, given that it's already how our system works. >> Since you stated, above, that an idea needs to be presented to an >> authority of some kind in order to determine whether it's ownable or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >recognized ownership right, there is no legal impediment to anyone >doing anything with the idea. What you said was that before ownership of an idea can be determined, some body has to rule on whether it can be owned or not. That's not at all like saying that until ownership is established everyone owns it, it's like saying that until ownership is established _no one_ owns it. It follows, therefore, that if I don't own it I'm not free to use it, if you don't own it you're not free to use it, and if no one owns it then no one is free to use it until the body making the ownership decision makes their determination. Once that decision is made, then whether it can be owned, what part of it can be owned and who owns it, and what part goes into the public domain will have been ruled on and life will go on with that matter settled Perhaps that's not what you _meant_ to say, but that's what you said, nevertheless. >I'm really struggling to figure out why you missed this, given that >it's already how our system works. LOL, I didn't miss a thing, including you moving the goalposts! SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > What you said was that before ownership of an idea can be > determined, some body has to rule on whether it can be owned or not. > That's not at all like saying that until ownership is established > everyone owns it, it's like saying that until ownership is > established _no one_ owns it. Yes, until ownership has been established there is no owner - it's actually still in doubt if the idea is even one which can have an owner under the applicable laws. However where you are going with this makes no sense: > It follows, therefore, that if I > don't own it I'm not free to use it, if you don't own it you're not > free to use it, and if no one owns it then no one is free to use it That is completely illogical and does not follow at all. The natural state is freedom to do anything you are physically capable of doing or bringing about - restrictions can only come into play once a body with the authority to impose restrictions decides to impose them. In the case of abstract property concerns that would usually be at the request of someone claiming an ownership interest. You are free to print or manufacture until I convince a judge that it's sufficiently likely that your product infringes my patent or copyright, that the judge is willing to assue a temporary restraining order and force you to stop while the question is decided. It's possible that if I win I will be awareded damages for what you have already done, but until I present a plausible claim of ownership there is no restriction on you, and until I prove my claim any restriction would be only temporary. But even if you are infringing my ownership, there is nothing to stop you absent action by myself or someone I have asked to look out for my interests. (though in a few cases, such as pirate DVD's being sold on the street the request to the authorities for action may be quite general, plus there are occasional cases of mistaken ownership claims) > until the body making the ownership decision makes their > determination. Once that decision is made, then whether it can be > owned, what part of it can be owned and who owns it, and what part > goes into the public domain will have been ruled on and life will go > on with that matter settled Yes, but such a decision need only be made if someone attempts to exercise an ownership right by stopping someone else from using the idea. Absent such action action by a plausible owner, there is no restriction. Absent a reason to expect such action, there is no need to worry about it or wait for resolution. Granted, some may be hesitant to invest in something until they have satisfied themselves that no enforceable claims will be made against them, but that tends to be either self-imposed, or imposed as part of the investment/securities rules. It's about the conditions you have to satisfy to get the money or assistance to do something, not about what you are actually allowed to do with your own money and your own hands. >> What you said was that before ownership of an idea can be >> determined, some body has to rule on whether it can be owned or not. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >That is completely illogical and does not follow at all. --- Of course it does. The condition which allows free use is common ownership, which is exactly the opposite of the condition you endorse; initial non-ownership. Just to be clear, my position has been, from the beginning, that an idea belongs to its originator until it's shared. Yours seems to be that even before it's shared it has no owner. If that were true, then since even it's originator wouldn't be its owner and ownership would have to be granted by some external authority, its originator wouldn't be free to use it until that determination was made. Ridiculous, of course, but the natural consequence of following your fallacious logical path. Clear yet??? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> It follows, therefore, that if I > >> don't own it I'm not free to use it, if you don't own it you're not > >> free to use it, and if no one owns it then no one is free to use it > > > >That is completely illogical and does not follow at all. > Of course it does. > > The condition which allows free use is common ownership, which is > exactly the opposite of the condition you endorse; initial > non-ownership. Please explain to me what legal impediments there are to using something for which no one has claimed ownership. Fears yes - legally enforced impediments, no. >> >> It follows, therefore, that if I >> >> don't own it I'm not free to use it, if you don't own it you're not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Please explain to me what legal impediments there are to using >something for which no one has claimed ownership. --- That should be, "to", not "for". OK. In any system where it's legal to do anything which isn't specifically illegal, there would be no impediment. However, in a system such as the one you espouse, where no one can own anything without permission from an authorizing body, the impediment would be the illegality of taking something which wasn't yours and using it for your own purposes without permission. Clear yet??? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >Please explain to me what legal impediments there are to using > >something for which no one has claimed ownership. > > OK. In any system where it's legal to do anything which isn't > specifically illegal, there would be no impediment. I'm asking about our present system here in the US, actually. > However, in a system such as the one you espouse, where no one can > own anything without permission from an authorizing body, the > impediment would be the illegality of taking something which wasn't > yours and using it for your own purposes without permission. That is not the system I espouse. This idea of only being able to do something by explicit permission is your idea, not something that I have advocated at all. What you seem to be missing is that ownership does not need to be adjudciated until knowing the result is necessary to process a claim of infringement. Impediments to infringement do not exist until someone objects or exerts an ownership claim that would customarily imply objection. This is not theoretical - it's how things work in the US today. Infringement may be illegal, but until an attempt at enforcement is made and adjudicated, an activity is only potentially illegal, because it has not yet been decided if the activity actually constitutes infringement of something that is actually owned. There's no need to rule on the issue of ownership until an attempt at enforcement of an ownership right is made. While the patent office does do a little examination before awarding a patent, it's been a long time since that by itself constituted an award of ownership. In reality, it's only potential ownership - the real question will only be decided in the courts, and only if there's enough doubt that parties who can afford to fight it out decide to. Otherwise the question will never actually be decided - yet the world will keep going. If you are a Harvard student and write a book in your spare time, you do not have to prove ownership of the contents to publish it yourself, though you may have to sign some statements for a publisher to get them to print it. If someone else then claims you have infringed their copyright of a different book, they can attempt legal action to stop you and retroactively punish you - but there were no impediments until they objected. Indeed, if you are a best selling author and your publisher stands behind your art history / religious mystery novel, they may take the risk of going right on printing it even while waiting for the courts to rule on a claim that someone has brought against you. If you import a container of DVD's in packages imprinted with a well known title and the copyright notice of a major Hollywood studio, and there is some doubt if they are authorized by the entity whose ownership claim is asserted by that copyright notice, customs may indeed impound them until you can prove they are authorised, because there's been a general request to enforce those copyrights. If you import something that looks like a Hollywood movie, without documentation, customs might mistakenly impound them until you convince them that it's actually an authorised copy of something original. Mistakes happen, but the basic mechanism is that there are no governmental impediments except where there's an impression that apparent owners have requested enforcement of apparent rights. (Bringing customs into it complicates things as there are other laws being enforced there as well, but it is one of the few major points where government has a standing request to interedict infringing works on behalf of the rights owners) >> >Please explain to me what legal impediments there are to using >> >something for which no one has claimed ownership. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I'm asking about our present system here in the US, actually. --- Then you have your answer. --- >> However, in a system such as the one you espouse, where no one can >> own anything without permission from an authorizing body, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >something by explicit permission is your idea, not something that I >have advocated at all. --- Instead of "This idea" it should be "The idea". As far as the idea of explicit permission goes, I seem to recall that you were the one who advocated non-ownership until ownership was granted by explicit permission of some governing body. But let's cut to the chase, OK? You f.cked up and you don't want to have to own up to it, so you'll spend the rest of your life making excuses for why you couldn't get to the egg. In the end it won't matter, and good riddance. --- Hey, the cs part of cs_posting is short for cock-sucker, no? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > As far as the idea of explicit permission goes, I seem to recall > that you were the one who advocated non-ownership until ownership > was granted by explicit permission of some governing body. What you are still missing is that the legal determination of ownership is practically immaterial until someone tries to enfoce an ownership right. Only then does it matter - until then, everyone is free to do whatever they want. You seem to have inordinate difficulty in understanding this, despite it being part of the present form of US law. In many cases it's even true of physical property that there are no impediments to unauthorised use until someone who asserts an ownership claim objects to that use. It might suprise you to hear this, but I'm not really advocating changing the structure of the present system at all. All I am really doing is reminding those who've forgotten that the legal status of intellectual property is not the same as physical property, and then suggesting that it would be better if the ownability of and ownership rights to this 'idea property' were slightly narrower than they have recently become. Compared to your wild misreadings, my positions are downright conservative - they suggest very, very minor adjustments to the status quo. Your arguments however seem to indicate a severe misunderstanding of the present nature of the world - you confuse the absolute ownership of intellectual property you wish existed, with the more limited ownership which actually does exist. cs_post...@hotmail.com wrote: > What you are still missing is that the legal determination of ownership > is practically immaterial until someone tries to enfoce an ownership [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > no impediments to unauthorised use until someone who asserts an > ownership claim objects to that use. Before anyone jumps to conclusions, "no impediments to unauthorised use" does not rule out retroactive penalties or royalties for the use which took place before the objection was raised and any related ruling on ownership was decided. Sometimes the scope of the damages may be dependent on if the infringer was or should have been aware that what they were doing was infringing. But it's quite rare that government will proactively prevent someone from doing something because they can't prove that they own the involved intellectual property or that there action won't infringe someone else's owernship right to an intellectual property. The real trial of an owernship claim comes only after that claim has been used as a basis to attempt action against an alleged infringer. [snip] >However, my position is still that the idea is inherently the >property of its originator, who should be free to do with it what he >chooses. Give it away, sell it, rent it, whatever. You seem to think the "property" referred to in the phrase "intellectual property" is the idea or expression itself. I always thought the "property" was the exclusive right. It's that exclusive right which you can buy and sell in the same way as real property, not the idea itself. I didn't realise there were people who thought ownership of ideas was somehow "natural" in the same way that the ownership of real property is. Apparently there are. I find that utterly terrifying. Incidentally, the law doesn't support your position that ideas are inherently property. It considers only a subset of ideas as in any way worthy of exclusivity. Even then, the exclusivity granted falls far short of the exclusivity granted to real property - it's time-limited for one thing. Would you prefer complete parity between ideas and real, physical property? In other words: Perpetual copyright, perpetual patents and no minimum standard required to be granted either? It seems to me that's the logical conclusion of the equation of physical property and ideas. And that's why I find equating the two terrifying. >Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the >idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of >collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how >it'll be used. Personally, I don't see why and idea has to "belong" to anyone. Tim p.s. I'm not against copyright and patents. But they are a balancing act - the idea behind them is that they produce a net benefit to society by encouraging the creation of new works and inventions. For there to be a net benefit the artificial monopoly must only be granted in limited circumstances (for genuine innovations, for example) and for limited time. I'm deeply concerned about the seemingly relentless expansion of both the circumstances under which a monopoly is granted (the patenting of just about any old crap) and the increase in time the monopoly is in place (How many more works are being produced as a direct result of the extension of copyrights to life + 70 years in the US? My bet is exactly zero.). SignatureShares are your votes in a pigologocracy. >[snip] >>However, my position is still that the idea is inherently the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >somehow "natural" in the same way that the ownership of real property >is. Apparently there are. I find that utterly terrifying. --- I feel that an idea is the property of the person who "gets" the idea until they divulge it. Why else would we say, "That was my idea." or "That was her idea."? I don't find that terrifying at all. --- >Incidentally, the law doesn't support your position that ideas are >inherently property. It considers only a subset of ideas as in any way >worthy of exclusivity. Even then, the exclusivity granted falls far >short of the exclusivity granted to real property - it's time-limited >for one thing. --- Yeah, and that's fine because if I decide not to divulge an idea, as in keeping it a trade secret, then the government _can't_ afford me any protection since I haven't said what it is I want protected. My feeling is also that morally I don't deserve any protection since I'm not willing to share the idea. So I'm out there on my own, trying to sell my widgets and trying to keep the thieves from figuring out what makes them tick, and that's OK too. --- >Would you prefer complete parity between ideas and real, physical >property? --- No. There can be no parity because they're not the same thing. --- >In other words: Perpetual copyright, perpetual patents and >no minimum standard required to be granted either? --- No, no, no, a thousand times no! --- >It seems to me >that's the logical conclusion of the equation of physical property and >ideas. And that's why I find equating the two terrifying. >>Your position (if you'll admit to having one) seems to be that the >>idea doesn't belong to its originator, but to some sort of >>collective with the power to determine who owns the idea and how >>it'll be used. > >Personally, I don't see why and idea has to "belong" to anyone. --- Again, my feeling is that the idea is the property of the originator of the idea (or, possibly, "recipient" is a better term) until he decides to share it. --- >p.s. I'm not against copyright and patents. But they are a balancing >act - the idea behind them is that they produce a net benefit to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >direct result of the extension of copyrights to life + 70 years in the >US? My bet is exactly zero.). --- I'm getting tired, so I'll respond to the patent and copyright mess part of your post tomorrow. Goodnight. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>p.s. I'm not against copyright and patents. But they are a balancing >>act - the idea behind them is that they produce a net benefit to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>direct result of the extension of copyrights to life + 70 years in the >>US? My bet is exactly zero.). --- I think that what's been happening with the patent office is that over the past 10 or 20 years technology has exploded and the patent office hasn't been able to keep up with either the volume or the complexity of applications so they just threw up their hands and said, "The hell with it, let's just let it all go through and if there's a problem we'll let the courts sort it out." If that's the case, then the obvious solution would be to get more and better examiners in there and toughen up on what gets through. Also, I'd make the filing fee more expensive, and make the maintence period yearly in order to force those patents that aren't working out for their owners into the public domain sooner. Copyrights I don't have a problem with since I think the output of an artist isn't as much affected by them as by their muse... And software I would _immediately_ reclassify as an invention which would have to be patented for protection. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>>p.s. I'm not against copyright and patents. But they are a balancing >>>act - the idea behind them is that they produce a net benefit to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > said, "The hell with it, let's just let it all go through and if > there's a problem we'll let the courts sort it out." About 20 years ago the UPSTO went from a cost center to a profit center for the US government. They exist to grant patents rather than pass any real judgement on them (though I recently had a patent denied for prior art that wasn't published when mine was filed). The problem then is compounded because the courts tend believe the USPTO is the final arbiter (they are the "obvious" experts). > If that's the case, then the obvious solution would be to get more > and better examiners in there and toughen up on what gets through. Didn't they just hire 500 more examiners a couple of years ago? Since the USPTO is a profit center the examiners are "graded" by the number of patents they crank out, though I've noticed recently pretty much all patents are rejected the forst pass through (keeps up the examiner's numbers). > Also, I'd make the filing fee more expensive, and make the maintence > period yearly in order to force those patents that aren't working > out for their owners into the public domain sooner. This would only make it harder on the little guy. Major corporations would still file a bazillion defensive patents. > Copyrights I don't have a problem with since I think the output of > an artist isn't as much affected by them as by their muse... I'd prefer that the art go into the public-domain upon the author's death, or perhaps a *few* years later (not the corporate assignee). Trademarks (e.g. Mickey Mouse) should remain part of the corporate property "forever" though. > And software I would _immediately_ reclassify as an invention which > would have to be patented for protection. How would you propose to patent solitare? I prefer software stay as it is. Software patents make me queazy (I'm on a patent review board, fortunately we only do software by accident). SignatureKeith >> Also, I'd make the filing fee more expensive, and make the maintence >> period yearly in order to force those patents that aren't working >> out for their owners into the public domain sooner. > > This would only make it harder on the little guy. Major corporations > would still file a bazillion defensive patents. A 'working model' in a 'practical product' would help. No pie-in-the-sky inventions any more. For example: "Hereby I invent that whenever teleportation machinery is invented, the data is transported through a system which could look like a computer but could also be another processor, to store, transform, delay or replicate what is being teleported)." I gues sthat when I file this patent, and it gets granted, I would have a pretty strong hold on teleportation if it comes to exist. Even though I have invented absolutely nothing of any worth. Requiring a product would make this impossible. >> Copyrights I don't have a problem with since I think the output of >> an artist isn't as much affected by them as by their muse... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Trademarks (e.g. Mickey Mouse) should remain part of the corporate > property "forever" though. Not at death - that rule is there to prevent shooting of the author. 70 years was probably chosen so no-one will have personal profit from a killing. >> And software I would _immediately_ reclassify as an invention which >> would have to be patented for protection. > > How would you propose to patent solitare? I prefer software stay as it > is. Software patents make me queazy (I'm on a patent review board, > fortunately we only do software by accident). Copyrights work extremely well for software. Patents are very bad here. Look at the number of people writing software (inventors, if you will) and see what problems they would run into. Not to forget that patents are not world wide and copyright is. There's a guy who has written a Java program to control a model railroad. It is free and open source. There exists a company KAM Industries, that makes other software to do the same. KAM Industries claims a patent breach on the following: "Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,530, 329 claims a method of operating a digitally controlled model railroad comprising the steps of: (a) transmitting a first command from a first program to an interface; (b) transmitting a second command from a second program to said interface; and (c) sending third and fourth commands from said interface representative of said first and second commands, respectively, to a digital command station." Is something like that worthy of being called an invention? Whether or not, it seems to be a license to sue. See: http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2432&print=yes Thomas >>> Also, I'd make the filing fee more expensive, and make the maintence >>> period yearly in order to force those patents that aren't working [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > but could also be another processor, to store, transform, delay or > replicate what is being teleported)." You are clearly cluess WRT the patent process. > I gues sthat when I file this patent, and it gets granted, I would have > a pretty strong hold on teleportation if it comes to exist. Even though > I have invented absolutely nothing of any worth. It ceartainly wouldn't be, since you *do* have to show workability (at minimum no physical laws broken). > Requiring a product would make this impossible. Your cenario is impossible anyhow. Please do play agian. >>> Copyrights I don't have a problem with since I think the output of an >>> artist isn't as much affected by them as by their muse... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > years was probably chosen so no-one will have personal profit from a > killing. IIRC, it *WAS* death + 25 years. MM has extended tat to 75, IIRC. >>> And software I would _immediately_ reclassify as an invention which >>> would have to be patented for protection. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and see what problems they would run into. Not to forget that patents > are not world wide and copyright is. I *DON'T* know the answer here. I can imagine some patentable ideas in software (processes, even business process are), but I'm not "at one" with this. Let's just say that I don't understand it well enough, and raise that objection every time I have to pass judgement on a software disclosure. Needless to say, I've never submitted one. > There's a guy who has written a Java program to control a model > railroad. It is free and open source. There exists a company KAM [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is something like that worthy of being called an invention? Whether or > not, it seems to be a license to sue. Not having read the entire patent, I can't say (and I wouldn't since I'm not paid to), but at first blush it does look silly. I may add this to my silly_patent_file though (along with the cat LASER pointer and toilet queueing system). > See: > http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2432&print=yes Later... SignatureKeith > Not having read the entire patent, I can't say (and I wouldn't since I'm > not paid to), but at first blush it does look silly. I may add this to my > silly_patent_file though (along with the cat LASER pointer and toilet > queueing system). Don't foget this one. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html >> Not having read the entire patent, I can't say (and I wouldn't since I'm >> not paid to), but at first blush it does look silly. I may add this to my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html Method of swinging on a swing Document: United States Patent 6368227 Abstract: A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other. my brother and I used to do that, but we had two swings supported by a metal beam and would sit astride and swing towards each other like a game of "chicken" SignatureBye. Jasen > >> Not having read the entire patent, I can't say (and I wouldn't since I'm > >> not paid to), but at first blush it does look silly. I may add this to my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > metal beam and would sit astride and swing towards each other like a game > of "chicken" Did you publish? My brother and I would swing double (one standing, one sitting) on the swing at the school across the road from my grandparents' farm and try to go all the way around the bar. Never made it, or we might have had a patentable method ourselves. >>>> Also, I'd make the filing fee more expensive, and make the maintence >>>> period yearly in order to force those patents that aren't working [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It ceartainly wouldn't be, since you *do* have to show workability (at > minimum no physical laws broken). these rules aren't enforced for software. software/algorythms that claim to do the impossible are patentable, eg: United States Patent 5488364 Bye. Jasen >>>>> Also, I'd make the filing fee more expensive, and make the maintence >>>>> period yearly in order to force those patents that aren't working [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > these rules aren't enforced for software. software/algorythms that claim > to do the impossible are patentable, eg: United States Patent 5488364 No, they are *not* patentable, but they are patented. If you can prove they're not realizable the patent can be nullified. OTOH, why bother? SignatureKeith >>>> I gues sthat when I file this patent, and it gets granted, I would have >>>> a pretty strong hold on teleportation if it comes to exist. Even though >>>> I have invented absolutely nothing of any worth. >>> It ceartainly wouldn't be, since you *do* have to show workability (at >>> minimum no physical laws broken). >> these rules aren't enforced for software. software/algorythms that claim >> to do the impossible are patentable, eg: United States Patent 5488364 > No, they are *not* patentable, but they are patented. If you can prove > they're not realizable the patent can be nullified. OTOH, why bother? Well, the point is that for science fiction no prior art will exist. And the sci-fi side will make everything look technical and ready for granting. It is innovative as well, and not many 'skilled in the art' are available. The XOR patent to display a cursor might be too practical, but I'm sure some video-by-computer petents fall into this category: realize that it becomes trivial soon to process video by computer, and patent it before anyone else notices. Worth of invention: 0. Worth of patent: $$$. Value created: 0. Value stolen: $$$. Damage to economy: $$$. Thomas >> "Hereby I invent that whenever teleportation machinery is invented, the >> data is transported through a system which could look like a computer [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It ceartainly wouldn't be, since you *do* have to show workability (at > minimum no physical laws broken). OK, the teleportation was not a good idea. Something else that hasn't been invented but certainly looks possible - or just is invented but in a very young stadium - and patent its use with say computyers, or with whatever other technology you think will fly (wireless? optical?). My point is that I invent nothing: I merely take the effort to take two separate things from separate fields and combine them. How to do that, and what to achieve exactly, I leave as excercise to the reader. >> "Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,530, 329 claims a method of operating a >> digitally controlled model railroad comprising the steps of: (a) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > silly_patent_file though (along with the cat LASER pointer and toilet > queueing system). Well, Even if it IS an invention (or it WAS when it was filed) it shows the problem: independent invention is no excuse. And it means that somebody somewhere who writes software as a hobby can be liable for a lot of money. In other fields this is less severe. A carpenter may unknowingly violate a patent, but he is operating on a small scale and will not be noticed. Software's zero cost of replication changes that (would happen to the carpenter if he published his drawings, I suppose). Requiring a legal department for everyone is what I don't like. Thomas >>> "Hereby I invent that whenever teleportation machinery is invented, the >>> data is transported through a system which could look like a computer [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a very young stadium - and patent its use with say computyers, or with > whatever other technology you think will fly (wireless? optical?). Ramble on... > My point is that I invent nothing: I merely take the effort to take two > separate things from separate fields and combine them. How to do that, > and what to achieve exactly, I leave as excercise to the reader. Again, you haven't a clue, yet yammer on about hypotheticals. >>> "Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,530, 329 claims a method of operating a >>> digitally controlled model railroad comprising the steps of: (a) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > problem: independent invention is no excuse. And it means that somebody > somewhere who writes software as a hobby can be liable for a lot of money. If they *SELL* this software or use it for "commercial gain" it's certainly not a hobby, now is it? OTOH, if your hypothetical person uses it for self-enlightenment, everyone's cool. Neat thing that the patent taught the art, eh? > In other fields this is less severe. A carpenter may unknowingly violate > a patent, but he is operating on a small scale and will not be noticed. > Software's zero cost of replication changes that (would happen to the > carpenter if he published his drawings, I suppose). A carpenter? Do you have some better "thoughts". This one was still-born. > Requiring a legal department for everyone is what I don't like. "Everyone?" Back away from the hash. Rich gets jealous of his stash. SignatureKeith >>>> Is something like that worthy of being called an invention? Whether or >>>> not, it seems to be a license to sue. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it for self-enlightenment, everyone's cool. Neat thing that the patent > taught the art, eh? They do not sell it, but offer it as a free download. Perhaps with soem ad banners on the download page. And oh yes, redistribution is allowed. But the patent holder claims lost sales... >> In other fields this is less severe. A carpenter may unknowingly violate >> a patent, but he is operating on a small scale and will not be noticed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A carpenter? Do you have some better "thoughts". This one was > still-born. A plumber? Are you sure everything in carpentry is at least 20 years old when people still patent stuff like 'add on handle for beer crate'? Thomas > If that's the case, then the obvious solution would be to get more > and better examiners in there and toughen up on what gets through. There is another problem with this 'intellectual property'. Whenever I make something, the ownership of physical items is easy enough. Do not steal them, but buy them. And build whatever you are building - it is not built out of stolen materials. Or materials illegal to use. Now comes along 'intellectual property'. That window frame I'm making may well turn out to be 'illegal' because of its construction. But there is no way to find out! - well, I could go and do a patent search. But that would make a very expensive window frame, wouldn't it? Of course this situation also exists with normal law. I'm not allowed to take iron tubing, harden it, and make it into a gun (no where I live anyway). This is what makes patents so problematic: with copyright, independent creation trumps the copyright. With patents, it doesn't. The problem is that there are too many inventions and too many intentors: the system doesn't scale as teh number of patent attorneys needs to rise with the square of the number of inventors. Which makes attorneys happy, but I have no clue why it makes inventors happy. Business seems to have a fatalistic approach towards patents - unless business is 'big business', in which case they use them to keep newcomers out or extract money from them. That said, patents are the protectionism of this century. Thomas >> The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know >> it. Here's the original: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >That's your statement not mine! --- No, it's not. Go back and read my last post again. --- >Why do you keep constructing outrageous straw men to argue against? --- I don't. --- >> >Wheras the opposite is true - if >> >ideas are not ownable property, then anyone can make use of them. >> >> But ideas _are_ ownable property. Take, for example, trade secrets. > >Only in some systems are ideas ownable property. --- That's ridiculous. In any system, until an idea is divulged, to whom do you think it belongs? --- > Apparently you aren't >able to think in the context of systems where they are not, long >enough to form sensible conclusions about how things would work in >those systems. --- "From each according to their capabilities, to each according to their needs?" We _all_ know how well _that_ works, don't we? --- >> Instead of just blathering on ad nauseam with platitudes and >> generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ stand? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >physical property is also a compromise - which is true - but it's a >much less precarious one than that of virtual property) --- More clap-trap. Again, I'll ask: Instead of just blathering on ad nauseam with platitudes and generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ stand? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> Instead of just blathering on ad nauseam with platitudes and > >> generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ stand? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > platitudes and generalities, why don't you tell us where you _do_ > stand? Apparently John has a reading comprehension problem... > >Only in some systems are ideas ownable property. > That's ridiculous. In any system, until an idea is divulged, to > whom do you think it belongs? I don't think it follows that the originator-"ownership" of an idea is necessarily the same as ownership of a property interest in it (I am my parents' child, but they do not own me). However, the issue of non-disclosed ideas may touch on a possible difference between the world today, and the world of the early industrial revolution when property-concepts of IP were systematically established. The grant of a patent as a reward for publishing a method seems to reflect a fear that knowledge would remain secret - aquite legitimate feat in that day and age. Today however, the idea that knowledge will remain secret is almost laughable. Techniques of analysis have advanced so far that any idea used in commerce has a fair chance of getting "out of the bag" regardless if a patent is filed or not. To a deteremined competitor, simple evidence that something is possible is quite a shortcut - add in an example of the result and it's only a matter of time and money to reverse engineer the method. So perhaps it's worth asking, if society is no longer concenred about secret knowledge holding back the state of the art, is the original 'temporary owernship in return for publication' patent construct still a good deal for the public? Or does the information age need to treat IP differently than the industrial age did? > > Apparently you aren't > >able to think in the context of systems where they are not, long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "From each according to their capabilities, to each according to > their needs?" We _all_ know how well _that_ works, don't we? No, that impractical scheme is barely even tangential. That you are jumping to such odd conclusions reinforces my suspicion that you really haven't thought through how things would work if ideas were not ownable property. Yet we have many examples of such things working: the linux operating system for example. While that particular idea forum is constructed using contemporary IP law, it's goal is nearly opposite - IP law is used as the building mechanism only because we live in a society with IP laws. If we lived in an "information wants to be free" society, the license terms would be different, or even unecessary, because the kinds of freedom the current license is designed to preserve would already be the law of the land. You'd probably be suprsied to learn that individuals and companies from large to small are making money in that corner of that world that's been imported into our present one - despite having surrendered ordinary property control of their ideas (at least within the context of that and compatible uses). On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:42:22 -0700, cs_posting wrote: >> > Apparently you aren't >> >able to think in the context of systems where they are not, long [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that you really haven't thought through how things would work if ideas > were not ownable property. ... Your response here reinforces my suspicion that you're sarcasm-impaired. ;-) Cheers! Rich >>> Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what >>> something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Why do you think we say, without even thinking about it, "That was > my idea", or "That was her idea"? > It's because it's so obvious it doesn't need explaining. why do you use the past tense? "was my idea". is it because at some level you understand that by sharing it it is no longer exclusively yours? Bye. Jasen > Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Unless it is instantiated in a computer program. > > Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. > > Unless it is instantiated in a computer program. Conflicts like that can usually only exist while a system is in transition... > >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without > >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property > (which is the way to do it) belongs to them. Yes, as it consists of only a neural arrangment in their head. Or perhaps a collection of notes in their possession, symbolic information, or perhaps in binary form on a hard drive. Any theft of these objects is a clear violoation of your rights. Especially the head. Once others have seen or recorded this information, they now also possess copies of that information. If you don't want anyone to know, you'd better be careful who you tell. > let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Who? Johannes Kepler :) Or maybe some other giants who's shoulders you've stood upon. Now that you've told me you have such an idea Isaac, I would be curious. Probably not much commercial application however. Have you tried to write or sell your idea as a proposal to some religious or academic bigwigs? Perhaps you'd best publish it openly in a concise form and you'll have any academic job offer you'd like and more. As for your ideas about calculus, you should have published them openly much earlier. Sure, you still obtained fame and fortune, but with his earlier publication Leibinz stole some of the glory that could have been yours in inventing the Calculus. Sorry for the diversion.. how about an example for the discussion using someone who actually benefitted from intellectual property law? Cheers - shevek >> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without >> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >possess copies of that information. If you don't want anyone to know, >you'd better be careful who you tell. --- And there's the crux of the matter. Say I write a poem which strikes a chord in me and which I'd like others to enjoy, and I publish it with a formal copyright notice attached. My intent is, clearly, since I published it with a note asking everyone who reads it not to copy it and disseminate it without my permission, to make some money off of it. You seem to think that there's something wrong with that. I'd like to know why. --- >>> let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Johannes Kepler :) --- Yes, you're right, That's where the incontrovertible observational data came from. --- >Or maybe some other giants who's shoulders you've stood upon. --- Wrong attribution. --- >Now that you've told me you have such an idea Isaac, I would be >curious. Probably not much commercial application however. --- Hmm... I don't know. Have you ever considered widening the streets of London and charging for decrease of traverse time around the curves? --- >Have you tried to write or sell your idea as a proposal to some religious or >academic bigwigs? Perhaps you'd best publish it openly in a concise >form and you'll have any academic job offer you'd like and more. As >for your ideas about calculus, you should have published them openly >much earlier. --- Hindsight's 20-20, (I got that in a dream somewhere) and I disagree with how you think I should have handled my affairs. You have no idea as to the difficulties I had with the Calculus and, as an outsider, you have no insight as to the difficulties I had had with my life during that time. --- >Sure, you still obtained fame and fortune, but with his >earlier publication Leibinz stole some of the glory that could have >been yours in inventing the Calculus. --- He was an honorable man and didn't steal anything from me. We both happened on the same thing at about the same time. >Sorry for the diversion.. how about an example for the discussion >using someone who actually benefitted from intellectual property law? --- Me. US Patent 4937519. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without > >> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I'd like to know why. For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's good it will be around the world in a heartbeat. Sell it to a publisher first and get a good contract.. or use it as a stepping stone for a career. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Wrong attribution. > --- Really? "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants" Newton * Letter to Robert Hooke (5 February 1675) > >Now that you've told me you have such an idea Isaac, I would be > >curious. Probably not much commercial application however. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > my life during that time. > --- Fair enough. I certainly don't stand at a point to criticize your amazing contributions! > >Sure, you still obtained fame and fortune, but with his > >earlier publication Leibinz stole some of the glory that could have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > --- > Me. US Patent 4937519. Thanks, there's a concrete example. How about some more details? Did the patent law explicity benefit you, i.e. were lawsuits involved? Was your monetary gain entirely dependent on enforcement of intellectual property rights? Did you sell the design for these ping-through devices to a production company, did you have a contract with them that gave you a cut of all sales? That kind of arrangment doesn't require IP laws.. Cheers- >For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's >good it will be around the world in a heartbeat. --- I wasn't talking about business, I was talking about morality. Your position seems to be that you condone the theft of intellectual property, so I assume you think having my work stolen is OK. _Is_ that your position? --- >Sell it to a publisher first and get a good contract.. or use it as a >stepping stone for a career. --- Or neither. --- >> --- >> Wrong attribution. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Newton * Letter to Robert Hooke (5 February 1675) --- Oops... I was thinking brightly colored pebbles. --- >> >Sorry for the diversion.. how about an example for the discussion >> >using someone who actually benefitted from intellectual property law? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >have a contract with them that gave you a cut of all sales? That kind >of arrangment doesn't require IP laws.. --- The business arrangements I made have nothing to do with the discussion other than that the people I was dealing with at the time felt that the IP protection afforded by a patent was important enough that they wouldn't proceed without one. The reason, of course, was that if someone infringed the patent there was legal recourse. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's > >good it will be around the world in a heartbeat. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > property, so I assume you think having my work stolen is OK. _Is_ > that your position? I think we have some disagreement on the topic of what is theft. We both agree that if I break into your house and steal your notebook, I have commited theft - of valuable property - the information in it may be of great worth. Where we disagree is that you feel you can put your information on a giant sign facing the highway and then still claim to have exclusive ownership of that information. I feel that a passing literate motorist is not a thief. If for some reason you don't want people to know some information, and to take full advantage of it for their own purposes, then you'd best keep it to yourself. On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:13:18 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> >For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's >> >good it will be around the world in a heartbeat. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to take full advantage of it for their own purposes, then you'd best > keep it to yourself. So, you're claiming you have a "right" to go to the public library, copy a book, and sell the copies for profit, depriving the author of his rightful income? That's theft. You're nothing but a common thief. Thanks, Rich > So, you're claiming you have a "right" to go to the public library, copy > a book, and sell the copies for profit, depriving the author of his > rightful income? > > That's theft. You're nothing but a common thief. That is because of the way authors are being paid these days - which is the result of a printing press being something very expensive in the past, not reachable for the humble author. If books were written on demand (we all give Win some cash to finish the 3rd edition...) the result could be free to copy. The rule could even be that others are free to improve on that book, to translate it, and so on. The way copyright, patents and trade marks are handled now is because what was best in the past. It may still be the best way now, but chances are that for the incumbent business these ways are good, while for the writer, inventor, and consumer, better possibilities exist. I doubt whether good books are translated into every language possible - it may be that the original publisher will demand a big advance that the local publisher cannot afford. At the same time the author may think: "I have noting to lose, and perhaps I can gain a little. And if not at least I hope those people enjoy my book." Similar to software : I feel the days of ever more restricting licenses are over. Compliance costs effort and money. Thomas > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:13:18 -0700, shevek4 wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > That's theft. You're nothing but a common thief. And so are you. Did you make up all those symbols you just sent me, or copy them? "Thief".. did you make that word up are are you simply stealing the work of previous linguists? Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good business plan because there's a lot of competition out there doing just that. On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:29:20 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:13:18 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And so are you. Did you make up all those symbols you just sent me, or > copy them? The alphabet is in the public domain. > "Thief".. did you make that word up are are you simply stealing the > work of previous linguists? Linguists don't invent language. <wow!> > Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. > If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good business > plan because there's a lot of competition out there doing just that. Rich is right. You are nothing but a common thief. SignatureKeith > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:29:20 -0700, shevek4 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The alphabet is in the public domain. We agree!! :) > > "Thief".. did you make that word up are are you simply stealing the > > work of previous linguists? > > Linguists don't invent language. <wow!> Language can be trademarked and copyrighted.. > > Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. > > If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good business > > plan because there's a lot of competition out there doing just that. > > Rich is right. You are nothing but a common thief. Wow indeed. I'm surprised that nobody can defend IP laws without resorting to name calling. How about a logical argument supporting your assertions? I guess it's harder than I thought. If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be organized crime. They're giving away the information for free. In fact, that's why your suggested business plan above doesn't work very well. But libraries don't "deprive authors of their rightful income", any more than a supermarket also deprives those authors of their rightful income - by taking peoples money that could be going to the authors. Used book dealers also don't take money from the author. Competition is not theft! - shevek On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:08:35 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:29:20 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Language can be trademarked and copyrighted.. Ok, but it's the linguists job to study language and perhaps its history, not invent it. But true, one you copyright a language if you're its author. You can even keep it as a trade secret, for all the good it'll do. So? >> > Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. >> > If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wow indeed. I'm surprised that nobody can defend IP laws without > resorting to name calling. No name calling. A simple statement of fact. > How about a logical argument supporting your assertions? I guess it's > harder than I thought. Now who's pulling out the adhominem artillery? The fact remains that you openly advocate theft of property, and are a thief. > If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be > organized crime. They're giving away the information for free. In > fact, that's why your suggested business plan above doesn't work very > well. Try copying an entire book at the library some time. Do look up the copyright laws before you do so though. > But libraries don't "deprive authors of their rightful income", any more > than a supermarket also deprives those authors of their rightful income > - by taking peoples money that could be going to the authors. Used book > dealers also don't take money from the author. > > Competition is not theft! It is when you sell their property without compensation. You may own the deat tree the ideas are transferred on. No one may own the ideas, but the author owns the expressions of the ideas. If you copy those ideas and sell them you've stolen property from the author. SignatureKeith > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:08:35 -0700, shevek4 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > author. You can even keep it as a trade secret, for all the good it'll do. > So? So that's a riduculous abuse of governmental power, I argue. Freedom of speech is more my speed. > >> > Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. > >> > If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No name calling. A simple statement of fact. Why don't you show what I stole? Put a tag on it marked "exhibit a". > > How about a logical argument supporting your assertions? I guess it's > > harder than I thought. > > Now who's pulling out the adhominem artillery? The fact remains that you > openly advocate theft of property, and are a thief. That "fact" remains false. > > If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be > > organized crime. They're giving away the information for free. In [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try copying an entire book at the library some time. Do look up > the copyright laws before you do so though. Tell it to print.google.com. Easier to copy a book if you cut the binding off, but then you have to pay the library fees. Kind of a pain reading looseleaf photocopies though, isn't it. I'd gladly pay a publisher for a nice binding job instead. > > But libraries don't "deprive authors of their rightful income", any more > > than a supermarket also deprives those authors of their rightful income [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the author owns the expressions of the ideas. If you copy those ideas and > sell them you've stolen property from the author. Again, could put the property on exhibit for the court to see? I want to see this property you are accusing me of stealing. How much does it weigh? When did the plaintiff come into possession of this property? Did I violate a contract that I had agreed to? - shevek >> Ok, but it's the linguists job to study language and perhaps its history, >> not invent it. But true, one you copyright a language if you're its >> author. You can even keep it as a trade secret, for all the good it'll do. >> So? > >So that's a riduculous abuse of governmental power, I argue. --- No, you don't argue, you just spew all this sh.t with no supporting logic and expect everyone to believe you. --- >Freedom of speech is more my speed. --- You don't even know what that means. Freedom to steal others' speech is more like what you want to be able to do. --- >> >> > Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. >> >> > If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Why don't you show what I stole? Put a tag on it marked "exhibit a". --- You stole from the owner of the copyright the income which would have come to him had the book been published and sold in the manner prescribed by law. --- >> > How about a logical argument supporting your assertions? I guess it's >> > harder than I thought. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That "fact" remains false. --- So, you're a liar as well as a thief. The two walk hand-in-hand, so it's really no surprise. --- >> > If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be >> > organized crime. --- Not if they've acquired the material legally. --- >> > They're giving away the information for free. --- Not really, but even if they were it's something that everyone agrees is OK, so there's nothing wrong with that. --- >> > But libraries don't "deprive authors of their rightful income", any more >> > than a supermarket also deprives those authors of their rightful income >> > - by taking peoples money that could be going to the authors. Used book >> > dealers also don't take money from the author. --- You're an idiot. Once the book has been manufactured and the author paid for his works, the book becomes a piece of material property which can be resold, traded, given away, whatever. However, if you copy the book, then that's one copy in circulation which the author didn't authorize and didn't get paid for. I find it bizarre that that context escapes you. --- >> > Competition is not theft! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Again, could put the property on exhibit for the court to see? --- Certainly. An authorized copy of the author's work with yours sitting next to it and a statement from a psychiatrist that you know the difference between right and wrong should be enough to damn you as a thief. --- >I want to see this property you are accusing me of stealing. How much does it >weigh? When did the plaintiff come into possession of this property? > >Did I violate a contract that I had agreed to? --- In a sense, you did, but try not to be stupid, OK? It's not primarily a question of a contract, where you get to be a voluntary participant, It's a question of violating the law. Wanna make it OK to steal? Then get it legislated as OK, but in the meantime if you do the crime I hope you do the time. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >Why don't you show what I stole? Put a tag on it marked "exhibit a". > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prescribed by law. > --- No John, you severly misunderstand intellectual property law. Infringement is infringement, which is some cases may be actionable in civil and or criminal court - bit even in criminal court, infringement is not "theft" - it is a unique crime reflecting the unique nature of the abstract "property". >> >Why don't you show what I stole? Put a tag on it marked "exhibit a". >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >is not "theft" - it is a unique crime reflecting the unique nature of >the abstract "property". --- Garbage. The reason it's actionable is precisely because it _is_ theft and, often, (if not always) redress takes the form of the injured party being awarded the revenue stolen by the thief, plus damages. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >No John, you severly misunderstand intellectual property law. > > > >Infringement is infringement, which is some cases may be actionable in > >civil and or criminal court - bit even in criminal court, infringement > >is not "theft" - it is a unique crime reflecting the unique nature of > >the abstract "property". > Garbage. Often the law *is* garbage - but it is what it is, rather than what you wish it were. > The reason it's actionable is precisely because it _is_ theft No, the reason it's actionable is because it's against a specific law. This is, believe it or not, a different law than that which prohibits theft. > often, (if not always) redress takes the form of the injured party > being awarded the revenue stolen by the thief, plus damages. The ill-gotten revenue, not the stolen revenue. Using the term "theft" in the intellectual property context is inaccurate - it's popular as an emotional argument with those who have an axe to grind, but it shows ignorance and/or a willingness to make misleading statements on the part of the person using it. The the possible legal transgression is real, but it is not theft. >> >No John, you severly misunderstand intellectual property law. >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >The the possible legal transgression is real, but it is not theft. --- No matter how you might like to try to use weasel-words in order to try to shroud the act in innocuity, the fact remains that intentionally and illegally taking what would have accrued to me is theft, pure and simple, and no amount of nancing around and blowing smoke, on your part, is going to change that. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > No matter how you might like to try to use weasel-words in order to > try to shroud the act in innocuity, the fact remains that > intentionally and illegally taking what would have accrued to me is > theft, pure and simple, and no amount of nancing around and blowing > smoke, on your part, is going to change that. And no matter how many times you ignorantly apply the word "theft" to infringement, you'll still be confusing two different crimes. But to help you learn, I'll present an example you appear to have overlooked. Say you are not making commercial use of your invention or any competing invention. As a result, infringement cannot in any way be taking money out of your product - it is not theft, it's actually creating a new revenue stream which would not have existed without the infringer. You probably can take the infringer to court and may be able to win all of that revenue - but it was never stolen from you in the first place. In fact, it never would have existed without the crime. How can a crime of creation possibly be considered theft? These are the embarassing corners you trap yourself in when you emotionally argue that infringement is theft, instead of describing it as what it is: infringement. >> No matter how you might like to try to use weasel-words in order to >> try to shroud the act in innocuity, the fact remains that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And no matter how many times you ignorantly apply the word "theft" to >infringement, you'll still be confusing two different crimes. --- Read on... --- >But to help you learn, I'll present an example you appear to have >overlooked. --- I'm always happy to learn, even from a snide "teacher". --- >Say you are not making commercial use of your invention or any >competing invention. As a result, infringement cannot in any way be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How can a crime of creation possibly be considered theft? --- That's easy. Whether I'm making commercial use of my invention or not, patent law prohibits the production of my invention without my permission. Therefore, by knowingly infringing my patent, the infringer knowingly denies me (steals from me) any fees I would have exacted for licensing its production, had I decided to license it at all. --- >These are the embarassing corners you trap yourself in when you >emotionally argue that infringement is theft, instead of describing it >as what it is: infringement. --- Well, from that point of view, infringement is still theft in that it robs the system's members of the comfort they would experience without having to forcibly enact its laws. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> Ok, but it's the linguists job to study language and perhaps its history, > >> not invent it. But true, one you copyright a language if you're its [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, you don't argue, you just spew all this sh.t with no supporting > logic and expect everyone to believe you. The logic is that the role of government is not to dictate who can and who cannot say something. Also, I don't expect everyone to believe me. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Freedom to steal others' speech is more like what you want to be > able to do. Stealing is not what I advocate. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, seeing as you know so much more about freedom of speech than all of us? > --- > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have come to him had the book been published and sold in the manner > prescribed by law. The book -was- published and sold in the manner prescribed by law. It was purchased by a library. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, you're a liar as well as a thief. The two walk hand-in-hand, so > it's really no surprise. Why stop there? Keep the name-calling going, it really does make your argument so very persuasive. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --- > Not if they've acquired the material legally. By your arguments above, everyone who takes a book out is robbing the author of proper income. Sure, I may have acquired the latest Metallica album legally, but does that give me the right to share it with my friends? At least show some consistency.. --- > >> > They're giving away the information for free. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that context escapes you. > --- The context is quite clear to me. That is the nature of information - it can be read and used by others if made available to them. It appears you are the one that has problems with this context... you think it should be illegal, no? > >> > Competition is not theft! > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the difference between right and wrong should be enough to damn you > as a thief. The authorized copy of the author's work was legally obtained. How is that evidence of theft? My copy sitting next to it consists all of materials legally obtained. It is ink, paper, and binding. What has been stolen? Plagarism, maybe. Theft, no. There's a difference between failing a class or loss of academic reputation and jail time. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wanna make it OK to steal? Then get it legislated as OK, but in the > meantime if you do the crime I hope you do the time. If you insist that reading is stealing, or indeed opening your eyes in public (uh oh - copyrighted information entering the system), then yes I am proposing that it be legislated as OK. In the meantime, I do know the law, thanks for the warning. >> >> Ok, but it's the linguists job to study language and perhaps its history, >> >> not invent it. But true, one you copyright a language if you're its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The logic is that the role of government is not to dictate who can and >who cannot say something. --- OK, but your reply to Keith's point had nothing to do with his point, which was that if you invent a language you can copyright it and keep it secret if you want to, which would be pretty stupid unless all you wanted to use it for was to talk to yourself. Your reply to that was totally nonsensical and had nothing to do with Keith's point. Can't you see that? --- > Also, I don't expect everyone to believe me. --- Your expectations will be met, trust me. ;) --- >> >Freedom of speech is more my speed. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Stealing is not what I advocate. --- Perhaps you'd like to _think_ it's not what you advocate because you don't want to think of yourself as a thief, but your admitted approval of copyright violation for the purpose of copying and selling someone else's works is tantamount to theft. Let's say that you wrote a book and when it hit the street I bought a copy, copied it, and started selling it for half the price that you were, that you went broke, and that I got rich. Can't you see what's wrong with that picture? --- >Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, >seeing as you know so much more about freedom of speech than all of us? --- Now you're trying to put me on the defensive by challenging me to defend myself against an imaginary group from which I've been excluded. It won't work. --- >> >Why don't you show what I stole? Put a tag on it marked "exhibit a". >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The book -was- published and sold in the manner prescribed by law. >It was purchased by a library. --- Fine, but the copyright doesn't expire when a book is sold any more than a patent expires when the machine containing the embodiment of the inventor's ideas is sold. What you're saying is that if an invention is bought by a museum and displayed for the public to view it's OK to copy the machine and sell the copies since, in your view, it's OK to copy books which have been bought by a library and sell those copies. --- >> >> Now who's pulling out the adhominem artillery? The fact remains that you >> >> openly advocate theft of property, and are a thief. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Why stop there? Keep the name-calling going, it really does make your >argument so very persuasive. --- It's not name-calling at all. The _fact_ is that you're an avowed thief, have been presented with ample evidence to prove that you're a thief, and by denying that you're also a liar. Either that or delusional. Simple. --- >> >> > If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be >> >> > organized crime. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >By your arguments above, everyone who takes a book out is robbing the >author of proper income. --- Not at all. What you seem incapable of understanding (or haven't considered) is that the book is one thing and the information it contains another. The book is a tangible object which must not be copied if it's not in the public domain, while the information it contains is free to be disseminated by any means other than verbatim copying of the book. Such being the case, all the library is doing is allowing the book to be held, for a time, by different folks, so that they can get to the information it contains. --- >Sure, I may have acquired the latest >Metallica album legally, but does that give me the right to share it >with my friends? --- If by "share" you mean to pass it around, yes, you can do that. If by "share" you mean to copy it and pass the copies around, no, you must not do that. --- >At least show some consistency.. --- ??? --- >> --- >> You're an idiot. Once the book has been manufactured and the author [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >appears you are the one that has problems with this context... you >think it should be illegal, no? --- Of course not. Again, you seem unable to differentiate between the book and the information it contains, two _quite_ different things. I advocate the free dissemination of information; I do _not_ advocate the illegal duplication of copyrighted works. --- >> >Again, could put the property on exhibit for the court to see? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The authorized copy of the author's work was legally obtained. How is >that evidence of theft? --- It is to be used as the original work, against which your copy will be compared. --- >My copy sitting next to it consists all of >materials legally obtained. It is ink, paper, and binding. What has >been stolen? --- The author's right to not have his works duplicated. --- >Plagarism, maybe. Theft, no. There's a difference between failing a >class or loss of academic reputation and jail time. --- LOL, plagiarism _is_ theft. And fraud as well, since you're pretending, by plagiarizing, (not giving credit to the author) that the work is yours. So we're back to not only are you a thief, but you're a liar as well. --- >> >Did I violate a contract that I had agreed to? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >public (uh oh - copyrighted information entering the system), then yes >I am proposing that it be legislated as OK. --- I've never insisted that reading is stealing, and your lie that I have proves that you're now at the point where you're grasping at straws, trying to win an argument you lost long ago. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> Ok, but it's the linguists job to study language and perhaps its history, > >> >> not invent it. But true, one you copyright a language if you're its [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and keep it secret if you want to, which would be pretty stupid > unless all you wanted to use it for was to talk to yourself. True. Unless it were perhaps a computer language.. Just curious.. does anyone have a copyright on Klingon? > Your reply to that was totally nonsensical and had nothing to do > with Keith's point. Can't you see that? No, sorry. If a government body is telling me what language I can and cannot use as a citizen who has not entered any contract, I feel that is unfair. > >> >Freedom of speech is more my speed. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > approval of copyright violation for the purpose of copying and > selling someone else's works is tantamount to theft. The first problem with that logic is that you are calling me a thief for defending alleged theives. By that argument any defense attorney is guilty of the crime the defendant is accused of. The second problem is that the term "thief" is not well justified when no physical object has been stolen. In this thread I am a defender of alleged thieves.. yet you insist on calling me a thief. > Let's say that you wrote a book and when it hit the street I bought > a copy, copied it, and started selling it for half the price that > you were, that you went broke, and that I got rich. Can't you see > what's wrong with that picture? > --- Yes. I had a terrible business plan. You capitalized on my failure. That's what the free market is about. Next book I'm going to sell to a publisher who can compete with you, who gives me a good up-front cut, as well as royalties. > [...] > --- [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > have been bought by a library and sell those copies. > --- Yes. That's what I'm saying. Of course I know the current law disagrees on that point, but I'm arguing for reform. I don' t think these enforced monopolies are causing all that much good in the world. > [..] > > The _fact_ is that you're an avowed thief, have been presented with > ample evidence to prove that you're a thief, and by denying that > you're also a liar. Either that or delusional. Simple. > --- ?? I'm a thief, because I deny I'm a liar? Yes, that sounds delusional to me. > >> >> > If I'm a common thief for copying a book, than the library must be > >> >> > organized crime. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to be held, for a time, by different folks, so that they can get to > the information it contains. "Getting the information" means copying the information. Right? I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the information, as long as you don't sell it for profit. However, as you know by now, I would still disagree. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you must not do that. > --- :) Good luck stopping that. And why would you try? > >> --- > >> You're an idiot. Once the book has been manufactured and the author [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I advocate the free dissemination of information; I do _not_ > advocate the illegal duplication of copyrighted works. You don't see a contradiction there? --- > >> >Again, could put the property on exhibit for the court to see? > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > --- > The author's right to not have his works duplicated. You're saying I can't put on a performance of Romeo and Juliet? I can't sing happy birthday? (actually that one is copyrighted) I can't read out loud to a group of children? I can't distribute copies of a text to students? I can't make cheaper copies of Harry Potter to compete with the $40 tomes? In a free market all those things would be legal. What's her name might only have a few hundred million instead of x billion. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you're a liar as well. > --- Sorry, I don't think so. Can you name one legal case of a plagiariser being sentenced for theft? Anyway, my apoligies for introducing that term. We were talking about copying a work and selling it, presumably including the proper author listing. Fraud is a slightly different story we probably shouldn't get into here. > >> >Did I violate a contract that I had agreed to? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have proves that you're now at the point where you're grasping at > straws, trying to win an argument you lost long ago. You insisted that copying certain information is stealing. When I read (and memorize), that information is copied. You suggest that by reading a book copied without express permission of the copyright owner, I am stealing. However, in no case was any physical property taken from anyone. Anyway, thanks for your comments and keeping the discussion going - shevek >> Your reply to that was totally nonsensical and had nothing to do >> with Keith's point. Can't you see that? > >No, sorry. If a government body is telling me what language I can and >cannot use as a citizen who has not entered any contract, I feel that >is unfair. --- That wasn't the point. The point was that if you're the author of a copyrighted language, then the government's position is that since you are, in essence, the owner of that language, then no one can use that language without your permission. Which you'd have to daft not to issue if you expected to be able to communicate with anyone in that language. --- >> Perhaps you'd like to _think_ it's not what you advocate because you >> don't want to think of yourself as a thief, but your admitted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for defending alleged theives. By that argument any defense attorney >is guilty of the crime the defendant is accused of. --- Defense attorney my a.s. When you lie with thieves, and when you posit that the solution to the problems brought about by the thieves who infringe on patents and copyrights is to get rid of patents and copyrights, then it becomes readily apparent that what you're doing is self-defense. --- >The second problem is that the term "thief" is not well justified when >no physical object has been stolen. In this thread I am a defender of >alleged thieves.. yet you insist on calling me a thief. --- When you maintain that breaking copyright law and thus depriving an author of his just rewards is acceptable behavior to the point that copyright law should be repealed, then you're not defending thieves, you're condoning theft and asking for the repeal of the 8th Commandment. I don't think that's going to happen. --- >> Let's say that you wrote a book and when it hit the street I bought >> a copy, copied it, and started selling it for half the price that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >publisher who can compete with you, who gives me a good up-front cut, >as well as royalties. --- You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work without a copyright. --- >> --- >> Fine, but the copyright doesn't expire when a book is sold any more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >disagrees on that point, but I'm arguing for reform. I don' t think >these enforced monopolies are causing all that much good in the world. --- You're insane. The reason there's such a proliferation of information in the world isn't because of altruism, it's because everyone wants to make a buck. The protection, over time, afforded by patents and copyrights is precisely what makes taking the risk of making the invention or writing the play worthwhile, and those machines and stories are precisely what makes the world a better place in which to live. What do you think the motivation would be to invent or to write if there weren't some hope of a decent return? Some pie-in-the-sky thank you note from humanity? Forget it. --- >> The _fact_ is that you're an avowed thief, have been presented with >> ample evidence to prove that you're a thief, and by denying that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >?? I'm a thief, because I deny I'm a liar? Yes, that sounds >delusional to me. --- No, you're a liar because you deny you're a thief. Here, let me punctuate it so it's more readily understandable to you: The _fact_ is that you're an avowed thief, have been presented with ample evidence to prove that you're a thief and, by denying that, you're also a liar. Either that or delusional. Simple. --- >> What you seem incapable of understanding (or haven't considered) is >> that the book is one thing and the information it contains another. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >"Getting the information" means copying the information. Right? --- No, it means assimilating it. --- >I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the >information, as long as you don't sell it for profit. --- The point of my argument is that it's not OK to violate copyright law. Suppose you made a million copies and gave them all away. That would also hurt the author. --- >However, as you know by now, I would still disagree. --- Perhaps, then I should agree with you and have you argue _my_ point? Nahhh... You'd bungle it as badly as you have your own... ;) --- >> --- >> If by "share" you mean to pass it around, yes, you can do that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >:) >Good luck stopping that. And why would you try? --- Not understanding why is what makes you a thief. --- >> Again, you seem unable to differentiate between the book and the >> information it contains, two _quite_ different things. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You don't see a contradiction there? --- That you can't is what makes you a thief. --- >> --- >> The author's right to not have his works duplicated. > >You're saying I can't put on a performance of Romeo and Juliet? --- Romeo and Juliet ids in the public domain. --- > I can't sing happy birthday? (actually that one is copyrighted) --- Yes you may. If it's copyrighted you may not make illegal copies of the song. --- > I can't read out loud to a group of children? --- Yes you may. You may not make illegal copies of what you're reading to them. --- >I can't distribute copies of a text to students? --- You may not not if they've been illegally copied. --- > I can't make cheaper copies of Harry Potter to compete with the $40 tomes? --- You may not. --- >In a free market all those things would be legal. What's her name >might only have a few hundred million instead of x billion. --- In your marketplace the original textbooks may never have been produced because of the lack of an adequate return to the authors and publishers. In your marketplace "Harry Potter" may never have come to light because of the lack of an adequate return to the author and publishers. Who is "What's her name" and why shouln't she have X billion? --- >> --- >> LOL, plagiarism _is_ theft. And fraud as well, since you're [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Sorry, I don't think so. Can you name one legal case of a plagiariser >being sentenced for theft? --- Sorry, you don't think so, what??? No. Can you name all the plagiarisers who haven't? --- >Anyway, my apoligies for introducing that term. We were talking about >copying a work and selling it, presumably including the proper author >listing. Fraud is a slightly different story we probably shouldn't get >into here. --- Methinks the gentleman doth complain too much... --- >> I've never insisted that reading is stealing, and your lie that I >> have proves that you're now at the point where you're grasping at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >reading a book copied without express permission of the copyright >owner, I am stealing. --- No, reading the book doesn't violate copyright law, as far as I know. Producing it does. If you've memorized the book and you type it out, verbatim, you've violated copyright law. Moreover, if you take possession of unlawfully produced material you may be in possession of stolen property. --- >However, in no case was any physical property taken from anyone. --- Didn't have to be. The act of copying the material is what violated the law. --- >Anyway, thanks for your comments and keeping the discussion going - >shevek --- Sure... SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > --- > That wasn't the point. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you expected to be able to communicate with anyone in that language. > --- Good Morning - A better trick with copyright law is to make sure that people are able to use the information (in this case the klingon language) without permission. Then, what you are claiming ownership of is more valuable. In other words, you're right that Viacom won't make a penny off their Klingon monopoly rights unless people are talking or writing klingon and therefore have a need for the price-inflated (monopoly) goods (dictionaries, etc.). So they should tacitly encourage some copyright violation. In a similar way, MS tacitly encourages some copyright violation. Without it, they'd have nowhere near the same penetration in the OS sector. [..] > >The first problem with that logic is that you are calling me a thief > >for defending alleged theives. By that argument any defense attorney [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is self-defense. > --- Are you accusing me of copyright violation? Maybe because I used a word of Klingon? Did I cut and paste from google groups? Please do tell why -I- am a thief personally. Actually I'm not even aiding and abetting any alleged thieves. > >[..] > --- > You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work > without a copyright. > --- OK, putting your information together we can conclude that Romeo and Juliet will never be published. Nor the bible. > --- > No, you're a liar because you deny you're a thief. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you're also a liar. Either that or delusional. Simple. > --- Let's see some of that ample evidence. Name something that I have personally stolen. Or don't, and keep calling me a thief anyway. It doesn't bother me too much. > >"Getting the information" means copying the information. Right? > > --- > No, it means assimilating it. > --- Would you care to make that distinction rigorous? Assimilated information can be recalled to what level? > >I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the > >information, as long as you don't sell it for profit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That would also hurt the author. > --- That sounds like a likely scenario! Giving away apples also hurts other apple farmers.. should that be illegal too? > >> --- > >> The author's right to not have his works duplicated. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Romeo and Juliet ids in the public domain. > --- I guess I already commented on that. > > I can't sing happy birthday? (actually that one is copyrighted) > > --- > Yes you may. If it's copyrighted you may not make illegal copies of > the song. > --- Like if I tape my family singing it for example? If I sing it on stage and people paid admission? http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp I don't believe it. $2m in royalties? You think that's money well-earned? > --- > In your marketplace the original textbooks may never have been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Who is "What's her name" and why shouln't she have X billion? > --- The adequate return is there. That can be proven by looking ath the many original texts and works of art that were made without the lure of a government protected monopoly. It can also be proven by thinking about the obvious ways to still make money with a good text even in a free market. OK, here's an opportunity for me to express doubt in the party line I have been sticking to so far. As a Harry Potter fan, I believe JK Rowling should be very rich due to the sales of her book. However, without enforced monopoly legislation, I find it hard to believe she would still have a billion dollars. In a free market, many other publishers would very quickly OCR the text and make their own copies, so it's unclear how much a publisher would offer her for a contract on her original text. They'd have a big advantage with pre-orders, but I estimate the price of the book for us would be about a quarter of what it is now. She'd be wealthy and famous still of course, but maybe a factor of as much as 100 poorer. What do you think? Does a world where JK Rowling only gets a few million pounds or so for her next book seem unfair to you? > >Sorry, I don't think so. Can you name one legal case of a plagiariser > >being sentenced for theft? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No. Can you name all the plagiarisers who haven't? > --- I don't think there's no difference between plagiarism and theft. Of course I can't name all plagiariasers but I can name a few who were not charged with theft: Chief Executive William Swanson of Raytheon Kaavya Viswanathan In some cases, plagiarism is a worse crime. Cheers - shevek >> --- >> That wasn't the point. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >to use the information (in this case the klingon language) without >permission. --- Why is that a trick? AFAIK, copyright law doesn't prohibit the dissemination or use of information gained by assimilating copyrighted material unless that dissemination takes the form of copying a document and distributing it without permission. --- >Then, what you are claiming ownership of is more valuable. > In other words, you're right that Viacom won't make a penny off their >Klingon monopoly rights unless people are talking or writing klingon >and therefore have a need for the price-inflated (monopoly) goods >(dictionaries, etc.). --- I thinmk you're confused, since I wasn't the one who replied to your question about Klingons. However, I will comment that "price-inflated" is a relative term, and anyone who thinks that the goods are too expensive is free to not buy them. Vote with your feet. --- >So they should tacitly encourage some copyright >violation. In a similar way, MS tacitly encourages some copyright >violation. Without it, they'd have nowhere near the same penetration >in the OS sector. --- You're comparing apples and oranges. The presumption is that by illegally copying and distributing an OS, the users will learn that OS, and when the time comes where they're forced to get legal they'll fork over their cash for what they will already have learned. I don't think the Viacom case is quite the same, since the market into which they're looking to place their "Klingon" products is so much smaller and their products so much different from an OS. --- >> --- >> Defense attorney my a.s. When you lie with thieves, and when you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Are you accusing me of copyright violation? --- Certainly not, since I don't have any evidence (or a confession from you) that you've violated copyright law. However, by stating that it was a "shitty business plan" which caused an author to go broke (even though has works were copyrighted) while the pirates who illegally copied his work and sold it got rich, you seem to be advocating infringement by casting the blame for the author's failure on the author instead of where it belongs, on the pirates. --- >Maybe because I used a >word of Klingon? --- Certainly not. Using the language isn't a violation of copyright law, copying the dictionary is. Same as would be copying Webster's or the OED. --- >Did I cut and paste from google groups? --- What does that have to do with anything? --- >Please do tell why -I- am a thief personally. --- Because you advocate theft? --- >Actually I'm not even aiding and abetting any alleged thieves. --- Sure you are, since if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Moreover, your "solution" would merely exacerbate the problem. --- >> --- >> You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >OK, putting your information together we can conclude that Romeo and >Juliet will never be published. --- It was originally copyrighted, as you'll learn if you take the time to Google for it, and it was consequently published. --- >Nor the bible. --- Wanna publish the Bible? Go for it. --- >> --- >> No, you're a liar because you deny you're a thief. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Or don't, and keep calling me a thief anyway. It doesn't bother me too >much. --- I don't know of anything you've stolen, personally, but by advocating theft I assume you would if you could. Perhaps the law is what keeps you from stealing, but if you don't feel any moral compunction not to steal, then you're a thief. Or at least a would-be thief until you commit the act. --- >> >"Getting the information" means copying the information. Right? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Would you care to make that distinction rigorous? --- That is rigorous. --- >Assimilated >information can be recalled to what level? --- If you have a photographic memory, letter-by-letter. --- >> >I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the >> >information, as long as you don't sell it for profit. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >That sounds like a likely scenario! Giving away apples also hurts >other apple farmers.. should that be illegal too? --- If the apples are yours to give away, no. --- >> > I can't sing happy birthday? (actually that one is copyrighted) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Like if I tape my family singing it for example? --- You may do that. --- >If I sing it on stage and people paid admission? --- You may not do that without permission. --- >http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp > >I don't believe it. $2m in royalties? You think that's money >well-earned? --- Yes, of course, and if you owned the copyright so would you. >> --- >> In your marketplace the original textbooks may never have been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The adequate return is there. --- Adequate in your eyes, perhaps, but who are you to decide what should be adequate for the rest of us or, for that matter, for any of us? --- >That can be proven by looking ath the >many original texts and works of art that were made without the lure of >a government protected monopoly. --- No, it can't. If they weren't made to be marketed with protection of some sort they were single commissioned works of art made for a specific patron. --- > It can also be proven by thinking >about the obvious ways to still make money with a good text even in a >free market. --- So far you haven't demonstrated that that's true. --- >OK, here's an opportunity for me to express doubt in the party line I >have been sticking to so far. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >think? Does a world where JK Rowling only gets a few million pounds or >so for her next book seem unfair to you? --- Of course. She should amass as much wealth during her lifetime as she can, if that's what she wants to do, and if she could amass, say one hundred million for her next book but can only get one million because of the parasite pirates out there, then that's bad. What you're advocating here is no different from stating that it's OK to let people sneak into a movie without paying as long as the movie makes as much as _you_ think it should. --- >I don't think there's no difference between plagiarism and theft. --- Then you think there _is_ a difference? Theft is taking something which isn't yours for your own use, and plagiarism is taking someone else's words and presenting them as if they were yours. Not only is that theft, it's also lying. --- >course I can't name all plagiariasers but I can name a few who were not >charged with theft: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >In some cases, plagiarism is a worse crime. --- That's because it's two crimes in one. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> --- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > copying a document and distributing it without permission. > --- My apologies for continued snipping if I hit the wrong parts. Trying to leave the juicy stuff. The 'trick' here is that some companies want to publicly be anti-piracy, but behind doors help some of these so-called pirates. That's why Nike and Oakley work with some of those knock-off manufacturers, and MS makes sure there's a version out there that will boot even though thousands of others are using the same license code. But now we're talking about how to take advantage of copyright laws. I'd rather talk about how there shouldn't be any. > >Then, what you are claiming ownership of is more valuable. > > In other words, you're right that Viacom won't make a penny off their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > feet. > --- And vote with your wallet. I agree! I use the term "price-inflated" because monopolies can inflate the price greatly, as any competition will be shut down by the government. > >Please do tell why -I- am a thief personally. > > --- > Because you advocate theft? > --- Even if I did, that wouldn't make me a thief. > >Actually I'm not even aiding and abetting any alleged thieves. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the problem. > --- OK dubya :) If the problem is that record executives don't get paid enough, you're right that my solution would exacerbate the problem. > >> --- > >> You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Wanna publish the Bible? Go for it. > --- My point exactly! Free markets can work. Nobody's suing the Gideons. > >> --- > >> No, you're a liar because you deny you're a thief. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > would-be thief until you commit the act. > --- Maybe you should press charges against me pre-emptively. > >> >"Getting the information" means copying the information. Right? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If you have a photographic memory, letter-by-letter. > --- My hard-drive has a photographic memory.. is that assimilation? You said that assimilation of copyrighted information was OK above.. > >> >I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the > >> >information, as long as you don't sell it for profit. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If the apples are yours to give away, no. > --- OK, now suppose that the paper and ink is mine to give away. Should that be illegal? > >> > I can't sing happy birthday? (actually that one is copyrighted) > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > --- > Yes, of course, and if you owned the copyright so would you. I would of course think that this is a great scam I am in on. You're jealous aren't you. Perhaps I am too, hard to turn down money for nothing.. > >> --- > >> In your marketplace the original textbooks may never have been [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of us? > --- Exactly!! The free market should decide that; not a government body manipulating the market by enforcing monopolies given to the highest bidders. > >That can be proven by looking ath the > >many original texts and works of art that were made without the lure of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > patron. > --- There's a good example, thank you. Other examples include works of art made for a specific publisher, works of art made for a specific concert or performance, works of art made under salary, etc.. > > It can also be proven by thinking > >about the obvious ways to still make money with a good text even in a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So far you haven't demonstrated that that's true. > --- We already gave the examples of any copies of the Bible or Romeo and Juliet sold today. You really don't think there's profit to be had in free market? > >OK, here's an opportunity for me to express doubt in the party line I > >have been sticking to so far. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > movie makes as much as _you_ think it should. > --- No. I never said I should decide. I said a free market should decide. I don't think people should be able to sneak into a movie theatre without the owner's permission. A movie theatre is private property, made of massive materials and existing in a permanent location. You can't go in without permission - trespassing and theft of services, with the services being easily quantifiable due to the expensive speakers and projection equipment. The theatre is also allowed to search you on the way in if they want and to not allow camcorders. However if you don't want the information to go into the public domain, you probably shouldn't be showing it to the public. You especially shouldn't be selling DVDs. Cheers - shevek >> >> --- >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >But now we're talking about how to take advantage of copyright laws. >I'd rather talk about how there shouldn't be any. --- Well, you were the one who brought up the "taking advantage" part. As for me, I'll continue to defend patents and copyrights because I think they're the fairest way to make sure that artists don't get f.cked over. --- >> >Then, what you are claiming ownership of is more valuable. >> > In other words, you're right that Viacom won't make a penny off their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I use the term "price-inflated" because monopolies can inflate the >price greatly, as any competition will be shut down by the government. --- As it should be. Part and parcel of owning IP is trying to get as much as you can out of it before the protection runs out, and part and parcel of that is charging enough that buyers complain, but still buy. It's just business. Charge too much and you'll lose part of the market, charge too little and you'll lose some margin. The sweet spot is where the two curves intersect. --- >OK dubya :) >If the problem is that record executives don't get paid enough, you're >right that my solution would exacerbate the problem. --- Thanks for the compliment but, unfortunately, I can't be the president of the US because I wasn't born here. But, getting back to the juicy part of your problem, what is it with you that you think you should be the arbiter of who should get paid what? For example, I'm in business and if I swing a series of deals where I take over the world, what business would that be of yours? You'd still be able to eke out an existence dependent on your capabilities and whine about how unfair it all is, so what would be different? Matter of fact, if I achieved my position through manipulating your "free market", you'd really have nothing to whine about, would you? --- >> >> --- >> >> You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >My point exactly! Free markets can work. Nobody's suing the Gideons. --- That's because they compiled their bible from public domain material. If you check, though, you'll find that their bible (and every other bible) is copyrighted. So, if you want to become a bible publisher you've got a lot of work ahead of you if you intend to not infringe. --- >> --- >> I don't know of anything you've stolen, personally, but by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Maybe you should press charges against me pre-emptively. --- No need. you'll do yourself in soon enough. --- >My hard-drive has a photographic memory.. is that assimilation? You >said that assimilation of copyrighted information was OK above.. --- It's not assimilation when it's merely copied. Check Webster. A hard drive has no will of its own, and can only be directed to copy information by being told to do so, which is illegal if the work being copied is copyrighted. Moreover, it's understood that by reading we will each retain some or all of what we read, and that's the purpose of writing; to pass information along. And to make a profit at it if that's what suits us. >> >That sounds like a likely scenario! Giving away apples also hurts >> >other apple farmers.. should that be illegal too? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >OK, now suppose that the paper and ink is mine to give away. Should >that be illegal? --- Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with copyrighted information, and you give the paper and ink away in that form, that _is_ illegal. --- >> >I don't believe it. $2m in royalties? You think that's money >> >well-earned? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I would of course think that this is a great scam I am in on. --- If you think there's something wrong with that and you find it morally repugnant, then you're perfectly free to place anything you come up with in the public domain and try out your "free market" ideas. --- >You're jealous aren't you. --- Not at all. I do what I can and I do all right, and I take my hat off to anyone who is willing to take great risks for the possibility of getting great rewards. --- >Perhaps I am too, hard to turn down money for nothing.. --- The problem is that you think it's nothing because you've never done anything and you resent someone else making it, big time, because you don't understand the amount of talent and work it takes to bring a product (be it an invention, a book, whatever) to market. --- >> >The adequate return is there. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >manipulating the market by enforcing monopolies given to the highest >bidders. --- Is that what you think, that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are given to the highest bidders? If it is, then your entire belief set is built on ignorance. If it isn't [what you believe] then you're just throwing sh.t into the game. Do some reading if you're interested in finding out how the system works, otherwise you might as well save yourself some embarrassment and strive to remain silent. --- >> > It can also be proven by thinking >> >about the obvious ways to still make money with a good text even in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You really don't think there's profit to be had in free market? --- Yes, but as I explained in the beginning, by the single entity with the upper hand, not by the plethora of small monopolies which wouldn't exist under your system. Recalling that, you brought up the matter of anti-trust. What comes to mind is how would that anti-trust legislation be enforced? Government control of profits? Government determining how much and what kind of business any entity might engage in? Yeah, LOL, that sounds like a free market. ;) --- >> --- >> What you're advocating here is no different from stating that it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No. I never said I should decide. I said a free market should decide. --- Bullshit. By stating that someone makes too much, you make yourself the arbiter of how much is enough. --- >I don't think people should be able to sneak into a movie theatre >without the owner's permission. A movie theatre is private property, --- So is the film being shown there. --- >made of massive materials and existing in a permanent location. You >can't go in without permission - trespassing and theft of services, >with the services being easily quantifiable due to the expensive >speakers and projection equipment. --- Theft of services being watching the movie without paying for it. Same as theft of services by buying a copy of a bootleg DVD, say, the theft having been committed by the pirate and his knowing customer. --- >The theatre is also allowed to search you on the way in if they want >and to not allow camcorders. However if you don't want the information >to go into the public domain, you probably shouldn't be showing it to >the public. You especially shouldn't be selling DVDs. --- The information doesn't go into the public domain, it becomes illegal material publicly available, and it isn't shown to the public, it's shown to that segment of the public which can afford to pay to see it. As far as not selling DVD's goes, your premise becomes one of "Since we know that DVDs are going to be bootlegged, the only real defense against that is not to produce DVDs at all." Patently ridiculous. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> --- [..] > --- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you that you think you should be the arbiter of who should get paid > what? As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, I think the free market should decide that kind of thing. IP laws suggest that the government should decide. > For example, I'm in business and if I swing a series of deals where > I take over the world, what business would that be of yours? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > manipulating your "free market", you'd really have nothing to whine > about, would you? I can see why you put that in quotes here.. because you control the world? Hard to be free when your every action is controlled isn't it. > >My hard-drive has a photographic memory.. is that assimilation? You > >said that assimilation of copyrighted information was OK above.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > information by being told to do so, which is illegal if the work > being copied is copyrighted. OK, so now your rigorous line betwee assimilation and reproduction is free will? > Moreover, it's understood that by reading we will each retain some > or all of what we read, and that's the purpose of writing; to pass > information along. And to make a profit at it if that's what suits > us. To make a profit by forced manipulation of markets by centralized power, if that's what suits us. That's the game being played today. I hope a better world will exist for our children. > >> >That sounds like a likely scenario! Giving away apples also hurts > >> >other apple farmers.. should that be illegal too? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > form, that _is_ illegal. > --- We agree about that. The question is if it should remain that way. > >> >I don't believe it. $2m in royalties? You think that's money > >> >well-earned? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ideas. > --- Thank you very much. I have and I intend to continue following exactly that advice. What percentage of publications do you think are copyrighted? > --- > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a product (be it an invention, a book, whatever) to market. > --- You miss the point. My point is that I entirely respect the work and talent it takes to bring a product (be it an invention, a book, whatever) to market. I don't think it should be usurped by the talent and work it takes to pay an armed government to enforce a monopoly in the marketplace. > >> >The adequate return is there. > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > silent. > --- What patent, trademark, or copyright, is not for sale to the highest bidder? They are routinely brought and sold, and I doubt the buyer is selected by many other criteria. > >You really don't think there's profit to be had in free market? > > --- > Yes, but as I explained in the beginning, by the single entity with > the upper hand, not by the plethora of small monopolies which > wouldn't exist under your system. No, I argue that monopolies shouldn't be enforced by the government. > Recalling that, you brought up the matter of anti-trust. What comes > to mind is how would that anti-trust legislation be enforced? > Government control of profits? Government determining how much and > what kind of business any entity might engage in? Yeah, LOL, that > sounds like a free market. ;) Hello mr. strawman. What are you talking about here? You are the one arguing for government control of markets. Thank you for admitting at least that much. --- > >> --- > >> What you're advocating here is no different from stating that it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bullshit. By stating that someone makes too much, you make yourself > the arbiter of how much is enough. I never said that either. I said JK Rowling might make less without IP laws, and I asked what you thought about that. Care to put any other words in my mouth? > --- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --- > So is the film being shown there. Yes, the film, being made of an organic compound, having a clear weight and position in space, is also private property. > >made of massive materials and existing in a permanent location. You > >can't go in without permission - trespassing and theft of services, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > customer. > --- I don't follow you there. If I buy a piece of plastic legally purchased by Joe Schmoe.. how have I committed theft? > --- > The information doesn't go into the public domain, it becomes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > we know that DVDs are going to be bootlegged, the only real defense > against that is not to produce DVDs at all." Patently ridiculous. I never said that you shouldn't produce DVDs. I said you shouldn't produce DVDs if you didn't want the material to appear in the public domain. You can still make big money by making and selling DVDs. Cheers - shevek >> But, getting back to the juicy part of your problem, what is it with >> you that you think you should be the arbiter of who should get paid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >should decide that kind of thing. IP laws suggest that the government >should decide. --- So if someone made a billion in your system it would be OK, but in the current system it wouldn't? --- >> For example, I'm in business and if I swing a series of deals where >> I take over the world, what business would that be of yours? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I can see why you put that in quotes here.. because you control the >world? Hard to be free when your every action is controlled isn't it. --- Yes, and your system, running unchecked, would throw us back into feudalism. --- >> >My hard-drive has a photographic memory.. is that assimilation? You >> >said that assimilation of copyrighted information was OK above.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >OK, so now your rigorous line betwee assimilation and reproduction is >free will? --- They're two completely different things. Look up the definitions in any dictionary. --- >> Moreover, it's understood that by reading we will each retain some >> or all of what we read, and that's the purpose of writing; to pass [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >power, if that's what suits us. That's the game being played today. I >hope a better world will exist for our children. --- You'd rather have your kids scrambling around, stealing everybody else's work than being able to make a living with their own stuff? That doesn't sound like a better world to me. --- >> --- >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >We agree about that. The question is if it should remain that way. --- IMO it should. The system you espouse did exist once upon a time, and it evolved into the system we have now. Why should we go back? --- >> --- >> If you think there's something wrong with that and you find it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that advice. >What percentage of publications do you think are copyrighted? --- Unless explicitly put into the public domain by its author or the author's assignee, _every_ publication (in the US anyway) is automatically copyrighted. --- >> >Perhaps I am too, hard to turn down money for nothing.. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >and work it takes to pay an armed government to enforce a monopoly in >the marketplace. --- It isn't usurped by the government, it's protected. LOL, go look up "usurped" --- >What patent, trademark, or copyright, is not for sale to the highest >bidder? They are routinely brought and sold, and I doubt the buyer is >selected by many other criteria. --- OK, then, from that point of view your system would be no different in that an author would still be peddling his wares around looking for the highest bidder, but instead of a copyright he'd arm himself with an NDA or some other like instrument to protect himself from an unscrupulous publisher. Or would you outlaw NDA's as well and just have the author cast his fate to the winds? --- >> >You really don't think there's profit to be had in free market? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No, I argue that monopolies shouldn't be enforced by the government. --- You'd rather that I shot someone who copied my work and sold it? --- >> Recalling that, you brought up the matter of anti-trust. What comes >> to mind is how would that anti-trust legislation be enforced? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >arguing for government control of markets. Thank you for admitting at >least that much. --- Boy, have you got it wrong! I'm not arguing for government control of markets, I'm arguing for a free market where government protection of intellectual property exists. --- >> >> --- >> >> What you're advocating here is no different from stating that it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >laws, and I asked what you thought about that. Care to put any other >words in my mouth? --- OK, so you think it's OK that she made as much as she did? That's not the impression I got. --- >> --- >> Theft of services being watching the movie without paying for it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I don't follow you there. If I buy a piece of plastic legally >purchased by Joe Schmoe.. how have I committed theft? --- If you know that the piece of plastic has information on it which was obtained illegally and you buy that piece of plastic, then you're an accessory and subject to prosecution. --- >> As far as not selling DVD's goes, your premise becomes one of "Since >> we know that DVDs are going to be bootlegged, the only real defense [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >produce DVDs if you didn't want the material to appear in the public >domain. --- Well, I can't think of a single DVD producer who _wants_ to have bootleg copies of their DVDs on the street, so you agree with me. It's the same thing, but you still don't seem to be able to understand that bootleg DVDs _don't_ put the information they contain into the public domain, they merely make the information illegally available to the public. Go look up "public domain" for a clue. > You can still make big money by making and selling DVDs. --- You can also make big money selling bootleg DVDs or robbing a bank, but that doesn't make either of them right to do. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> Moreover, it's understood that by reading we will each retain some > >> or all of what we read, and that's the purpose of writing; to pass [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That doesn't sound like a better world to me. > --- They'll be even more likely to have to work for a living without the protectionism. I encourage them to stand on the shoulders of giants, and not to re-invent the wheel. > >> --- > >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and it evolved into the system we have now. Why should we go back? > --- Because it could mean cheaper consumer goods, more efficient use of funds, elimination of vast beaurocracy, and more rapid progress of humanity. > >> >Perhaps I am too, hard to turn down money for nothing.. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "usurped" > --- Sorry for my krappy sentence. Should have been "surpassed". > >What patent, trademark, or copyright, is not for sale to the highest > >bidder? They are routinely brought and sold, and I doubt the buyer is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have the author cast his fate to the winds? > --- I have no problem with consensual contractural arrangements. However as I'm sure you're aware one shouldn't put too much faith in one of those if the material is that sensitive. > >> >You really don't think there's profit to be had in free market? > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You'd rather that I shot someone who copied my work and sold it? > --- I'd rather you patted them on the back for helping spread your idea. I'd rather you made a deal with him for the plans of your ideas. I'd rather you had a better grasp of the idea and were able to undercut his production. > >> Recalling that, you brought up the matter of anti-trust. What comes > >> to mind is how would that anti-trust legislation be enforced? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exists. > --- Your two clauses in that senetence contradict each other. > >> >> --- > >> >> What you're advocating here is no different from stating that it's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > not the impression I got. > --- I imagine she will handle the responsibility well, but I haven't read anything about her other than the fortune 500 tagline. I'm a little torn on the issue. On the one hand I feel that government control of the market leads to corruption and inefficiencies, but on the other hand a "benevolant monarchy" can solve some of the predator-prey problems of free markets, and help deserving parties such as Rowling. > >> --- > >> Theft of services being watching the movie without paying for it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you're an accessory and subject to prosecution. > --- Yeah, I know. Pretty silly isn't it? Hard to believe this is the 21st century. When do you think this barbarism will end? :) > >> As far as not selling DVD's goes, your premise becomes one of "Since > >> we know that DVDs are going to be bootlegged, the only real defense [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, I can't think of a single DVD producer who _wants_ to have > bootleg copies of their DVDs on the street, Well the bootleg producers for one.. > so you agree with me. > It's the same thing, but you still don't seem to be able to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Go look up "public domain" for a clue. OK sorry.. DVDs put the information into the domain of the public. > > You can still make big money by making and selling DVDs. > > --- > You can also make big money selling bootleg DVDs or robbing a bank, > but that doesn't make either of them right to do. You don't see the difference? In a bank robbery the property is tangible, it exists. You have threatened peoples lives, and taken some object from its owners. When you sell a bootlegged DVD, let's say copyrighted by Viacom, you have not taken any physical object from Viacom. All you have done is competed with them. They may claim that your actions prevented them from doing business, but that is true of any business with competition. --- Yeah, and make a lot less than they could by having their talent protected. That is, _if_ they had any talent. --- >I encourage them to stand on the shoulders of giants, >and not to re-invent the wheel. --- Standing on the shoulders of giants doesn't mean climbing up there without their permission. --- >> >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with >> >> copyrighted information, and you give the paper and ink away in that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >funds, elimination of vast beaurocracy, and more rapid progress of >humanity. --- All at the expense of the innovators, as it was in the past? You advocate a system where those who make the system better by contributing to it in an intellectually meaningful way have to fight a losing battle to stay alive even though they were the ones who allowed the system to thrive because of their contributions. That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work. We aren't a colony of termites. We all have our individual hopes and dreams and most of us aren't willing to subvert them to idiots like you, who claim to have all of the answers and want us to kow-tow to your ideas of how things should be, for your convenience. Or, more accurately, to give you license to steal from us. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with > >> >> copyrighted information, and you give the paper and ink away in that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > a losing battle to stay alive even though they were the ones who > allowed the system to thrive because of their contributions. No. I think we should fight a winning battle. A battle in which our contributions are what keep us alive, rather than government intervention in the marketplace. > That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work. ?? Vanilla capitalism you mean! IP laws represent centralized control of the means of production, and are thus quite clearly a socialist institution. I thought we'd agreed on that point at least.. > We aren't a colony of termites. We all have our individual hopes > and dreams and most of us aren't willing to subvert them to idiots > like you, who claim to have all of the answers and want us to > kow-tow to your ideas of how things should be, for your convenience. I never said I had all the answers. I think I've been more open-minded to all sides in this discussion than you have. It's not for my convenience, I argue for our convenience. > Or, more accurately, to give you license to steal from us. If you feel that I've stolen from you, I'm sorry. I do appreciate that you have given me a chance to voice the laissez-faire approach to IP law. If you feel that competition is theft, and you are in business, you can expect that people will try to rob you. Cheers - shevek >> >> >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with >> >> >> copyrighted information, and you give the paper and ink away in that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >contributions are what keep us alive, rather than government >intervention in the marketplace. --- Hogwash. The system you advocate is parasitical and demands that the ideas of the innovators be placed into the collective, where any parasite can feed on any contribution by any innovator without even acknowledging the innovator. I know it's difficult for you to grasp that concept, since you admit to being one of those parasites, but those of us who aren't parasites want more than that. For example: If you want to get rich off of something I thought up, why shouldn't I get rich too? I give you the idea and all of a sudden all that matters is that you get the idea to market and work hard to fill your coffers. What about me? If it hadn't been for my idea you would never have been able to do any of it, yet you want to try to disclaim me as unimportant just so you won't have to pay me my just dues. Or have me take over your world. Grr... --- >> That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work. > >?? Vanilla capitalism you mean! IP laws represent centralized control >of the means of production, and are thus quite clearly a socialist >institution. I thought we'd agreed on that point at least.. --- No, we didn't, and if you thought we did that's just another error on your end. IP laws have nothing to do with the means of production, they have to do with who owns the intellectual property. --- >> We aren't a colony of termites. We all have our individual hopes >> and dreams and most of us aren't willing to subvert them to idiots [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I never said I had all the answers. I think I've been more open-minded >to all sides in this discussion than you have. --- That's only because you've finally been forced to face your own ignorance and, according to your last post, have given up. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with > >> >> >> copyrighted information, and you give the paper and ink away in that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > parasite can feed on any contribution by any innovator without even > acknowledging the innovator. Hogwash indeed. The system I advocate does not demand -anything- of the ideas of innovators - it allows innovators to choose themselves what to do with their ideas. That parasites exist is simply a fact - legislation will not change it. Indeed they have a valuable role to play in economics and ecology. > I know it's difficult for you to grasp that concept, since you admit > to being one of those parasites, but those of us who aren't > parasites want more than that. For example: If you want to get rich > off of something I thought up, why shouldn't I get rich too? Exactly! Why not? Why should a central government decide who does or doesn't get rich, when a free market could decide? > I give you the idea and all of a sudden all that matters is that you > get the idea to market and work hard to fill your coffers. > > What about me? Sorry, I don't actually run a production company. Otherwise, I'd certainly make you an offer. I'm sure you'll find one, and if not, why not start your own? > If it hadn't been for my idea you would never have been able to do > any of it, yet you want to try to disclaim me as unimportant just so > you won't have to pay me my just dues. I don't want to disclaim you as unimportant. Where did you get that idea? You can be rich and famous for applying your ideas even without protectionist government policies. The point is that what are "just dues" are open to debate. Perhaps a free market is a better way to decide what is "just". > >> That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to do with who owns the intellectual property. > --- If I start producing DVDs and selling them at a fraction of the protected monopoly cost, the IP police will try to come in and shut me down. That is control of production. If you want to defend the socialist institution of IP laws, do so. There are many socialist institutions worthy of defense, and I have admitted that IP laws may be one of them, though here I play the part of attacking them. But don't make false claims about their nature! > >> We aren't a colony of termites. We all have our individual hopes > >> and dreams and most of us aren't willing to subvert them to idiots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's only because you've finally been forced to face your own > ignorance and, according to your last post, have given up. Almost.. I guess you gave me a little more hope with your last post. Cheers - shevek >> --- >> Hogwash. The system you advocate is parasitical and demands that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the ideas of innovators - it allows innovators to choose themselves >what to do with their ideas. --- No, it doesn't. Since you say, "their ideas" you're admitting that the ideas are the property of the inventor but, as you've stated previously, your system requires that the IP behind any product made available to the public become the property of the public and, as such, may be used for any purpose anyone chooses. That means that, unlike things are now, where by disclosing the ideas behind the products we get small monopolies for a while in return, your system limits our freedom to do what we want to with what is ours since we must keep it secret to keep from losing it. That is neither good for us individually or collectively. --- >That parasites exist is simply a fact - legislation will not change it. --- That's not true. IP legislation has kept many would-be parasites at bay. --- > Indeed they have a valuable role to play in economics and ecology. --- As examples of what not to be, for instance. --- >> I know it's difficult for you to grasp that concept, since you admit >> to being one of those parasites, but those of us who aren't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Exactly! Why not? Why should a central government decide who does or >doesn't get rich, when a free market could decide? --- I stand a much better chance of getting rich by having a government behind me which will keep you from stealing my ideas from me than I would with the chaotic system you advocate in place. --- >> I give you the idea and all of a sudden all that matters is that you >> get the idea to market and work hard to fill your coffers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >certainly make you an offer. I'm sure you'll find one, and if not, why >not start your own? --- You missed the point, which was that if you get ahold of my idea and it's not protected, then you could easily run with it and use it for your own benefit while leaving me in the lurch. Not much of a system... --- >> If it hadn't been for my idea you would never have been able to do >> any of it, yet you want to try to disclaim me as unimportant just so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >idea? You can be rich and famous for applying your ideas even without >protectionist government policies. --- Maybe by becoming a basketball player or something like that, because you couldn't steal my talent, but where IP's concerned it's so easy to steal if it isn't protected that your staement is laughable. --- >The point is that what are "just dues" are open to debate. --- No, it isn't. I should be the one to maximize my own rewards, not some committee or individual who thinks that I've had enough so they're going to distribute the rest as they see fit. Is that the "freedom" you're boasting about which would come about under your system? --- >Perhaps a free market is a better way to decide what is "just". --- A free-for-all where the biggest thief takes it all is what you're talking about. Where's the justness in that? --- >> >> That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work. >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >protected monopoly cost, the IP police will try to come in and shut me >down. That is control of production. --- No, that's shutting down a criminal enterprise and bringing a thief to justice. Control of production would be if the government told Warner Brothers, say, How many CDs they were allowed to make. --- >If you want to defend the socialist institution of IP laws, do so. >There are many socialist institutions worthy of defense, and I have >admitted that IP laws may be one of them, though here I play the part >of attacking them. But don't make false claims about their nature! --- There's nothing socialistic about it, since under socialism the government owns or controls the means of production and distribution of goods. Contrast that with someone who temporarily owns a patent in a largely capitalistic society like ours and you'll see that the government isn't telling them how much to produce or even whether or not _to_ produce. --- >> --- >> That's only because you've finally been forced to face your own >> ignorance and, according to your last post, have given up. > >Almost.. I guess you gave me a little more hope with your last post. --- Glad I could help. Are we done yet? ;) SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> --- > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > public become the property of the public and, as such, may be used > for any purpose anyone chooses. Yes. I see you have gotten my point. Under what you call "my system", because here I argue the case for elimination of IP law, any product "made available" is then "available".. rather than having a product be conditionally available subject to caveats of central government control. > That means that, unlike things are > now, where by disclosing the ideas behind the products we get small > monopolies for a while in return, your system limits our freedom to > do what we want to with what is ours since we must keep it secret to > keep from losing it. That is neither good for us individually or > collectively. No, I'm definitely not advocating any limit to freedoms to what we do. Quite the contrary, I'm arguing that there -shouldn't- be these limits on our freedoms. IP laws specifically limit what we can do with ideas. > >> I know it's difficult for you to grasp that concept, since you admit > >> to being one of those parasites, but those of us who aren't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would with the chaotic system you advocate in place. > --- You'd also stand a much better chance of getting rich if you owned slaves. Does that make it right? > >> I give you the idea and all of a sudden all that matters is that you > >> get the idea to market and work hard to fill your coffers. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > system... > --- Why not? Why shouldn't I be able to take care of myself and use my ideas to my advantage without relying on big brother to scare off would-be competitors? > >> If it hadn't been for my idea you would never have been able to do > >> any of it, yet you want to try to disclaim me as unimportant just so [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > laughable. > --- ?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how you could have made bundle on it without relying on protection from big brother. > >The point is that what are "just dues" are open to debate. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > system? > --- No, that's the freedom -you- are boasting about. I'm suggesting here that these committees and individuals who are deciding IP law, deciding to distribute wealth (market share) should be disbanded. [..] > >If you want to defend the socialist institution of IP laws, do so. > >There are many socialist institutions worthy of defense, and I have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not _to_ produce. > --- It's entirely clear that the government controls the distribution of goods under IP law. I'm sure you can admit at least that much. That's the whole point! Only the patent holder is allowed to distribute the goods. The government tells me I can produce exactly 0 units of Happy Birthday CDs because there's a copyright on that is owned by WB. To support such a system for its value of redistributing wealth in a manner you feel is more fair is one thing.. to claim such a system is free market capitalism is delusional. > >> --- > >> That's only because you've finally been forced to face your own [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Are we done yet? ;) I think so. Sorry for taking up your time with this utopian argument.. - shevek [....] >?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how >you could have made bundle on it without relying on protection from big >brother. Ok tell me how I could have gotten rich from fixing the "slew rate problem" in instantaneous floating point converters, without being able to patent the idea behind it. Lets get a specific case into this. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge > [....] > >?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lets get a specific case into this. Thanks for your example Ken. I must admit to ignorance in the nature of the slew rate problem, or even how a floating point conversion could be performed in zero time, but here are a few suggestions anyway: 1) It sounds like you have a detailed knowledge of design and manufacture of D/A converters. With that kind of knowledge, you could put a business plan together and approach investors - with a plan to build faster/better/cheaper converters and get a large portion of that lucrative market. 2) Another possibility is that you are a crucial member of a company that already builds D/A converters or electronic calculators of some sort. Chances are that if you are solving slew rate issues you are well compensated for your work - otherwise you'd flee to better offers from the competition. 3) A less likely possibility is that you are a hobbyist who has found time to explore floating point converters and found a way to buffer the input in such a way that the slew rate is not the limiting factor. Let's suppose also somehow you don't know much about manufacture, outsourcing, or business management so option 1 is off the table. In this case, you could approach a company with your idea (don't tell them everything until you're hired of course), or you could look for help in other educated parties in pursuing option 1. 4) Another option is placing your idea in the public domain, by e.g. publishing it in a IEEE journal or something. While you won't immediately profit from it, the boost in your reputation will greatly open your options in employment and increase the starting offers. Good luck - shevek >> [....] >> >?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >build faster/better/cheaper converters and get a large portion of that >lucrative market. IFP converters are never "cheaper". They are very costly things. What invester in his right mind would invest in the project when he knows that TI[1] would buy the first example and reverse engineer it and be on the market in under a year with the exact same product. [1] Most likely TI but it could be someone else. I'm going to call the "strike one" I don't see any way this will get me rich as a result of the IFP design. >2) Another possibility is that you are a crucial member of a company >that already builds D/A converters or electronic calculators of some >sort. Chances are that if you are solving slew rate issues you are >well compensated for your work - otherwise you'd flee to better offers >from the competition. No, I don't build ADCs (in general) I design them into stuff by the handfulls. I am well compensated but the IFP isn't getting me rich under this suggestion. It is my other work that is getting me rich. I'll call this "strike two" >3) A less likely possibility is that you are a hobbyist who has found >time to explore floating point converters and found a way to buffer the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >everything until you're hired of course), or you could look for help in >other educated parties in pursuing option 1. On the day I tell them "everything" they no longer need me. Also they are not going to spend a lot on the IFP design if there is a competitor that will simply copy the design. Since this wasn't the actual case I won't call this "strike 3". >4) Another option is placing your idea in the public domain, by e.g. >publishing it in a IEEE journal or something. While you won't >immediately profit from it, the boost in your reputation will greatly >open your options in employment and increase the starting offers. This one does get called "Strike 3". You said I would get rich. You haven't suggest any method that would work. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge > >> [....] > >> >?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > [1] Most likely TI but it could be someone else. I would invest in the project. One year of the market is quite a bit of profit, in the worst case scenario. Also, with your knowledge there's a good chance you can still make them better than the reverse engineered generic version from TI - not to mention the improvements you may have made by that point. Why do you assume TI will be able to make them better than you can? > I'm going to call the "strike one" I don't see any way this will get me > rich as a result of the IFP design. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > this suggestion. It is my other work that is getting me rich. I'll call > this "strike two" I see there must be a subtle difference between "rich" and "well compensated". The top 99.9% income bracket worldwide isn't high enough, is it :) > >3) A less likely possibility is that you are a hobbyist who has found > >time to explore floating point converters and found a way to buffer the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This one does get called "Strike 3". You said I would get rich. You > haven't suggest any method that would work. Linus Torvalds for example chose route 4, as did Alan Turing, Cooley & Tukey, etc. etc... who all did quite well for themselves. All three methods for which you gave me a strike could get you large amounts of money. Perhaps the only question is just how much. You're entirely right that by setting up a protected monopoly you will get richer.. so perhaps I have struck out if that was the goal. Maybe I should also list a few non-free-market options: 5) Obtain a patent lawyer and set up a protected monopoly on your invention. 6) Write a proposal to develop your project further funded by taxpayer dollars 7) Sell your device to the department of defense for a price not less than 100 times the manufacure and R&D costs. Cheers - shevek [....] >> IFP converters are never "cheaper". They are very costly things. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I would invest in the project. One year of the market is quite a bit >of profit, in the worst case scenario. In the market where this example happened one year is nothing. It took us between 2 and 3 to recover the development cost. In year 5 we made a bucket of money, but it took that long to get there. > Also, with your knowledge >there's a good chance you can still make them better than the reverse >engineered generic version from TI - not to mention the improvements >you may have made by that point. You promiced you would explain how I would get rich from the idea not that I would get rich from some later idea. The specific invention is all you have to work with. Suggesting that there are later improvements takes us from the specific case the pure speculation. BTW: I never made any improvements from that point on. The design was for all practical purposes perfect at that point. Once the "slew rate" problem was fixed, there were no more problems. > Why do you assume TI will be able to >make them better than you can? I don't presume that they can make them better of even cheaper. They can make them in large quantities and with their large and powerful marketing arm, they can fill the entire market in short order. Its obvious that you still haven't googled on "instantaneous floating point converter" or the like. You haven't studied up on the real case and tried to come up with a valid argument for the specific case. [...] >I see there must be a subtle difference between "rich" and "well >compensated". The top 99.9% income bracket worldwide isn't high >enough, is it :) No, you said I would get rich from that one idea. Under the situation you suggest, the IFP certainly would not get me rich. Other ideas, knowledge and skill that I may have may not be brought into the argument. You've made the suggestion that given one idea, you would show how I would get rich under your proposed system. So far you have failed to do so. [...] >Linus Torvalds for example chose route 4, as did Alan Turing, Cooley & >Tukey, etc. etc... who all did quite well for themselves. Linus didn't do a IFP. Go back to what you promiced. You promiced that given a specific case, you would show how I would get rich under your system. So far you have nothing to show. >All three methods for which you gave me a strike could get you large >amounts of money. Please explain exactly how you think this happens. All I've seen is a bunch a bobbing and weaving and vague suggestions that I would surely have other good ideas. You said I would get rich. So far you have nothing to show. > Perhaps the only question is just how much. So far, its a question of is having $0.00 make me rich. You have in fact yet to show how the idea would gain me so much as $1.00 under your system. Please explain exactly how you think this would happen. > You're >entirely right that by setting up a protected monopoly you will get >richer.. so perhaps I have struck out if that was the goal. No, the goal was simply "rich". >Maybe I should also list a few non-free-market options: > >5) Obtain a patent lawyer and set up a protected monopoly on your >invention. This is a "free market" option. I am free to do as I like with my idea. I can sell it or I can keep it. Under your system, the IFP improvement would be taken from me by anyone (TI) would could mass produce it and I'd be left with nothing. >6) Write a proposal to develop your project further funded by taxpayer >dollars The US government is unlikely to have funded that idea. I've worked on other things that were funded by tax dollars. In fact, one of those helped, indirectly. to buy one of my houses. >7) Sell your device to the department of defense for a price not less >than 100 times the manufacure and R&D costs. The tax dollar funded projects were in fact DOD related. The extreme high returns in investments are the exception not the rule. Most of those sorts of things will make you a good return on investment but not something excessive. Whether the item being purchased is of any use to the guys in the field is another subject. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >> >> [....] >> >> >?? Name any (past) idea in technology or arts, and I'll tell you how [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I would invest in the project. --- But you're not in your right mind. --- >One year of the market is quite a bit >of profit, in the worst case scenario. --- 20 years is a lot better, in my book. --- >Also, with your knowledge >there's a good chance you can still make them better than the reverse >engineered generic version from TI - not to mention the improvements >you may have made by that point. Why do you assume TI will be able to >make them better than you can? --- I don't think anyone said they could make better ones, the point was that they could, and would, take market share away from the inventor if the device wasn't patented. --- >> I'm going to call the "strike one" I don't see any way this will get me >> rich as a result of the IFP design. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >compensated". The top 99.9% income bracket worldwide isn't high >enough, is it :) --- Who in the hell do you think you are to be making determinations of what's "enough"? --- >> >3) A less likely possibility is that you are a hobbyist who has found >> >time to explore floating point converters and found a way to buffer the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Linus Torvalds for example chose route 4, as did Alan Turing, Cooley & >Tukey, etc. etc... who all did quite well for themselves. --- The keyword here is "chose". They voluntarily decided to go the way they did even though there was a system in place which would have kept their IP out of the public domain. You would have the patent/copyright system disabled, therefore _forcing_ inventors and authors to place their IP in the public domain. That isn't freedom, and under your system there'd be only one game in town, that game being run by the individual with the deepest pockets. --- >All three methods for which you gave me a strike could get you large >amounts of money. Perhaps the only question is just how much. You're >entirely right that by setting up a protected monopoly you will get >richer.. so perhaps I have struck out if that was the goal. --- Of course that was the goal. Again, what makes you think you should be the one to decide how rich is rich enough? --- >Maybe I should also list a few non-free-market options: > >5) Obtain a patent lawyer and set up a protected monopoly on your >invention. --- There's no guarantee that'll make you rich, but it's got a lot better chance than giving ideas away by letting them fall into the public domain. --- >6) Write a proposal to develop your project further funded by taxpayer >dollars --- Elaborate. --- >7) Sell your device to the department of defense for a price not less >than 100 times the manufacure and R&D costs. --- Hey, if they want it and they're willing to pay that amount of money for it, what's wrong with that? Which again bring up the point: Who in the hell do you think you are to be telling anyone how much is too much? What I'm starting to think is that you're a talentless loser who resents having to pay other people for their talent and would rather force them to give away their ideas so that you could get them for free. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer [....] >>you may have made by that point. Why do you assume TI will be able to >>make them better than you can? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that they could, and would, take market share away from the inventor >if the device wasn't patented. Us : small upstart in the market. TI : Huge company with a world wide marketing arm that sends more people out to get sandwiches than our total payroll. This wouldn't be "take market share" this would be "grind into the dust". Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >[....] >>>you may have made by that point. Why do you assume TI will be able to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >This wouldn't be "take market share" this would be "grind into the dust". --- Yes, but since your market share with a patent would be 100% for 20 years, "take market share" and "grind into the dust" are synonymous. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >> >> [....] > >> I'm going to call the "strike one" I don't see any way this will get me [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Who in the hell do you think you are to be making determinations of > what's "enough"? My point exactly, thanks for reiterating. A free market, and not a centrally controlled system of forced redistribution of wealth, should decide that kind of thing. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > one game in town, that game being run by the individual with the > deepest pockets. Again: I'm not suggesting that anybody be forced to do or not do anything with ideas. You are the one defending that the use of ideas be controlled by a central government. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be the one to decide how rich is rich enough? > --- Again, I'm the one saying nobody but free market should decide that. > >Maybe I should also list a few non-free-market options: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > --- > Elaborate. SBIR, NSF, NASA, DOD R&D, etc. If you're looking for R&D money, take a look at requests for proposals from these agencies. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hey, if they want it and they're willing to pay that amount of money > for it, what's wrong with that? Seriously? Well it's totally inefficient for one. For another it's a huge drain on the US economy and taxpayer. > Which again bring up the point: Who in the hell do you think you > are to be telling anyone how much is too much? I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view. However, don't try telling that to the judge.. right now the law is that the government and the patent holders can in fact decide how much is enough and how much is too much. > What I'm starting to think is that you're a talentless loser who > resents having to pay other people for their talent and would rather > force them to give away their ideas so that you could get them for > free. Well I'm starting to think you're a talentless loser who resents having to compete in a free market. Not really, but I'll play along. Cheers - shevek >> >I see there must be a subtle difference between "rich" and "well >> >compensated". The top 99.9% income bracket worldwide isn't high [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >centrally controlled system of forced redistribution of wealth, should >decide that kind of thing. --- What you're describing isn't a free market, it's a chaotic free-for-all where the innovators are forced to dilute the return on their ideas. --- >> >Linus Torvalds for example chose route 4, as did Alan Turing, Cooley & >> >Tukey, etc. etc... who all did quite well for themselves. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Again: I'm not suggesting that anybody be forced to do or not do >anything with ideas. --- Again: That's just not true. You're advocating that the embodiment of ideas, if offered to the public, be forced to fall into the public domain. --- >You are the one defending that the use of ideas >be controlled by a central government. --- No, I'm the one defending patents and copyrights because they allow their inventors and authors to use their ideas in whichever way they want to. Notice that my way allows your way to coexist with mine, but your way doesn't allow my way to coexist with yours, which indicates, to me, that my way has a greater degree of freedom associated with it. --- >> >All three methods for which you gave me a strike could get you large >> >amounts of money. Perhaps the only question is just how much. You're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Again, I'm the one saying nobody but free market should decide that. --- No, you're not. What you're saying is that a chaotic (not "free") market will guarantee that no one will make what you consider to be "too much" --- >> >6) Write a proposal to develop your project further funded by taxpayer >> >dollars [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >SBIR, NSF, NASA, DOD R&D, etc. --- That's not guaranteed to make you rich. --- >If you're looking for R&D money, take a look at requests for proposals >from these agencies. --- That's not guaranteed to make you rich either. --- >> >7) Sell your device to the department of defense for a price not less >> >than 100 times the manufacure and R&D costs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Seriously? Well it's totally inefficient for one. For another it's a >huge drain on the US economy and taxpayer. --- Au contraire. For the price, I'll be able to make the best damned widgets you ever saw; a hell of a lot better, BTW, than if I was scrambling around trying to undercut everybody else who was also scrambling around trying to undercut everybody else. And, with the money I make I'll be acquiring the accoutrements of the wealthy, so I'll be spreading the wealth around that way, actually helping the economy. --- >> Which again bring up the point: Who in the hell do you think you >> are to be telling anyone how much is too much? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and the patent holders can in fact decide how much is enough and how >much is too much. --- Your point of view is that the market should determine the price of goods sold and that there be no patent or copyright protection for inventors or authors. That's not even close to my point of view. Moreover, I believe that right now the only govenment intervention in cost control is with material that's important to the national security. That is, if I want to sell patented widget "A" to the general public for a million bucks a piece even though they only cost me $10, I'm totally free to go broke trying. But, if patented widget "B" is determined to be needed for national security, then all bets are off and the government can pretty much do what they want to with the patent. --- >> What I'm starting to think is that you're a talentless loser who >> resents having to pay other people for their talent and would rather [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Well I'm starting to think you're a talentless loser who resents having >to compete in a free market. Not really, but I'll play along. --- There is no "free" market. And no "free" lunch. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer [....] >Moreover, I believe that right now the only govenment intervention >in cost control is with material that's important to the national [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >all bets are off and the government can pretty much do what they >want to with the patent. Also, it is not possible to have a secret patent. There are some things that can't be patented, here in the US, because the information must be kept secret. On those inventions, the US and mankind has to forgo the advantages having the information spread to others because of national security. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge > [....] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Also, it is not possible to have a secret patent. There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. > There are some things > that can't be patented, here in the US, because the information must be > kept secret. On those inventions, the US and mankind has to forgo the > advantages having the information spread to others because of national > security. See above. >There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >See above. Perhaps, but it isn't done that way now. The information involved NEVER gets seen by any eyes other than those involved with the design and manufacture of the item. >>There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > NEVER gets seen by any eyes other than those involved with the design > and manufacture of the item. ...and you know this because? SignatureKeith >>>There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >...and you know this because? I work on classified gear. Every day. > >>>There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I work on classified gear. Every day. ...and you're talking about it here. Sure, Dimbulb. What an idiot! SignatureKeith >> >>>There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >...and you're talking about it here. Sure, Dimbulb. What an >idiot! You're the idiot. Show me where I disclosed something I shouldn't have, you retarded f.ck! What an idiot is right. YOU are that idiot. > >> >>>There are some patents that have been classified by the US government. > >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You're the idiot. Show me where I disclosed something I shouldn't > have, you retarded f.ck! Obviously not working on NSA gear. > What an idiot is right. YOU are that idiot. >> >> >> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:20:17 -0700, "Richard Henry" ><rphenry@home.com> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> have, you retarded f.ck! >Obviously not working on NSA gear. Yes, I am, dumbass. The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this great nations defenses together. STILL I have disclosed NOTHING that is not already public information. You are both f.cked in the head. Obviously, you don't know a goddamned thing about it. > The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other >products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Obviously, you don't know a goddamned thing about it. --- Loose lips sink ships, and now the whole world knows that you may know where the scuttle valve lies. Sometimes, if there's no need to know, you say it best when you say nothing at all... SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >> The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other >>products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Sometimes, if there's no need to know, you say it best when you say >nothing at all... I didn't tell anybody anything, therefore nobody knows anything. Me mentioning that I perform under a DOD contract is NOT going to cause any alarms to sound anywhere, much less sink any ships. Therefore my lip are not loose, and no ships or any other assets are going to be compromised. >>> The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other >>>products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I didn't tell anybody anything, therefore nobody knows anything. You've told people that you're an untrustworthy moron. Though the moron part is nothing new. > Me mentioning that I perform under a DOD contract is NOT going to > cause any alarms to sound anywhere, much less sink any ships. You said it was *classified*, and as such you said more than you should have. There are many civilian projects I've worked on that I wouldn't talk about. > Therefore my lip are not loose, and no ships or any other assets are > going to be compromised. You lips are certainly loose. That's what happens with practice. SignatureKeith >You've told people that you're an untrustworthy moron. Though the >moron part is nothing new. You're an idiot. I wouldn't damage my honor or character disclosing something I shouldn't to a retarded twit like you. >You said it was *classified*, and as such you said more than you should >have. Wrong. I have been briefed. I know what my obligations are. > There are many civilian projects I've worked on that I wouldn't >talk about. Good for you, asswipe. >You lips are certainly loose. That's what happens with practice. More retarded baby bullshit spewed from the mouth of the retarded bullshit baby... KRW. >>You lips are certainly loose. That's what happens with practice. > > More retarded baby bullshit spewed from the mouth of the retarded > bullshit baby... KRW. Not bad, DimBulb. It only took you three posts to say nothing about four sentences. SignatureKeith >>> The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other >>>products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this >>>great nations defenses together. ... >>--- >>Loose lips sink ships, and now the whole world knows that you may [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Therefore my lip are not loose, and no ships or any other assets are >going to be compromised. --- While you're free, of course, to do or say anything you want to, it's generally wisest when dealing with sensitive issues like NSA approvals to not offer any information _at all_ unless there's a need to know. Certainly none of us here needed to know anything about your relationship with the NSA, but now the entire world (or anyone who reads Usenet) does. That information could be used to put you in a compromising position to, perhaps, all of our detriment. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>>> The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other >>>>products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >put you in a compromising position to, perhaps, all of our >detriment. Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real basis for worry. Nothing was said, so even "need to know" has not been compromised. > Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real >basis for worry. --- Are you saying that you're unfindable? --- > Nothing was said, so even "need to know" has not been compromised. --- You don't understand. Here's an excerpt from the post in question: "The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this great nations defenses together." Now, let's assume I'm a bad guy and I want to do whatever I can to try to bring this country down, OK? Your post has just given me a target and a point of contact, where had you posted nothing, or something innocuous, I'd have neither. Like when I was in the USAF I used to work on the AN something-or-other RADAR, and we were told that if we got into conversations with people and they asked us what we did, a good answer would be to tell them we were cooks, in order to side-step the whole issue. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >> Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real >>basis for worry. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > answer would be to tell them we were cooks, in order to side-step > the whole issue. Exactly. BrownMatter is a cook. *Maybe* he fetched coffee for the PHBs. SignatureKeith [...] >conversations with people and they asked us what we did, a good >answer would be to tell them we were cooks, in order to side-step >the whole issue. That only works if you know enough about cooking. Way back when, the answer to how fast a ship was was always 23 Knots. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >> Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real >>basis for worry. > >--- >Are you saying that you're unfindable? By well over 99.9% of the readers here... yes. >--- > >> Nothing was said, so even "need to know" has not been compromised. > >--- >You don't understand. Sure I do. > Here's an excerpt from the post in question: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Now, let's assume I'm a bad guy and I want to do whatever I can to >try to bring this country down, OK? OK. >Your post has just given me a target and a point of contact, Not at all. > where >had you posted nothing, or something innocuous, I'd have neither. You still have neither, bad guy. :-] >Like when I was in the USAF I used to work on the AN >something-or-other RADAR, and we were told that if we got into >conversations with people and they asked us what we did, a good >answer would be to tell them we were cooks, in order to side-step >the whole issue. I'm a kook, therefore I have sidestepped the whole issue. ;-] Happy now? >>> Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real >>>basis for worry. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > By well over 99.9% of the readers here... yes. If I needed to be unfindable, I would need to be unfindable even to the top fraction of .1% of whever could be reading here! Including foreign espionage agencies providing free hookers to employees of your ISP and employees who have any involvement with your payments to your ISP for example... And if you own your ISP, then either you or someone fronting for you is traceable! Are you sure that none of your front office staffers are fallable for 34-24-34 toned women in close-fitting sleeveless strapless black or red or white dresses or in catsuits of whatever color or pattern or for well-toned men in swimwear or catsuits or whatever athletic wear or dress clothing or for someone with a case of beer or someone with a 600V 15A MOSFET or IGBT with 200 pF or less input capacitance or 40 nanosecond or less fall time or a 3-watt LED that produces 300 lumens? - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >providing free hookers to employees of your ISP and >employees who have any involvement with your payments to your ISP for >example... You're nuttier than a fruitcake. My true ISP isn't even listed here, and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. You are all grasping at straws. [...] >and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. If there were how would you know? I think some smart people may be able to find a hint or two in the headers. Also you have made many posts. I wouldn't ever want to bet that someone who made it their job to do so couldn't find me. X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.232.65.210 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1148276477 ST000 69.232.65.210 (Mon, 22 May 2006 01:41:17 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 01:41:17 EDT X-UserInfo1: TSU[@I_AO@TOVULY\BHFOQD@USXB@DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIELLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 05:41:17 GMT Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >[...] >>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >headers. Also you have made many posts. I wouldn't ever want to bet that >someone who made it their job to do so couldn't find me. --- Right. Jim Thompson made it his business to find "Robert", and did. Remember? Or were you around at the time? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>[...] >>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Right. Jim Thompson made it his business to find "Robert", and did. >Remember? Or were you around at the time? Heck, John...I remember him...what was the outcome, because I don't recall any resolution or outcome. Thanks. Tom >>>[...] >>>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Heck, John...I remember him...what was the outcome, because I don't >recall any resolution or outcome. Thanks. --- As I recall, everything quieted down and then Robert started posting again as (I think) Fred Bloggs. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>>>[...] >>>>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >--- Thanks John. Tom >As I recall, everything quieted down and then Robert started posting >again as (I think) Fred Bloggs. >>[...] >>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Right. Jim Thompson made it his business to find "Robert", and did. >Remember? Or were you around at the time? How many here over the years has attempted to get my real name? Any successes? No. I rest my case. I'd also be willing to bet that ThompsonTard used illicit means (as in bad cop) to get info too. I wouldn't put it past the f.cker at all. [....] > How many here over the years has attempted to get my real name? > > Any successes? No. You mean none that you know of. If someone used illegal means to find the information, they may not be inclined to show that they have gained the information. Often the need to protect sources and methods overrides other considerations. In WW2 the brits knew that Coventry was going to be bombed but took no action for this reason. > I rest my case. I'd also be willing to bet that ThompsonTard used >illicit means (as in bad cop) to get info too. I wouldn't put it past >the f.cker at all. So, you admit that someone can get the information illegally. The enemy isn't worried about breaking the law. They are only worried about getting caught before they complete their mission. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >[...] >>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I think some smart people may be able to find a hint or two in the >headers. I doubt it. The headers show the News service provider that my ISP leases access from. It shows no connection with me at all. > Also you have made many posts. I wouldn't ever want to bet that >someone who made it their job to do so couldn't find me. If they were government employees, they MIGHT be able to root it out... If he had a warrant to do so. Any dipshit joe out there, however, will play hell doing so. >X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 >MIME-Version: 1.0 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >X-UserInfo1: TSU[@I_AO@TOVULY\BHFOQD@USXB@DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIELLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL >Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 05:41:17 GMT Yep... No giveaway info there. Try again. > >[...] > >>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > out... If he had a warrant to do so. Any dipshit joe out there, > however, will play hell doing so. It seems you are assuming that none of the employees of your ISP or their service providers is a criminal. [...] >It seems you are assuming that none of the employees of your ISP or their >service providers is a criminal. ... and can't be tricked by someone and that a black bag job can't be done and that their computers are truely secure and that the accounting firm they use doesn't have any of the same risks and etc and etc Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >>[...] >>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I doubt it. The headers show the News service provider that my ISP >leases access from. It shows no connection with me at all. So the headers do get the enemy one step closer to you, but you claim "no connection" I'm sure that the list of those who lease from the News service provider exists somewhere in their accounting department. That would be the next step. >> Also you have made many posts. I wouldn't ever want to bet that >>someone who made it their job to do so couldn't find me. > > If they were government employees, they MIGHT be able to root it >out... If he had a warrant to do so. Any dipshit joe out there, >however, will play hell doing so. We aren't talking about "any dipshit joe" we are talking of a well funded enemy with many connections. >>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Try again. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge > >>[...] > >>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > -- > kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=!NET-69-232-64-0-1&server=whois.arin.n et&email=on> <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=!PIA2-ORG-ARIN&server=whois.arin.net&t ype=P&email=on> SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >> >>[...] >> >>>and there are no records breeches at any ISPs right now. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > ><http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=!PIA2-ORG-ARIN&server=whois.arin.net&t ype=P&email=on> Better get your gyros calibrated. You are several hundred miles off. <<big big snip>> You want to stop piracy? Then make it cheaper to buy the product than to copy it. I haven't seen too many people build their own automobiles, TVs, washing machines, etc. Of course, the rouge companies can do it, so go after them! Al ><<big big snip>> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Al Are copied or counterfeit cosmetics much of a problem? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > ><<big big snip>> > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Are copied or counterfeit cosmetics much of a problem? How about money? SignatureKeith ><<big big snip>> > >You want to stop piracy? Then make it cheaper to buy the product than to >copy it. I haven't seen too many people build their own automobiles, >TVs, washing machines, etc. Of course, the rouge companies can do it, so >go after them! --- I can see it now: The Revlon Rambler... SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >><<big big snip>> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > --- > I can see it now: The Revlon Rambler... Almost as big a problem as Molex watches... >>><<big big snip>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Almost as big a problem as Molex watches... They plug right into your wrist! > <<big big snip>> > > You want to stop piracy? Then make it cheaper to buy the product than to > copy it. I haven't seen too many people build their own automobiles, > TVs, washing machines, etc. Of course, the rouge companies can do it, so > go after them! You make your own rouge? I just give my cheeks a little pinch - they pink right up! ;-D Cheers! Rich >>>> Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real >>>>basis for worry. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >capacitance or 40 nanosecond or less fall time or a 3-watt LED that >produces 300 lumens? You won't be getting a job with SNL any time soon. >>> Since none of you "know" who I am, your remarks are lacking a real >>>basis for worry. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > By well over 99.9% of the readers here... yes. --- That's _not_ unfindable. --- > I'm a kook, therefore I have sidestepped the whole issue. ;-] > > Happy now? --- Sure, as long as you understand that while it may not be illegal to boast about having access to sensitive material, it's unwise. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >Sure, as long as you understand that while it may not be illegal to >boast about having access to sensitive material, it's unwise. I wasn't boasting. What *I* work on is controlled, not "sensitive". SOME of the other products the company sells *are* secured items. IP encryption has been around a long time. We do it in hardware. You or anyone else won't be hacking that any time in the next half century... or longer. Just look how many decades red and blue encryption has worked, and it still has yet to be compromised. >>Sure, as long as you understand that while it may not be illegal to >>boast about having access to sensitive material, it's unwise. > > I wasn't boasting. What *I* work on is controlled, not "sensitive". >SOME of the other products the company sells *are* secured items. --- Ahhh!!! Even _more_ information! --- > IP encryption has been around a long time. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just look how many decades red and blue encryption has worked, and >it still has yet to be compromised. --- The discussion isn't about whether hardware-based encryption can be compromised or not, it's whether individuals can. As far as finding those individuals, once the determination has been made that they have information which is important, I suspect finding them would be semi-trivial for someone knowledgeable in such matters. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>> >> >> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:20:17 -0700, "Richard Henry" >><rphenry@home.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Yes, I am, dumbass. Yes you certainly are, dumbass. > The NSA just got done approving our IP encryptors, among other > products. We are the glue that holds the communications realm of this > great nations defenses together. You wouldn't be braging if you knew jack. Those who brag have nothing to brag about, Dimbulb. > STILL I have disclosed NOTHING that is not already public > information. > You are both f.cked in the head. No, you're the f.cked one. > Obviously, you don't know a goddamned thing about it. We *ALL* know you. SignatureKeith >You wouldn't be braging if you knew jack. Those who brag have nothing to >brag about, Dimbulb. It was not bragging, you retarded f.ck. >>You wouldn't be braging if you knew jack. Those who brag have nothing to >>brag about, Dimbulb. > > It was not bragging, you retarded f.ck. Yeah, it's nice that you still think so much of yourself, Dark Matter (AKA Dimbulb). SignatureKeith >>>You wouldn't be braging if you knew jack. Those who brag have nothing to >>>brag about, Dimbulb. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yeah, it's nice that you still think so much of yourself, Dark Matter (AKA >Dimbulb). I'd knock your dick in the dirt any day, fucktard. >>>>You wouldn't be braging if you knew jack. Those who brag have nothing to >>>>brag about, Dimbulb. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'd knock your dick in the dirt any day, fucktard. ...and you'd squeal like a pig, BrownMatter. SignatureKeith >We *ALL* know you. No... you do not. And you, in particular, do not know a goddamned thing about anything. >[....] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >advantages having the information spread to others because of national >security. --- Yup. Early RADAR comes to mind. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer >>[....] >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > --- > Yup. Early RADAR comes to mind. As well as Hedy Lamarr's spread spectrum. SignatureKeith >>>[....] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >As well as Hedy Lamarr's spread spectrum. That's Hedley! > >>>[....] > >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That's Hedley! Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. SignatureKeith > Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. Oh. New nym. <PLONK> > > Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. > > Oh. New nym. Nope, new system (can't remember how I have them set up when I add another). > <PLONK> If you had the first _clue_ how to set up a killfile you wouldn't need to keep advertising your ignorance. OTOH, Grease and DimBulb make such a lovely couple. SignatureKeith >> > Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >OTOH, Grease and DimBulb make such a lovely couple. Said the retarded f.ck that STILL has yet to offer anything to ANY of these technical groups. Yeah... you rank... sure. So much the stench makes me barf. >>> > Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Said the retarded f.ck that STILL has yet to offer anything to ANY > of these technical groups. You wouldn't know it if it bit your a.s because Greas is already up there, girl. > Yeah... you rank... sure. So much the stench makes me barf. I understand. Try showering, dimbulb. SignatureKeith >>>> > Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >I understand. Try showering, dimbulb. Is that all you can come up with, old fart? Pretty f.cking sad, you are. >> >>>[....] >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Go back to the camp fire, Dimbulb. You're an idiot, and I knew that it would go right over your head, chumpley. Yoiu stood around the campfire too long, boy. >[....] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >advantages having the information spread to others because of national >security. Yes, in areas like hardware level IP encryption, and other military communications realms. > >> >I see there must be a subtle difference between "rich" and "well > >> >compensated". The top 99.9% income bracket worldwide isn't high [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > their ideas. > --- I have never said anyone should be forced to do anything. I'm advocating less government control of the marketplace. > >> >Linus Torvalds for example chose route 4, as did Alan Turing, Cooley & > >> >Tukey, etc. etc... who all did quite well for themselves. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > public domain. > --- OK! Anything offered to the public, should be offered to the public. Is that such a terrible idea? > >> >7) Sell your device to the department of defense for a price not less > >> >than 100 times the manufacure and R&D costs. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > economy. > --- Yeah, maybe communism isn't so bad after all? What will your incentive be to make those widgets so damned good? And what will be your incentive to trickle down that wealth so profusely? Ironic isn't it, that you called me a communist first, and now you are defending it. > --- [..] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > --- > There is no "free" market. And no "free" lunch. The universe is the ultimate free lunch. And maybe you're right about the markets, but the closer we get to that ideal the better off we all are. Anyway, thanks again - good luck the markets, in whatever shape they may take - shevek >I have never said anyone should be forced to do anything. >I'm advocating less government control of the marketplace. What you are is an abject idiot. In article <1147576086.655606.183130@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [....] >> Who in the hell do you think you are to be making determinations of >> what's "enough"? > >My point exactly, thanks for reiterating. A free market, and not a >centrally controlled system of forced redistribution of wealth, should >decide that kind of thing. We are not talking about redistribution. We are talking about the government helping to protect my wealth. If I have an idea, it is mine. Noone has the right to take it from me and use it for their own gain. The local pizza shop can't take my car to make deliveries either. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >Hogwash indeed. Yes, your CRAP post was, and still is hogwash. > The system I advocate does not demand -anything- of >the ideas of innovators - it allows innovators to choose themselves >what to do with their ideas. Liar! You contradict yourself at every turn! > >Hogwash indeed. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Liar! You contradict yourself at every turn! Huh? You last post looked like you agreed with me. How have I contradicted myself? >>> >> >> Of course not, but if you've used the ink to cover the paper with >>> >> >> copyrighted information, and you give the paper and ink away in that [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Grr... snip Great retort. Long live free enterprise and entrepreneurship, and the good ol' fashioned buck, and the labor behind making one! Back in the ol' west days, they'd call that guy a thief and take the ultimate possession... from him. >> Because it could mean cheaper consumer goods, more efficient use of >> funds, elimination of vast beaurocracy, and more rapid progress of >> humanity. > > All at the expense of the innovators, as it was in the past? It works both ways. Disney may make most money selling their DVDs for 2 weeks, taking them back and destroying them (they studied that method I think), but for the world as in environment and number available for a certain cost it would be better to sell them all and discount them in the end. There is something to be said for: "if you do not use what you created, someone else can use it". > You advocate a system where those who make the system better by > contributing to it in an intellectually meaningful way have to fight > a losing battle to stay alive even though they were the ones who > allowed the system to thrive because of their contributions. > > That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work. It works both ways. If the state wouldn't mingle, everyone would be free to copy and expand on work of others. Copyrights were invented to reward authors. They have a monopoly on their creations. Like everything, copyright has its abusers. In music, but also in the visual area. For some buildings, money is demanded if a picture of the building is printed. I'd think an architect would be paid by whoever builds or rents, but no by whoever prints. But a copyright organization is abusing... Patents are for inventors. Patents have this problem that independent re-creation still violates a patent. That doesn't scale: with the number of inventors rising, the number of patent attorneys will rise with the square. You may not like it, but it is the reality. So what? Invalidate patents as they become 'obvious'? > We aren't a colony of termites. We all have our individual hopes > and dreams and most of us aren't willing to subvert them to idiots > like you, who claim to have all of the answers and want us to > kow-tow to your ideas of how things should be, for your convenience. Everyone builds on work of others. Without the base, no-one would create anything. Those who have (existing business) tries to protect that. Inventors should make money, extortionists should not. How cool is it to create a funny shape ink tank that is patented so customers can only buy your ink? Abuse of the patent system to protect a business model? Didn't the customer buy an implicit licese to the patent when buying the printer? Draw the line somewhere - it should be clear that isis not a matter of 'just needing more protection'. As for the music industry: it is a relic. Not needed any more. Recording equipment is affordable, and so is distribution. Maybe the producers? Thomas > I never said that you shouldn't produce DVDs. I said you shouldn't > produce DVDs if you didn't want the material to appear in the public > domain. You can still make big money by making and selling DVDs. > > Cheers - shevek This has been the most drawn out argument I have ever seen. It seems that you can not tell the difference between the physical item (THE DVD) and the material on it. If EVERYONE has your mentality to copy the DVD and sell it with NO PROFIT going to the artist(s), then the artist(s) will not make money. From what I understand, the true artist(s) make a very small percentage PER ITEM SOLD. I know thats how it is with music CDs. Also, as far as music goes....things like Billboard are based on SALES. If you like and truly respect an artist, why not buy their product legitimately? That way at least they not only make their profit but also get the recognition they deserve. I am sure even YOU can understand that. > > OK, but your reply to Keith's point had nothing to do with his > > point, which was that if you invent a language you can copyright it > > and keep it secret if you want to, which would be pretty stupid > > unless all you wanted to use it for was to talk to yourself. It's not at all certain that a language can fall under the copyright laws. A number of court decisions point in the other direction, one of which actually deals with an invented language meant for people to speak (Loglan). > True. Unless it were perhaps a computer language.. Another court decision found that the equivalent of a spreadsheet macro programming language was not subject to copyright. > Just curious.. does anyone have a copyright on Klingon? The copyright for The Klingon Dictionary is owned by Viacom, the parent corporation of Paramount Pictures and Pocket Books. Their lawyers once claimed that anything written in Klingon is a "derivative work" of TKD, but nobody has tested that particular silly claim. There is definitely a trademark on the word "Klingon", and the *image* of Klingons is solidly in the possession of Paramount Pictures, but use of the language is almost certainly unrestricted. -- Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist proud member of the Klingon Language Institute since 1995 qo'mey poSmoH Hol <> language opens worlds <> http://www.kli.org/ > > > OK, but your reply to Keith's point had nothing to do with his > > > point, which was that if you invent a language you can copyright it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of Klingons is solidly in the possession of Paramount Pictures, but use > of the language is almost certainly unrestricted. majQa' Thanks for the information. Another example of copyright going past suspect to ridiculous. If Viacom that unable to come up with new material that we must prop it up with monopoly IP laws that take advantage of consumers? >> > > OK, but your reply to Keith's point had nothing to do with his >> > > point, which was that if you invent a language you can copyright it [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Thanks for the information. >Another example of copyright going past suspect to ridiculous. --- No, that's another example of why the misinterpretation of Dick the Butcher's famous staement seems right. --- >If Viacom that unable to come up with new material that we must prop it >up with monopoly IP laws that take advantage of consumers? --- There's nothing forcing anyone to buy any of Viacom's stuff, is there? SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:08:35 -0700, shevek4 wrote: >> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:29:20 -0700, shevek4 wrote: ... >> > Give me a break. Of course I can go to the library and copy a book. >> > If I want to sell the copies for profit I'd better have a good [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > resorting to name calling. How about a logical argument supporting your > assertions? I guess it's harder than I thought. OK, I'll use little words. What you create is yours. By default. By definition. Say, for example, your hair. You create it from oxygen, water, and protien. Right from scratch. Is it your hair, or does some nebulous authority own it? Who owns you? Who owns your ideas? Answer that question - I mean, name names! And maybe we'll have something to discuss. Thanks, Rich > OK, I'll use little words. What you create is yours. By default. By > definition. Say, for example, your hair. You create it from oxygen, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Answer that question - I mean, name names! And maybe we'll have something > to discuss. For many engineers the answer to who owns their ideas is their employer - it is often written into the employment contract. Ian >> OK, I'll use little words. What you create is yours. By default. By >> definition. Say, for example, your hair. You create it from oxygen, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For many engineers the answer to who owns their ideas is their employer - it > is often written into the employment contract. Yes, and they are the engineer's to sign away by contract. ;-) Cheers! Rich >OK, I'll use little words. What you create is yours. By default. By >definition. Say, for example, your hair. You create it from oxygen, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Thanks, >Rich Actually, the entire post is utter gibberish. >> >For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's >> >good it will be around the world in a heartbeat. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >have commited theft - of valuable property - the information in it may >be of great worth. --- So far so good. --- >Where we disagree is that you feel you can put your information on a >giant sign facing the highway and then still claim to have exclusive >ownership of that information. --- If it's copyrighted, then I do in the sense that I'm the only one who can copy and sell the text, verbatim, that's on the sign. Think about it like this: The Coca-Cola company puts up a huge billboard with its logo on it. Is the passing motorist allowed to copy that logo and sell the copies? I think you know the answer to that one... --- >I feel that a passing literate motorist >is not a thief. --- If he copies my text and sells it without my permission he is. --- >If for some reason you don't want people to know some information, and >to take full advantage of it for their own purposes, then you'd best >keep it to yourself. --- You seem unable to distinguish beween copyrighted material being published and material being put into the public domain. The difference is that copyrighted material made publically available may not legally be copied without the permission of the copyright holder, while material in the public domain can't be copyrighted, making it free for anyone do with what they please. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > >Where we disagree is that you feel you can put your information on a > >giant sign facing the highway and then still claim to have exclusive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > billboard with its logo on it. Is the passing motorist allowed to > copy that logo and sell the copies? That's a different area. What is protected about the Coca-Cola logo on it is not the information content. A trademark is a different sort of protection. > I think you know the answer to that one... Actually, depending on the importance of the sign to the overall scene, the motorist may very well be able to sell pictures of the local area that include it. But this is a silly case anyway. If you want to use Coca-Cola as an example, put the secret formula on the sign. There's nothing to stop anyone from manufacturing it then (well, getting legal coca extract is an issue) - the major theoretical issue is that they couldn't use Coca-Cola's trademark on it. Instead it would probably be something like the Target mouthwash bottle that says "compare to Scope Cool Peppermint". That bottle doesn't even include the usual 'not produced or distrubed by [major company], the makers of [trademark](R)' >That's a different area. What is protected about the Coca-Cola logo on >it is not the information content. A trademark is a different sort of >protection. No so different at all. It would still boil down to IP. It took intelligence to create the symbol. Copyright is copyright, whether it refers to a hard design, a trademark, or even merely an idea. In systems integration, one doesn't sell the gear in the system, one sells one's capacity to set up a system capable of getting the task done. When the systems cost millions of dollars each, the gear is a different end of it. They come from several makers. The systems integrator company sells their expertise in assembling an integrated solution for the task required. That is an idea. So is software that integrates the functions of a computer and its peripherals into performing a task. That too is an idea that has been assembled into a tool for folks to repeat the functions need to perform the task that the idea was meant to solve. You don't get to steal it. Pretty soon, all software will be hard keyed. Again. We won't be thwarting it with any great ease this time either. Bye bye pirate retard market. Say hello to better internet access when all the bandwidth is no longer being wasted by these idiots and their ISO image ULs and DLs. Next... Movies. > Copyright is copyright, whether it refers to a hard design, a > trademark, or even merely an idea. Copyright doe NOT refer to ideas. A trademark is also different from a copyright (though a trade mark CAN be a copyrighted logo). For example, a rope manufacturer has a trademark: a black line woven in every rope. Is a single black line something that can be copyrighted? Bet not. A piece of classical music can be a trade mark for something. Is the copyright exhausted on that? Yes. Can the trade mark be valid still? Yes. Trade marks are about selling. If you do not sell, they do not apply. But they are protected as long as they are in use (while patents and copyrights expire). Trade mark law does not apply when I give someone a DVD. For the different "IP" types there are diffeent rules - with a reason. And they don't mix. > In systems integration, one doesn't sell the gear in the system, one > sells one's capacity to set up a system capable of getting the task [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That is an idea. > You don't get to steal it. You get to steal this one often! It might not be advisable, but a sales person selling you the right equipment invests time and knowledge. Can you buy it cheaper next time mail-order? Of course. > Pretty soon, all software will be hard keyed. Again. Most software will be free. The paid-for software tries to extract more and more of the existing customer base, to meet investor growth demand (which is not sustainable). So the customers will run away. Thomas >Most software will be free. Hahahaha... You're dreaming. > The paid-for software tries to extract more >and more of the existing customer base, to meet investor growth demand >(which is not sustainable). So the customers will run away. It's all about FEATURES, dude. The productivity software with the best feature set ALWAYS wins. Price is sometimes weighed in by smaller penny pinching firms. If Quake 5, Unreal 2020, Half Life 3, or Battlefield 3 came out tomorrow, but only worked with the included hardware dongle key that came with it, you can bet any of those titles would still sell like hotckaes, despite any authentication measures or requisites. Hell, one cannot even play BF2 even single player without logging into the master server and getting authenticated for your ENTIRE SESSION... Over and over again, each server... each round. They are lame! Those retarded bastards (EA Games) took it to a foul extreme, but they are on the right track. The right way is to include an RFID authentication device. A thimble, if you will. No need for thrashing my hard drive digging keys out of my registry and such other CRAP! Expensive EDA software that requires dongles doesn't have their sales foundering due to authentication measures either. It is in demand, and it will get bought. The older Dongles were circumnavigatable. The new generation is NOT, nor will it be any time soon. Too costly to even think about hacking it. Back in the floppy days, Broderbund tried this (hard sectored, uncopyable floppies), and almost went under due to a response like that which you describe... ALMOST. It failed to be boycotted by all, however. Still, BI took the hint and stopped the practice. You can thank video gamers for the new trend in authentication and validation. well, at least, the pirates of the software are to blame. I see the future. You only wish it could be a certain way. Hard keys are in our future. Regardless of what we might like things to be like, there are hard realities. One of which WILL be software (firmware<sic>) runtime authentication and validation measures. Many softwares send messages to their authors when you run it on a connected machine. We will go to USB key thimbles. It IS in our future... too f.cking bad. Put that in your ICE and try to hack it. Good luck. > >Most software will be free. > > Hahahaha... You're dreaming. Most software IS free. Though perhaps you could also say, most of it isn't very good. > > The paid-for software tries to extract more > >and more of the existing customer base, to meet investor growth demand [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > bad. Put that in your ICE and try to hack it. > Good luck. I agree entirely! As you say, people will still buy Quake 5, etc, even if they need the dongles - the hard keys - the USB thimble. That -is- the future. Also, note that these techniques do not require IP protectionism by governments in any way. By the time they are hacked, the next version will be coming out. >Most software IS free. Though perhaps you could also say, most of it >isn't very good. Now, you are just being an idiot. You missed on both counts. Your IQ drops ten points every time you post. >I agree entirely! As you say, people will still buy Quake 5, etc, even >if they need the dongles - the hard keys - the USB thimble. That -is- >the future. Also, note that these techniques do not require IP >protectionism by governments in any way. That is where you are being an idiot. Designing a delivery package that has protections built into it has NOTHING to do with copyrighting the product to begin with. >By the time they are hacked, the next version will be coming out. This is where you further the proof of your stupidity. They will NOT be hacked... at all... ever. >> Most software will be free. > > Hahahaha... You're dreaming. Depends on the type of software, that is true. But once some piece of software is free, it remains free. >> The paid-for software tries to extract more >> and more of the existing customer base, to meet investor growth demand [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > best feature set ALWAYS wins. Price is sometimes weighed in by > smaller penny pinching firms. It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. > If Quake 5, Unreal 2020, Half Life 3, or Battlefield 3 came out > tomorrow, but only worked with the included hardware dongle key that > came with it, you can bet any of those titles would still sell like > hotckaes, despite any authentication measures or requisites. What I'm seeing is that the value is in the content here, as well as in the actual software. > Expensive EDA software that requires dongles doesn't have their > sales foundering due to authentication measures either. It is in > demand, and it will get bought. The older Dongles were > circumnavigatable. The new generation is NOT, nor will it be any time > soon. Too costly to even think about hacking it. Well, I tend to avoid software that needs license keys tied to hardware. What if the box breaks? I also hate hard limits. It is ok to pay by use, but I wouldn't want a botched up data load to bring the service down. > I see the future. You only wish it could be a certain way. Hard > keys are in our future. They are. But Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc are not going away. Unless someone greatly improves, there is no need to buy those 3 categories any more. What wil happen instead is that software moves to a service level - like the on-line games that can only be played on-line. You just use an account and the freely available client. It depends on the sector though: EDA software is probably specialized to be ever publicly available. OTOH products from failed companies to show up as free software. Look at www.blender.org. Once a commercial product, it is now free (and people use it for real work). Thomas >It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. You don't get any points at all for semantical crap. Something would not be regarded as a feature by a user if it wasn't a productivity tool. You are obviously too young in this industry, or you wouldn't be making sh.t up as you go along, or missing the obvious, as you have in this case. >>It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. > > You don't get any points at all for semantical crap. > > Something would not be regarded as a feature by a user if it wasn't >a productivity tool. I disagree with this. Lots of Fritterware gets sold on the basis of features that in truth lower productivity. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >>>It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I disagree with this. Lots of Fritterware gets sold on the basis of >features that in truth lower productivity. Then... in truth... they are NOT features. >>>> It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Then... in truth... they are NOT features. Talk about "semantical crap". Bleh. Plonk. >>>>> It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Bleh. Plonk. Talk about retarded baby bullshit. The second most retarded thing you can do in Usenet is announce your filter file edits, little boy. The most retarded thing you can do is use a filter file. Filter your news, and filter your mind. f.ck off, dipshit. >> Expensive EDA software that requires dongles doesn't have their >> sales foundering due to authentication measures either. It is in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Well, I tend to avoid software that needs license keys tied to hardware. >What if the box breaks? What box? Dongles have been around and in high NTBF for years... decades even. The newer styles are even MORE hardy. > I also hate hard limits. I think you make sh.t up. Life is full of hard limits. Grow up, son (Foghorn Leghorn inflection). > It is ok to pay by use, You contradict yourself. If per use charges are OK, charging for the full function product on a disc is OK, and stealing it is STILL NOT OK. >but I wouldn't want a botched up data load to bring the service down. You are in left field. The military passes secure data transmissions all the time... constantly. Nobody but the intended target gets the data, and nobody loses any data. They have very CPU intensive, very stringent authentication routines, and equipment. Us consumers can surely rely on a simple RFID/finger swipe system, and not cry about a fouled key. If you screw up your key, you can get another. Bet you take better care of the second one. Won't be long, we will even have them in our bodies. You can nay say all you want, but I know what is actually going to happen. >> Well, I tend to avoid software that needs license keys tied to hardware. >> What if the box breaks? > > What box? Dongles have been around and in high NTBF for years... > decades even. The newer styles are even MORE hardy. My employer delivers a service to about a million end users. They do not like it if the service goes down for whatever reason. Part of my job is to remove potential causes for the service to go down. Computers break. They can be replaced. With creativity, that can happen very quickly. But is a license is tied to some piece of the hardware (possibly secret what exactly it is tied to) this causes problems. >> I also hate hard limits. > > I think you make sh.t up. Life is full of hard limits. Grow up, > son (Foghorn Leghorn inflection). There should not be any unneeded hard limits. One vendor may choose to bill afterwards... another may just refuse to create user 10000001, and yet another may stop all processing the momment user 10000001 is created. Guess which one gets the business other things being equal? Thomas >My employer delivers a service to about a million end users. They do not >like it if the service goes down for whatever reason. Part of my job is >to remove potential causes for the service to go down. Blaming a downed service on a dongle is about as retarded as you claiming to know what you are doing. AGAIN, the MTBF on a dongle is higher than ANY other component in the computer system. Get a clue, little boy. [....] > AGAIN, the MTBF on a dongle is higher than ANY other component in >the computer system. I have seen dongles fail, but there is nothing preventing the user from investing in an extra seat, just as they can have a couple of extra PCs as spares. With FedX, most companies agree to put a new one in your hands in 2 days. As both a writer and user of software, I only use software that is paid for. If the cost of a tool is more than it will make/save me, I do without it. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge [....] >> It's all about FEATURES, dude. The productivity software with the >> best feature set ALWAYS wins. Price is sometimes weighed in by >> smaller penny pinching firms. > >It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. Actually neither seems really to be true. Lots of copies of Windows have been sold in spite of it being the best in neither area. Orcad is still being sold. Autocad still sells more than SolidEdge. Signature-- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge >> It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. > > Actually neither seems really to be true. Lots of copies of Windows have > been sold in spite of it being the best in neither area. Orcad is still > being sold. Autocad still sells more than SolidEdge. All too true. Features look good. OTOH change is frowned upon - no-one is going to believe people work much faster with a new OS of with new office software... Thomas >>> It should be that _productivity_ should win, and not features. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Thomas If it is a feature, it isn't for looks, dumbass. If it is non functional, and "for looks" it would be a gimmick, dipshit. > >> >For one, it's a piss-poor business plan. Everyone can copy it if it's > >> >good it will be around the world in a heartbeat. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I think you know the answer to that one... I'm aware of the current laws, yes. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --- > If he copies my text and sells it without my permission he is. He is in violation of copyright law, yes. But he is not a thief in my opinion. If I was a juror I would declare him innocent. > --- > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > copyright holder, while material in the public domain can't be > copyrighted, making it free for anyone do with what they please. I entirely agree with you on the status of the law currently. My point is that this law may be in need of serious changes, being inherently of the nature of many laws which place central government in charge of industry instead of allowing free market forces decide. I'm saying, lets consider the libertarian or free-market ideal for this question. Take your Coke sign. The government decides what you are and aren't allowed to paint on a paper. To scratch on the ground. Is that the kind of world we want our children to grow up in? Is that kind of big-brother really needed by CC corp. in order to make just profits? Bottlers of water with and without flavorings can sell a good product to us for a good price and stay in business. The arrival of competion, means that the original seller is going to have to work a little harder to stay on top. While he suffers, consumers benefit as the prices will go down. As a producer of a new product you should know that if some gizmo is selling well it will be reverse-engineered and others will try to sell it too. You have that much time to press your time advantage due to you having the idea first, learning how to build it, etc. If we can't stay ahead of the game and innovate enough to make our products new and/or attractive against competition.. then I say we should go out of business. I could perhaps argue a defense of Socialism and IP laws.. want to switch sides? <snip> >I entirely agree with you on the status of the law currently. My point >is that this law may be in need of serious changes, being inherently of >the nature of many laws which place central government in charge of >industry instead of allowing free market forces decide. I'm saying, >lets consider the libertarian or free-market ideal for this question. <snip> Actually, libertarians are divided on the issue of the proper degree (if any) of IP protection. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > Bottlers of water with and without flavorings can sell a good product > to us for a good price and stay in business. The arrival of competion, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > new and/or attractive against competition.. then I say we should go > out of business. The public group of consumers may wish to purchase the original product, for whatever reason. It is therefore in the public interest to allow only the original producer to use a original distinctive trademark. > Bottlers of water with and without flavorings can sell a good product > to us for a good price and stay in business. The arrival of competion, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > new and/or attractive against competition.. then I say we should go > out of business. In the case of flavoured water with famous name there is no patent protection on the material itself, anybody is allowed to make similar products. Many have done that, think of Pepsi. But the customer has the right to know what product he is buying. Hence it is not allowed to place the label "Coca Cola" onto your homebrew and sell it. After all, if your customers get intestinal problems from your product, they should sue you, and not Coca cola. That is what we have rules about trade names and brands for. It also allows companies to achieve a reputation for their products and then claim a higher price, because customers have learned to trust them. >>>I feel that a passing literate motorist >>>is not a thief. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But he is not a thief in my opinion. If I was a juror I would declare > him innocent. So you put yourself above the law. You will pick and choose which laws to follow, and which laws to disregard, based on your opinion. Do you want everyone to have the right to pick and choose which laws to follow, and which to ignore? Ed > >>>I feel that a passing literate motorist > >>>is not a thief. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and choose which laws to follow, and which to > ignore? Not at all. What made you say that? Do you agree there should be some discussion of what the laws should be? >>> --- >>> The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_ [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Goodbye. shevek4@yahoo.com is from the same-location/political-crap-attitude as Sloman... adjectives: stupid, ignorant, head-up-a.s, obstinate, ne'er-do-well wanting my property for free... PLONK! ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. > > I suggest > > that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they see it. The only problem is, the patent law forbids them from > using it for innovation, business, health, scientific research, etc. No, the whole purpose of patent law is to make ideas available for research and innovation as soon as possible. Lets consider the alternative: Somebody has a bright idea for some new process. If there were no patent laws, he would keep it secret, and others could not use it or improve on it. For a patent, you have to disclose the idea, so that any competent person in the field can use it. In return, you receive royalties from anybody making _commercial_ use of your idea. In an ideal world at least this protects the interest of both the public (technical and scientific progress is available as soon as possible) and the inventer to obtain the just rewards for it. That patents, especially in the software industry, have become an obstacle rather than a catalyst for progress has to do with the wrong application of patent law, especially in the US: - Patents are awarded on things that were, for good reason, excluded from patentability (algorithm, discoveries). - Patents are unjustifiably broad, covering things later invented by others. - Patens are awarded despite prior art. > > Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public > > dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > >Rightfully yours my a.s. Unless you are referring to your right to pay > > >an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise. No. Wealth can be generated only by work, that is a fundamental rule of macroeconomics. If I write software, or if I make an invention, or if I create a work of art, my work goes into the creation of something new. Is it not fair then that I should be the one who profits from the wealth created? If, say, a blacksmith turns a piece of iron into a horse-shoe, he uses work to transform an object into something more usable, that is more valuable. When he turns over that horseshoe to a rider, he gets paid for his trouble. Even if the rider gave the smith the piece of iron to work with, the smith still has the right to payment for his work. In the same way a software author has the right to earn a living from the work of his hands (or brain, as the case may be). That it is technically _easy_ to take that income away from him doesn't make it morally _right_. And so we have laws to protect us from those who want to take away from us the fruits of our labour, laws against physical theft as well as against the theft of intellectual property. Of course it is the right of anyone to donate his work, by working for a charity for example or by making software available under a free licence (e.g. GPL). But that they do under their own free will, they should not be forced to do it (that's called communism) nor should others be allowed to just take it away (that's called theft). > > >> >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from > > >> >someone. As you can see from the above, it is basically a similar thing, differences in detail (and in the applicable law) none-withstanding. >Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from >someone. It's not about your physical copy of the software, it's about getting paid for your efforts. How do you provide yourself with food, clothing, and shelter if you are working for free? Or do you think all software should be written on a hobby basis by people who make their living doing something else during the day? (Like maybe at one of those jobs that's about to be outsourced!) Just a thought... Bob Masta dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis www.daqarta.com Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator > 'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots > on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from > someone. If you head down this path of reasoning, it seems to me it should follow that -- if piracy is OK -- it's also OK to "partially" steal anything you want from Wal*Mart by deducting any profit they would have otherwise made from selling that product. There's nothing wrong with companies being paid to design software and/or hardware and then selling it for the cost of the copies -- which approaches zero in the case of software --, but there's also nothing wrong with a business model that says you want to make a profit on each and every copy sold, regardless of the price of copying. > There's nothing wrong with companies being paid to design software and/or > hardware and then selling it for the cost of the copies -- which approaches > zero in the case of software --, but there's also nothing wrong with a > business model that says you want to make a profit on each and every copy > sold, regardless of the price of copying. ========================================= Of course there's nothing wrong. It's just a perfectly legal confidence trick. Nothing to do with stealing anything.. It's just a very minor part of the Capitalist System. You vote for it and that's what you get. Just carry on as usual without thinking of complaining. There's nobody there to complain to anyway. You set of poor, juvenile, deprived, innocent suckers! ======================================= >> There's nothing wrong with companies being paid to design software >and/or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You set of poor, juvenile, deprived, innocent suckers! >======================================= Thus speaks Reg "The Demented One" Edwards ;-) ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline > Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, Actually, it's more like what Jesus did, since he made a whole bunch of copies of fish and gave them away for free. And who wouldn't want to be more like Jesus? >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, > >Actually, it's more like what Jesus did, since he made a whole bunch of >copies of fish and gave them away for free. And who wouldn't want to be >more like Jesus? --- I'm sure he had permission from the author of the fish. SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > I'm sure he had permission from the author of the fish. Nice! >> I'm sure he had permission from the author of the fish. > >Nice! --- :-) SignatureJohn Fields Professional Circuit Designer > > Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone > > who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper, > > Actually, it's more like what Jesus did, since he made a whole bunch of > copies of fish and gave them away for free. And who wouldn't want to be > more like Jesus? He had to make the fish. The bible says: "Man shall not live by bread alone." SignatureService to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida >Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame. >Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >www.idealpcb.com, >www.advpcb.com, I have some bad experience myself. My suggestion is to give people from outside China the possibility to report crimes in China. A simple website would do. And then make sure that there is a Chinese police foce that tracks those criminals down. Pieter >Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame. >Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thank you in advance! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12425693/ Has a possible solution for China . . . price the DVD's low enough to compete with the pirates - make money with the quantity of sales instead of trying to balance on the cusp of "what the market will bear," in typical cartel/capitalist style. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.