From: heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Question re copyright
Date: 7 Sep 2001 09:00:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.243.102.21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 999878443 23592 127.0.0.1 (7 Sep 2001 16:00:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 2001 16:00:43 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:50982

Greetings.  I don't frequent this group, but a search informs me that
there are several here who could likely answer my question.

First, what I *wish* I could do; then, what I *suspect* the limits to
what I can do actually are.

As a reader and writer, I wish I could begin a project which could be
considered both fan fiction and also a form of critique of Arda, and
of the Elven races in general.  Specifically, I'd like to outline, and
possibly set up a framework for, the writing of mythos detailing Rhun,
Khand, Harad and beyond.  Even more specifically, I'd like to focus on
the Avari, and speculate a new interpretation for their reasons for
staying, and I'd also like to include Pallando and Alatar.

What I *suspect* is that I cannot make direct reference to any of
these terms; certainly not "Arda," and presumably not "Avari," "Rhun,"
"Khand," Harad," "Pallando," or "Alatar."  Correct?

If this is the case, then is it workable to *change* those terms? 
[ie, the 'Avavari']?  Luckily for me, so little was said of these
realms, and the 'beyond' was so stranded from Middle Earth's West,
that I can do much without making any direct reference to the plot
structure of the various works.  Can I make oblique reference so long
as I avoid terms spelled out as they are in the actual works?

I'm wanting to do this mainly to explore some ideas; tweaking letters
and such makes it clear that the names are hacks, and I wish that were
not necessary.  [I wish I could simply use them.]  But my desire to
explore the ideas in prose is strong enough to make it, perhaps,
worthwhile to me.

I'm also trying to figure out to what extent I can use Quenya as a
whole, or modify it to create an Avari ..  er, sorry; an Avavari .. 
strain.

Any insight appreciated; pls cc to email: heath_rezabek@yahoo.com



Heath M Rezabek

######

Lines: 16
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: mcresq@aol.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 07 Sep 2001 16:16:15 GMT
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Message-ID: <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com>
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:50962

In article <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com>,
heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) writes:

>reetings.  I don't frequent this group, but a search informs me that
>there are several here who could likely answer my question.
>
>First, what I *wish* I could do; then, what I *suspect* the limits to
>what I can do actually are.
>

<snip>

What exactly are you planning to *do* with this project.  Are you planning to
profit from it?

Russ

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 07 Sep 2001 23:51:22 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <6uk7zais9x.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 999899482 1053 10.0.3.2 (7 Sep 2001 21:51:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 2001 21:51:22 GMT
Cc: heath_rezabek@yahoo.com
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51006

heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) writes:

> of the Elven races in general.  Specifically, I'd like to outline, and
> possibly set up a framework for, the writing of mythos detailing Rhun,
> Khand, Harad and beyond.  Even more specifically, I'd like to focus on
> the Avari, and speculate a new interpretation for their reasons for
> staying, and I'd also like to include Pallando and Alatar.

So you are clear with copyright, as you are writing your own text and
not making copies of Tolkiens. This of course assuming you do not have
any verbatim text parts exeeding "quote"[1] size of his in it.

[1] Ask an lawyer what presently exactly defines this size.


More likely are problems with plagiarism (copying ideas/plot),
depending on how much is own ideas. Just being in his world may be
enough to trigger that.

AFAIK some other author (can not remember name) was sued for doing
this, in an commercial book. He had to replace all names to get it
through. Then readrs accused for plagiarising by thinly veiling the
story.


> What I *suspect* is that I cannot make direct reference to any of
> these terms;

Certain are problems with Trademark law, using Tolkien-invented names.
See how all roleplaying games and fantasy literature uses Halfling and
not Hobbit, because the D&D guys got sued for using it. You will have
to avoid them.


> certainly not "Arda," and presumably not "Avari," "Rhun,"
> "Khand," Harad," "Pallando," or "Alatar."  Correct?

> If this is the case, then is it workable to *change* those terms?
> [ie, the 'Avavari']?

_Theoretically_ trademark law should stop any usage that could confuse
customers (i.e. here readers) that your text is a genuine Tolkien
product. But like all law, lawyers have deviced methods of abusing
it to their clients advantage.

How far you are safe is a question you definitely should ask an lawyer
scholed in your jusrisdictions laws. Or avoid all names entirely.


>  Luckily for me, so little was said of these
> realms, and the 'beyond' was so stranded from Middle Earth's West,
> that I can do much without making any direct reference to the plot
> structure of the various works.

That _may_ help avoid plagiarism charges. Again: ask someone who knows
how actual cases were handled where you live. Or simply take an gamble.


> I'm wanting to do this mainly to explore some ideas; tweaking letters
> and such makes it clear that the names are hacks, and I wish that were
> not necessary.  [I wish I could simply use them.]

Present laws prefer original writers over writes of derivative
works. Both are creativity, the law is biased. Shitty law. Hell and
Damnation for all them lawmakers, and the lawyers that exploit these
laws. And even that is too good for them.


>  But my desire to
> explore the ideas in prose is strong enough to make it, perhaps,
> worthwhile to me.

Then you have nothing to lose (no time investment that is lost without
publishing). So just do it. Worst is that you will be demanded to not
distribute it any more (at lest in most places, Germany being an known
exeption[1]).

[1] There anyone, without _any_ order from or even asking the Trademark
owner, can demand you to cease and bill you >$1000 for doing so.


> I'm also trying to figure out to what extent I can use Quenya as a
> whole, or modify it to create an Avari ..  er, sorry; an Avavari ..
> strain.

Quenya (Valinor!) would be wrong for Avari. Take Sindarin as base, as
they at least had contact with gray Elves.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999)
From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen)
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7
X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 999895138 128.135.12.7 (Fri, 07 Sep 2001 15:38:58 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 15:38:58 CDT
Organization: The University of Chicago
X-SessionID: Cfam7-18394-N4-23097@news.uchicago.edu
X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4
X-Hash: b94e073e a70b4657 fbdde718 a873413c 7723098b
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 20:38:58 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51020

Quoth heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) in article
<1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com>: 
> Greetings.  I don't frequent this group, but a search informs me
> that there are several here who could likely answer my question.

I'd guess that there are others here who will do a better job than I
will: I'm certainly no expert on copyright law.  I have gotten a bit
of a feel for it over time, though, so I'll share that with you, but
for goodness sake don't treat anything I say here as authoritative! :)

> As a reader and writer, I wish I could begin a project which could
> be considered both fan fiction and also a form of critique of Arda,
> and of the Elven races in general.  Specifically, I'd like to
> outline, and possibly set up a framework for, the writing of mythos
> detailing Rhun, Khand, Harad and beyond.

Sounds interesting... you're certainly not the only one who would like
to understand those lands and their peoples better!  Nor are you the
only one who has been interested in providing your own ideas at what
would fill in the gaps in our knowledge of Middle-earth.

> What I *suspect* is that I cannot make direct reference to any of
> these terms; certainly not "Arda," and presumably not "Avari,"
> "Rhun," "Khand," Harad," "Pallando," or "Alatar."  Correct?

Correct: as far as I know, those terms are all copyrighted by either
the Tolkien Estate, Tolkien Enterprises, or both(?).

> If this is the case, then is it workable to *change* those terms?
> [ie, the 'Avavari']?

My intuition about copyright is that this isn't enough of a change to
work.  If the Estate were to take you to court for infringement of
copyright, I think that they could win just by showing that the world
that you were describing was Middle-earth, whatever names you used for
the characters.  That is, if I wrote a story about the adventures of
Odofray Agginsbay and Amsay Amgeegay, in which they visited Odofray's
uncle Ilbobay in the hidden valley of Ivendellray, I'd still be
infringing copyright.

An instructive example that you might want to look at involves an
author who wrote a story about Moria in its prime, which he was later
forced to change to get out of copyright trouble.  I've unfortunately
forgotten the name of the author and story in question, but I'd guess
that he came as close as he could to actually discussing Moria and
Middle-earth without violating copyright.  I hope that someone out
there fills in the missing information here! :)

You're considerably safer, by the way, if you're writing a parody
rather than ordinary fiction, though it can apparently be tricky to
prove that your work is actually a parody (hence the recent furor and
court battles over the book _The Wind Done Gone_, which is basically a
rewrite of _Gone with the Wind_ from a slave's perspective but which
the author claims counts as a parody).  You're also safer if you are
not attempting to profit from your (possibly infringing) writing, and
it's imperative that your writing not harm the profitability of the
original works.

In short, it _is_ possible to write stories that explore issues or
events or areas of Middle-earth.  However, it's probably impossible to
do so in anything resembling a direct way: the new story should
probably be set in its own, clearly distinct world and rely on the
reader to make connections to Tolkien's writing (and be warned that
some readers could mistakenly think that you're hoping they wouldn't
notice!  Those readers can get downright angry).  A few people will
probably disapprove regardless, and almost nobody would consider your
stories a "trustworthy" source of information about Middle-earth.

> I'm also trying to figure out to what extent I can use Quenya as a
> whole, or modify it to create an Avari ..  er, sorry; an Avavari ..
> strain.

Tolkien linguists have been debating the precise copyright status of
the languages for quite some time.  One debate has been whether or not
dictionaries and word lists compiled from the various texts are in
violation of copyright.  Given that, I suspect that using Quenya
directly or in some minimally modified form in your own stories would
be all too likely to be a violation of copyright.

You'd have to use something different from Quenya, anyway: the
language of the Avari would presumably differ from Quenya
substantially more than Sindarin does!  And of course, you'd have to
work out the complete philological history of the language, including
its shared roots with Quenya and Sindarin and the effect of later
contact with Sindarin, to say nothing of Mannish tongues... quite a
task! :)
						Steuard Jensen

######

From: heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 7 Sep 2001 14:23:42 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.243.102.21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 999897822 29168 127.0.0.1 (7 Sep 2001 21:23:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 2001 21:23:42 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51024

mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com>...

> What exactly are you planning to *do* with this project.  Are you planning to
> profit from it?

Thanks for responding!  Nope, not to profit.

It's meant to be an allegorical attempt to shed light on the nature of
the Elven race and their exodus in a new and speculative manner.  It
certainly wouldn't be sold.  But since i want to do it in the form of
a fiction or set of fictional works, tying together canonical places &
things with invented ones, I'm presuming I cannot use Tolkien's
names...

For example [please, no lawsuits as yet!]:

"Pallando traveled thence to Rhun, and through the Barrens of
Khanaad."  This example is, correct me if wrong, a violation of
copyright, as it uses the names and terms of Tolkien's own design
along with invented ones.  I can say "Pallando dwelt in the East, and
that's all we know," because this is basic Tolkien speculation or
scholarship, and extends no further.  But to make up additions to the
mythology is in violation, even if I label it as a fiction; correct?



Heath

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 08 Sep 2001 00:34:56 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 999902098 1141 10.0.3.2 (7 Sep 2001 22:34:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Sep 2001 22:34:58 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51028

heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) writes:

> mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com>...
>
> > What exactly are you planning to *do* with this project.  Are you planning to
> > profit from it?
>
> Thanks for responding!  Nope, not to profit.

So that is one problem less.


> "Pallando traveled thence to Rhun, and through the Barrens of
> Khanaad."  This example is, correct me if wrong, a violation of
> copyright, as it uses the names and terms of Tolkien's own design

Actually using names would be Trademark violation.


> scholarship, and extends no further.  But to make up additions to the
> mythology is in violation, even if I label it as a fiction; correct?

Nope. Using existing stuff is violating (because Tolkien wrote it),
your own additons are the harmless part.

They are only a problem if you would try to pass them off as if they
were genuine Tolkien.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

From: David Salo <dsalo@usa.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Message-ID: <070920011817176064%dsalo@usa.net>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
Lines: 36
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 23:15:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.170.95.200
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tds.net (TDS.NET help Desk 1-888-815-5992)
X-Trace: ratbert.tds.net 999904556 208.170.95.200 (Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:15:56 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:15:56 CDT
Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.stealth.net!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!newspeer2.tds.net!ratbert.tds.net!dsalo
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51064


   Mr. Dennis McKiernan, who used to post here, published his first
books by revising a story he had started as a 'sequel' to The Lord of
the Rings.

> > I'm also trying to figure out to what extent I can use Quenya as a
> > whole, or modify it to create an Avari ..  er, sorry; an Avavari ..
> > strain.
> 
> Tolkien linguists have been debating the precise copyright status of
> the languages for quite some time.  One debate has been whether or not
> dictionaries and word lists compiled from the various texts are in
> violation of copyright.  Given that, I suspect that using Quenya
> directly or in some minimally modified form in your own stories would
> be all too likely to be a violation of copyright.

   I should point out that many authors have used Quenya and Sindarin
names in their books (both Mr. McKiernan and Mr. R.A. Salvatore come to
mind) without any apparent difficulty.  The principal objection to this
kind of thing is not that it violates copyright but that it 1) shows
little originality, 2) often shows that the authors don't really know
much about the meanings of the names or their languages!
   There are also a lot of people who have written stories and poems in
Quenya and Sindarin (or their best attempt at them) and distributed
them to family, friends, or whoever happens to read their web pages. 
This has also not been a problem.

> You'd have to use something different from Quenya, anyway: the
> language of the Avari would presumably differ from Quenya
> substantially more than Sindarin does!  And of course, you'd have to
> work out the complete philological history of the language, including
> its shared roots with Quenya and Sindarin and the effect of later
> contact with Sindarin, to say nothing of Mannish tongues... quite a
> task! :)

   Oh, not so difficult. :)

######

Lines: 33
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: mcresq@aol.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 08 Sep 2001 00:56:24 GMT
References: <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Message-ID: <20010907205624.12161.00000263@nso-fc.aol.com>
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51150

In article <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com>,
heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) writes:

>mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote in message
>news:<20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com>...
>
>> What exactly are you planning to *do* with this project.  Are you planning
>to
>> profit from it?
>
>Thanks for responding!  Nope, not to profit.
>
>It's meant to be an allegorical attempt to shed light on the nature of
>the Elven race and their exodus in a new and speculative manner.  It
>certainly wouldn't be sold.  But since i want to do it in the form of
>a fiction or set of fictional works, tying together canonical places &
>things with invented ones, I'm presuming I cannot use Tolkien's
>names...
>
>For example [please, no lawsuits as yet!]:
>
>"Pallando traveled thence to Rhun, and through the Barrens of
>Khanaad."  This example is, correct me if wrong, a violation of
>copyright, as it uses the names and terms of Tolkien's own design
>along with invented ones.  I can say "Pallando dwelt in the East, and
>that's all we know," because this is basic Tolkien speculation or
>scholarship, and extends no further.  But to make up additions to the
>mythology is in violation, even if I label it as a fiction; correct?
>

If you're not trying sell it, it's not likely to cause any problems.  

Russ

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 08:40:52 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <MPG.1603dbdd7eb11c1d98c83a@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu> <070920011817176064%dsalo@usa.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.8b
X-Server-Date: 8 Sep 2001 12:40:38 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51253

David Salo <dsalo@usa.net> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>   Mr. Dennis McKiernan, who used to post here, published his first
>books by revising a story he had started as a 'sequel' to The Lord of
>the Rings.

And they were pretty bad, too: straightforward sword-and-sorcery 
stuff, endlessly repetitive. By the end of Book II I felt I would 
need to scream and break something if I read "jewel-like eyes" or 
"sapphirine eyes" just once more.

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                   http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

######

Message-ID: <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 73
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 19:44:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.100.35
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 999978266 12.83.100.35 (Sat, 08 Sep 2001 19:44:26 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 19:44:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51114



Neil Franklin wrote:

  ...<snip>...

> Actually using names would be Trademark violation.

  Neil is correct, _if_ they (the names) are trademarked.
  As far as copyright goes, only JRRT's "text" is copyrighted.  Lifting
of the text is what constitutes copyright violation, or having text that
is little different from the original.
  Names themselves are not copyrighted, nor are ideas (for example, the
idea of a serial murderer is not copyrightable ... else there's only be
one story about a serial murdered).
  Names, however, can be "trademarked" (for example, Coke is a
registered trademarked name).  Some names (such as Gildor) are ancient,
and exist in fairy or folk tales, while other names are in common use. 
Those kind of names cannot be trademarked.  (Wow, what a deal if I could
trademark the name "John" or "Smith" or ...)  Common names, or
historical names _can_ be trademarked if you add something special to
the name, such as "Conan the Barbarian."  The name "Conan" is an old
Celtic name, therefore not trademarkable ... but "Conan the Barbarian"
is trademarkable.  A wholly made-up name is also trademarkable ("Coke"
the soft drink is one of those).
  Plagiarism consists of lifting the text from some author and claiming
it as your own.  Using similar ideas, names, settings, and so on is not
plagiarism (else [the name] John Stryker, a detective in [the setting
of] New York City, who is chasing a serial killer [the base idea] would
be plagiarism, but it, of course is not.)
  As far as the original question goes: if the writing of the further
adventures of Bilbo or Frodo or Tuckerby or Han Solo or
whoever-the-fictional character(s) is(are), if it is for your own
PRIVATE use, go forth, my man.  Even if it is for a small group (such as
a Roleplaying group that gathers in your house every so often), than
that's okay, too.
  However, the moment you go public with it (such as posting it on the
internet, or making it available to those in the public who request it),
then that's the moment you are open to being sued.
  You may win or lose, depending on the merits of your case and theirs,
and depending on how deep your pockets are compared to theirs.
  On the other hand, they may choose to ignore you, but are you willing
to take that chance?
  In some cases, folks are encouraged by the originator to write stories
set in their worlds.  These stories are typically called fanfic, for
they are written by fans just for the fun of it.
  Yet, the moment a fanfic writer tries to make money off his/her story
(or offers it to the public without the permission of the copyright
holder) ... wham!  Down comes the power of copyright law.

> Neil  also writes (in his signature):
> - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

  That's more or less like saying: if you make money off _any_ invention
(be it your software game, a car that runs on water, a special wrench,
an antigravity device, etc.), then whatever that invention is, it's
robbery.
  To say the least, I disagree, for any invention, be it intellectual or
physical, is the product of the mind and deserves the protection of the
law, and the right of the inventor to sell it, give it away, produce it,
or whatever s/he wishes.

  Regards,
  ---Dennis
  
--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:58:01 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu> <070920011817176064%dsalo@usa.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.82
X-Server-Date: 8 Sep 2001 21:57:55 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51246

David Salo <dsalo@usa.net> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
>   Mr. Dennis McKiernan, who used to post here

And apparently still reads the group -- I just got an e-mail from 
him disagreeing with what I said about his books.

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                   http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

######

Lines: 15
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: mcresq@aol.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 08 Sep 2001 23:51:25 GMT
References: <MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Message-ID: <20010908195125.25581.00000355@nso-fi.aol.com>
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51155

In article <MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com>,
brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:

>
>David Salo <dsalo@usa.net> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>
>>   Mr. Dennis McKiernan, who used to post here
>
>And apparently still reads the group -- I just got an e-mail from 
>him disagreeing with what I said about his books.
>

<snigger>

Russ

######

From: heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 8 Sep 2001 23:56:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <1a59e6ba.0109082256.3983de6@posting.google.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uk7zais9x.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.174.224.115
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1000018573 20267 127.0.0.1 (9 Sep 2001 06:56:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Sep 2001 06:56:13 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51204

Thanks, all, for your feedback.  It is most likely that I will not
attempt to start this project, since the potential entanglements seem
too great.  I wish there were some sort of framework for the 'other
hands and minds' Tolkien himself wrote of to continue and carry on
elaboration of Middle Earth, even if it were a highly structured
project overseen by the Estate.  It seems a shame.

Thanks again!


Heath

######

From: "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Lines: 19
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000
Message-ID: <92Im7.16002$151.1370319@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:05:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.24.245
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000033541 12.79.24.245 (Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:05:41 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:05:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51080

"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net...

> A wholly made-up name is also trademarkable ("Coke" the soft
> drink is one of those).

Is it?  Given that the terms 'coke' and 'coca' have both long been
common slang words for cocaine... and indeed, 'Coca-Cola' was
originally a reference to the primary ingredients (Cocaine and
African Kola nuts - which contain caffeine) I'd think it would be
like trying to trademark the word 'beer'.  Coca-cola didn't
invent the words 'coke' or 'coca'.  They invented a soft drink
and applied those existing words to describe it based on an
ingredient... which was later removed on account of that whole
thing where people would get shakes when they couldn't have their
soda.

######

From: "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu> <070920011817176064%dsalo@usa.net> <MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Lines: 14
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000
Message-ID: <D4Im7.16003$151.1371204@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:08:19 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.24.245
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000033699 12.79.24.245 (Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:08:19 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:08:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51081

"Stan Brown" <brahms@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com...

> And apparently still reads the group -- I just got an e-mail
> from him disagreeing with what I said about his books.

I figured you would.  If you check Deja you'll see that Dennis
has never posted alot, but has been around pretty consistently
for years.  I've never read his earlier books, and thus can't
comment either way - but I haven't noticed the problems you
mentioned in the few of his more recent texts that I have read.

######

Message-ID: <3B9B8981.960A675C@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <92Im7.16002$151.1370319@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 30
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 15:22:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.103.30
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000048968 12.83.103.30 (Sun, 09 Sep 2001 15:22:48 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 15:22:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.online.be!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51116

Conrad:
  If you look in the advertisements for Coke, you'll see that little "R"
in a circle, indicating that "Coke" is a registered trademark symbol for
Coca Cola.  How they managed this, I don't know, but I suspect that the
term "coke" wasn't in the "official" lexicon whenever Coca Cola applied
for the trademark.
  (And it is a truth that the secret recipe for Coke _way back when_ did
use cocaine as an ingredient ... but, of course, cocaine and other
narcotics [such as laudanum, consisting of opium in a solution] were
over-the-counter drugs in the US back then.)
  ---Dennis

Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> 
> "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net...
> 
> > A wholly made-up name is also trademarkable ("Coke" the soft
> > drink is one of those).
> 
> Is it?  Given that the terms 'coke' and 'coca' have both long been
> common slang words for cocaine... and indeed, 'Coca-Cola' was
> originally a reference to the primary ingredients (Cocaine and
> African Kola nuts - which contain caffeine) I'd think it would be
> like trying to trademark the word 'beer'.  Coca-cola didn't
> invent the words 'coke' or 'coca'.  They invented a soft drink
> and applied those existing words to describe it based on an
> ingredient... which was later removed on account of that whole
> thing where people would get shakes when they couldn't have their
> soda.

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 13:00:20 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <MPG.16056a2be2f1739598c84f@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <92Im7.16002$151.1370319@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.7e.d5
X-Server-Date: 9 Sep 2001 17:00:02 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51233

Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net> wrote in 
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net...
>> A wholly made-up name is also trademarkable ("Coke" the soft
>> drink is one of those).
>
>Is it?  Given that the terms 'coke' and 'coca' have both long been
>common slang words for cocaine...

Since the turn of the previous century? Remember that Coca-Cola is a 
very old soft drink.

In any event, "Coke" is indeed a registered trademark of the Coca-
Cola Company, as you can see on every container. ("Coca-Cola" is 
also trademarked. I suspect the flowing script is trademarked too, 
but I'm not so sure about that.)

I don't know why you say "coca" was slang. It's the correct name of 
the plant that gives us the leaves that are mounded to make the drug 
... that lives in the house that Jack built. :-)

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                   http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 13:02:11 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <MPG.16056aa08d127f2e98c850@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu> <070920011817176064%dsalo@usa.net> <MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com> <D4Im7.16003$151.1371204@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.7e.d5
X-Server-Date: 9 Sep 2001 17:01:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51230

Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net> wrote in 
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>I've never read his earlier books, and thus can't
>comment either way - but I haven't noticed the problems you
>mentioned in the few of his more recent texts that I have read.

Just speculating here, but maybe it's easier to write a good 
original work than a good derivative work? Or maybe it's a matter of 
getting better at one's craft over time.

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                  http://oakroadsystems.com/
"My theory was a perfectly good one. The facts were misleading."
                                   -- /The Lady Vanishes/ (1938)

######

Message-ID: <3B9BD08C.9C319CA7@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <92Im7.16002$151.1370319@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <3B9B8981.960A675C@worldnet.att.net> <9ng20g$7bblo$1@ID-81911.news.dfncis.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 18
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:25:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.102.147
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000067155 12.83.102.147 (Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:25:55 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:25:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51130

Yes.  That's true, Morgil.  That completely slipped my mind.  One _can_
trademark a design.  ---Dennis

Morgil Blackhope wrote:
> 
> Dennis L. McKiernan kirjoitti viestissä
> <3B9B8981.960A675C@worldnet.att.net>...
> >Conrad:
> >  If you look in the advertisements for Coke, you'll see that little "R"
> >in a circle, indicating that "Coke" is a registered trademark symbol for
> >Coca Cola.  How they managed this, I don't know, but I suspect that the
> >term "coke" wasn't in the "official" lexicon whenever Coca Cola applied
> >for the trademark.
> 
> I think what they have registered is the *style* which Coke and Coca-Cola
> are written, and also the shape of the bottles...
> 
> Morgil

######

Message-ID: <3B9BD1A3.26408333@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <Cfam7.165$N4.23533@news.uchicago.edu> <070920011817176064%dsalo@usa.net> <MPG.16045e77aca98e2e98c83e@news.mindspring.com> <D4Im7.16003$151.1371204@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <MPG.16056aa08d127f2e98c850@news.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:30:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.102.147
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000067435 12.83.102.147 (Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:30:35 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:30:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51104



Stan Brown wrote:

> 
> Just speculating here, but maybe it's easier to write a good
> original work than a good derivative work? Or maybe it's a matter of
> getting better at one's craft over time.

Yes, Stan, I agree, in particular with your latter speculation.  There
is a learning curve, and improvement in craft comes with that.
  ---Dennis

--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 10 Sep 2001 17:16:00 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000134960 647 10.0.3.2 (10 Sep 2001 15:16:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Sep 2001 15:16:00 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51274

"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Neil Franklin wrote:
>
> > Neil  also writes (in his signature):
> > - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery
>
>   That's more or less like saying: if you make money off _any_ invention
> (be it your software game, a car that runs on water, a special wrench,
> an antigravity device, etc.), then whatever that invention is, it's
> robbery.

No. It is saying: regarding an idea as _exclusively_ one persons
(which is what most IP laws boil down to) and forbidding everyone
else of makeing use off (or extensions of) that idea is robbery
(taking away under force of arms (of the law enforcement)).

I have nothing against people having an idea, making an product and
making an honnest sale of that. What I dislike is forbidding the
central basis of societies development (building on the works and
ideas of others).


One only has to look at how many new additions to societies wealth are
not taking place out of fear of being sued (for an small example just
see Heath in this thread announcing he is giving up his plans) and
compare them with the very few things that such laws have created
(serial mass market authors letting out reams of trash, masses of
identi-sound electronic pop music), to see that they are harming
society more than benefitting it.

Intellectual property laws, and _particularly_ their ever more and
larger _extensions_ are rapidly producing an society where all
creativity is going to be drowned in fear of lawsuits from anyone
established who in any way feels threatend in their profits.

That is the largest weakness of IP laws: only the first person gets
property of his ideas, all others are denied it for their extendinf
ideas. I am _for_ the right to create, make and sell, so I am against
such broken laws that forbid it for everyone other than a few
fortunate to be the first.


As a creative person I feel threatend im my ability to function and
add great things to life in the future. Already now an project I want
to make (a tool for home-made do-it-yourself computer chips) is
illegal in the US, because it can be used to breach copyright (of
people who have made components for an existing commercial tool of the
same type, which I want to replace because of its limitations). No
intention on my part to use it for this, but it is illegal because
others could use it that way(!). So this law is ideal if the existing
tools manufacturer wants to get rid of an competitor amking an better
product.

The same lobbyists want to spread such law to the rest of the world,
robbing anyone like me of our rights to create. And our users of
getting our creations. So I am active in the anti-IP community. And I
have this sig block to encourage such discussions. Thank you for
commenting on it.


>   To say the least, I disagree, for any invention, be it intellectual or
> physical, is the product of the mind and deserves the protection of the

Nothing needs such protection at any cost. Make it, sell it, improve
it. Earn money for serving your customers. Its called market economy.
Everyone else has to live by it, why should people making ideas have
an unfair exeption, at the cost of everyone else coming after them?

The entire rest of society is at the moment subject to liberalising
and globalising, because protectionism has been recognized as having
more damaging effects than good coming from it.

At the same time "idea owners" still want more protectionism and
competition killers. No good will come of this.

IP law is todays ring one should never grab for.


> law, and the right of the inventor to sell it, give it away, produce it,
> or whatever s/he wishes.

Produce and sell as much as you wish. But don't rob other inventors
of their ability to do the same.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Message-ID: <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 179
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:24:36 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.103.175
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000146276 12.83.103.175 (Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:24:36 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:24:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nf3.bellglobal.com!news.uunet.ca!prairie.attcanada.net!newsfeed.attcanada.net!204.127.161.4!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51359

So, Neil, you are against patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade
secrets?

I assume that means you are for copyright piracy ... such as, say, China
or other foreign countries reproducing copies of _tLotR_ or other books,
or folks reproducing movies, or other forms of copying, and selling them
and not paying the writer, publisher, producer, etc.

The same for patents?  Trademarks?  Trade secrets?

Who will pay for the research for, say, drugs, if the moment they are
made available, anyone can reproduce them?  Who will pay for the R&D on
improvements in equipment of nearly any kind, if the moment they are put
out there anyone else can produce clones?

If so, if anyone can rip off the writer, producer, inventor, etc., then
what motive is there in being a writer, producer, inventor, etc. if
anyone can reproduce the work/product and sell it or give it away?  How
is the writer, inventor, etc. to make a living?  Where will good works
come from?  From altruistic folks who simply want to see their name "out
there"?

So, plagiarism is okay?  Other forms of IP ripoff okay?

It is the IP owner who needs to make a living from his/her products,
whether that owner is a corporation, an individual, a partnership,
whatever.  Else there is no material incentive to produce intellectual
property, otherwise IP will fall by the wayside, hence books, TV,
movies, computer games, and so on will wither.

One way a product can be improved by someone other than that of the IP
holder is for the one who has an idea for improvement to approach the
holder and say, I have a great idea on how to improve (or
extend-into-new-areas) your product.  Let's make a deal.

Another way to use the work of others is to come up with an improvement
that is so novel, that it in itself is
patentable/copyrightable/trademarkable or can be a brand new trade
secret.

As far as working in someone else's world (bookwise), it is done all the
time.  Media tie-in books are examples of this (Star Wars, Star Trek,
Buffy, Sabrina, Dune, to name a few).  Other examples are the Conan
books (not media a tie-in, but an example of writing in someone else's
world). The trick here is to get the owner of the property to agree to a
deal.

As an example of this, many movies and TV shows are based on some
writer's novel or short story.  Recently, my short story _Darkness_ was
optioned by the Fox Network's TV series NIGHT VISIONS.  Here, the folks
at NIGHT VISIONS asked me if the work was available for adaptation to
the program.  My agent and I struck a deal with them, and the adaptation
was made into one of the episodes, and it showed last week (well
butchered by them, but that's what happens to most adaptations).

And as far as making an improvement to a tool, strike a deal with the
tool patent holder.  (Or do you want exclusive rights to the new-- Oh,
wait a minute.  You aren't arguing for that, are you.)

Oh, one more thing:  both patents and copyrights have limited terms. 
For example, the patent for Prozac just recently expired, and now other
companies can come out with their own copies of that drug.  But, had it
not been for the patent rights in the first place, the R&D that produced
Prozac probably would not have been financed.  Another example is the
Mary Russle/Sherlock Holmes books by Lauri King.  Hence, intellectual
property has limited terms, and after that term expires, it's fair game
for all.  You may argue about the length of the term, but, hey, that's a
different ballgame.)

There are many ways to use someone else's intellectual property to make
an improvement or an extension to that property.

Of course, as an author who makes his living by writing novels and short
stories, I am all for IP protection.

My bottom line:  intellectual property laws are in place so that
intellectual property will continue to be produced at the fantastic rate
that it is.  Otherwise, it is my contention that intellectual property
will no longer be seen as a worthwhile goal for folks to aspire to.

Regards,
---Dennis

Neil Franklin wrote:
> 
> "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> 
> > Neil Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > Neil  also writes (in his signature):
> > > - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery
> >
> >   That's more or less like saying: if you make money off _any_ invention
> > (be it your software game, a car that runs on water, a special wrench,
> > an antigravity device, etc.), then whatever that invention is, it's
> > robbery.
> 
> No. It is saying: regarding an idea as _exclusively_ one persons
> (which is what most IP laws boil down to) and forbidding everyone
> else of makeing use off (or extensions of) that idea is robbery
> (taking away under force of arms (of the law enforcement)).
> 
> I have nothing against people having an idea, making an product and
> making an honnest sale of that. What I dislike is forbidding the
> central basis of societies development (building on the works and
> ideas of others).
> 
> One only has to look at how many new additions to societies wealth are
> not taking place out of fear of being sued (for an small example just
> see Heath in this thread announcing he is giving up his plans) and
> compare them with the very few things that such laws have created
> (serial mass market authors letting out reams of trash, masses of
> identi-sound electronic pop music), to see that they are harming
> society more than benefitting it.
> 
> Intellectual property laws, and _particularly_ their ever more and
> larger _extensions_ are rapidly producing an society where all
> creativity is going to be drowned in fear of lawsuits from anyone
> established who in any way feels threatend in their profits.
> 
> That is the largest weakness of IP laws: only the first person gets
> property of his ideas, all others are denied it for their extendinf
> ideas. I am _for_ the right to create, make and sell, so I am against
> such broken laws that forbid it for everyone other than a few
> fortunate to be the first.
> 
> As a creative person I feel threatend im my ability to function and
> add great things to life in the future. Already now an project I want
> to make (a tool for home-made do-it-yourself computer chips) is
> illegal in the US, because it can be used to breach copyright (of
> people who have made components for an existing commercial tool of the
> same type, which I want to replace because of its limitations). No
> intention on my part to use it for this, but it is illegal because
> others could use it that way(!). So this law is ideal if the existing
> tools manufacturer wants to get rid of an competitor amking an better
> product.
> 
> The same lobbyists want to spread such law to the rest of the world,
> robbing anyone like me of our rights to create. And our users of
> getting our creations. So I am active in the anti-IP community. And I
> have this sig block to encourage such discussions. Thank you for
> commenting on it.
> 
> >   To say the least, I disagree, for any invention, be it intellectual or
> > physical, is the product of the mind and deserves the protection of the
> 
> Nothing needs such protection at any cost. Make it, sell it, improve
> it. Earn money for serving your customers. Its called market economy.
> Everyone else has to live by it, why should people making ideas have
> an unfair exeption, at the cost of everyone else coming after them?
> 
> The entire rest of society is at the moment subject to liberalising
> and globalising, because protectionism has been recognized as having
> more damaging effects than good coming from it.
> 
> At the same time "idea owners" still want more protectionism and
> competition killers. No good will come of this.
> 
> IP law is todays ring one should never grab for.
> 
> > law, and the right of the inventor to sell it, give it away, produce it,
> > or whatever s/he wishes.
> 
> Produce and sell as much as you wish. But don't rob other inventors
> of their ability to do the same.
> 
> --
> Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
> Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
> - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

From: amlug4@hotmail.com (Lisa Star)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 10 Sep 2001 15:59:59 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <e4c2daf9.0109101459.5056d29b@posting.google.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uk7zais9x.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <1a59e6ba.0109082256.3983de6@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.223.146.250
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1000162800 20499 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2001 23:00:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Sep 2001 23:00:00 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51418

heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) wrote in message news:<1a59e6ba.0109082256.3983de6@posting.google.com>...
> Thanks, all, for your feedback.  It is most likely that I will not
> attempt to start this project, since the potential entanglements seem
> too great.

**well, they may be, depending on exactly what you are trying to do. 
However, Heath Rezabek might wish to know that there is a journal
called "Other Hands" which seems devoted to the sort of project he
expressed interest in.
For a legal opinion on the use of Tolkien's languages and alphabets
for composition, and some other issues related to copyright, see;

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9902/legalop.html

>  I wish there were some sort of framework for the 'other
> hands and minds' Tolkien himself wrote of to continue and carry on
> elaboration of Middle Earth, even if it were a highly structured
> project overseen by the Estate.  It seems a shame.

**There is a "highly structured project overseen by the Estate".  It
is dead as a doornail.  Which I think was the plan all along.
 
> Thanks again!

** Lisa Star
** LisaStar@earthling.net

######

Subject: Re: Question re copyright
From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@elvish.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Message-ID: <100920012103573748%Aelfwine@elvish.org>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uk7zais9x.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <1a59e6ba.0109082256.3983de6@posting.google.com> <e4c2daf9.0109101459.5056d29b@posting.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Thoth/1.2.3 (Carbon/OS X)
Lines: 17
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:13:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.9.51.64
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.md.home.com 1000170806 65.9.51.64 (Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:13:26 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:13:26 PDT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.md.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51382

In article <e4c2daf9.0109101459.5056d29b@posting.google.com>, Lisa Star
<amlug4@hotmail.com> wrote:

> heath_rezabek@yahoo.com (heath rezabek) wrote in message
> news:<1a59e6ba.0109082256.3983de6@posting.google.com>...

> >  I wish there were some sort of framework for the 'other
> > hands and minds' Tolkien himself wrote of to continue and carry on
> > elaboration of Middle Earth, even if it were a highly structured
> > project overseen by the Estate.  It seems a shame.
> 
> **There is a "highly structured project overseen by the Estate".  It
> is dead as a doornail.  Which I think was the plan all along.

What on earth on you talking about? The Estate has never, and never
would, approve of or oversee any project to "continue and carry on
elaboration of Middle-earth".

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 12 Sep 2001 01:43:07 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000251787 450 10.0.3.2 (11 Sep 2001 23:43:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 2001 23:43:07 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51458

"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> So, Neil, you are against patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade
> secrets?

I am, as I have written, against any law that robs people of the
ability to create. Because this, all summed up, destroys more than it
gains.


> I assume that means you are for copyright piracy ... such as, say, China
> or other foreign countries reproducing copies of _tLotR_ or other books,
> or folks reproducing movies, or other forms of copying, and selling them
> and not paying the writer, publisher,

AFAIK it is possible to forbid making verbatim copies (as China in
this example does) without forbidding making of derived works (such
as Heath intended).


> producer, etc.

Small nit: As the copier is the producer (of those copies they are
selling) they are actually paying the producer.


> The same for patents?

Patents are entirely aimed against others creating their own competing
implementations of an idea, no other aim. Pure robbing people of the
use of ideas. They should be abolished entirely.

The entire patent question is where I come from in my dislike of IP laws.


>  Trademarks?

Basic "confusing/tricking the consumers by pretending to be someone
else is illegal" type trademarks are OK, but forbid anything sounding
similar goes to far.


>  Trade secrets?

Do not hinder others from creating. So not problem.


> Who will pay for the research for, say, drugs, if the moment they are
> made available, anyone can reproduce them?  Who will pay for the R&D on
> improvements in equipment of nearly any kind, if the moment they are put
> out there anyone else can produce clones?

Who pays for massivly expensive scientific experiments, whose results
are excluded from IP laws and whose makers are only rewarded if they
publish their findings? Industrial research can be put on a similar
basis. Where there is a will there is a path.


> If so, if anyone can rip off the writer, producer, inventor, etc., then
> what motive is there in being a writer, producer, inventor, etc. if
> anyone can reproduce the work/product and sell it or give it away?

a) Since when is a derivative work "ripping off"? He intended to take
part of ME and build an own story on it. No more "ripping off" than
writing an story in London is ripping off those that made London.

Heaths intended work may actually lead some people to ME.


b) Ever heard of the _many_ non-finanancial rewards in writing/singing/etc?
You as commercial writer may only be in it for the money, but many
other people create for the fun of it. That is a _large_ motive.


> is the writer, inventor, etc. to make a living?

The way Tolkien did? Work at an University (or anywhere else) and
write as a hobby. Before it gets forgotton: LoTR was published when
Tolkien was over 60 years old. He did not live off of writing
books. But he wrote anyway.


>  Where will good works
> come from?  From altruistic folks who simply want to see their name "out
> there"?

True artists, who create for the creation. Funnily enough they tend to
write the really good stuff. The good books. And the good software
such as that I am using now).


> So, plagiarism is okay?

Expansion is not plagiarism, it is the base of culture, building on
others. That some people regard this as bad just shows how greed has
deformed their minds.


>  Other forms of IP ripoff okay?

At least less bad than forbidding creativity. And I prefer the lesser evil.


> whatever.  Else there is no material incentive to produce intellectual
> property, otherwise IP will fall by the wayside, hence books, TV,
> movies, computer games, and so on will wither.

I have over 1GByte of IP-free software on this computer. Dito over
100M of IP-free websites cached.

Surprisingly (or actually not surprising if one looks at biology)
creating is an natural impulse in humans. Many like to do it simply
for the reward of doing it.

So we will not see culture wither. Rather we will see it flower, once
it has been freed from laws that kill too much of it.

Of course this will not be commercial culture (the small sacrifice we
will have to make) but true individual culture (the gain we will get).


> One way a product can be improved by someone other than that of the IP
> holder is for the one who has an idea for improvement to approach the
> holder and say, I have a great idea on how to improve (or
> extend-into-new-areas) your product.  Let's make a deal.

Assuming the IP owner wants that deal. Can be problematic. Or even
impossible.


> world). The trick here is to get the owner of the property to agree to a
> deal.

Which they may not do.


> And as far as making an improvement to a tool, strike a deal with the
> tool patent holder.

What if you want to distribute your improvement for free? This is
possible in any product that consists of bits (such as text, music,
pictures, programs, maths, ...). And lots of people want to do this.
All the writers of the software I am presently using, for one.


> Oh, one more thing:  both patents and copyrights have limited terms.

Which in the case of copyright (authors life plus 75 years) is
effectively unlimited for any contemporary creation. And most creative
people want to contribute to and extend contemporary culture, not
something of the far back past.


> not been for the patent rights in the first place, the R&D that produced
> Prozac probably would not have been financed.

Like all that science work that was not financed and I must have
dreampt of it.


> for all.  You may argue about the length of the term, but, hey, that's a
> different ballgame.)

Well I certainly have argued that one, on this group even.


> Of course, as an author who makes his living by writing novels and short
> stories, I am all for IP protection.

That is normal with minorities that profit from bad laws. I would have
never expected anything different :-).


> My bottom line:  intellectual property laws are in place so that
> intellectual property will continue to be produced at the fantastic rate
> that it is. Otherwise, it is my contention that intellectual property
> will no longer be seen as a worthwhile goal for folks to aspire to.

For _some_ folks. Others, freed, will replace them. Not in volume. But
in quality definitely, and that is what counts.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:51:26 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.7f.55
X-Server-Date: 12 Sep 2001 02:50:59 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51508

Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in 
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> So, Neil, you are against patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade
>> secrets?
>
>I am, as I have written, against any law that robs people of the
>ability to create. Because this, all summed up, destroys more than it
>gains.

It is just silly to say copyright "rob[s] people of the ability to 
create". What it does is give an _incentive_ to create, since it 
makes it more likely they'll profit from their creation.

The US Constitution (Art I sec 8) explains the theory in a nutshell, 
as part of the grant of powers to Congress: "To promote the Progress 
of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors 
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and 
Discoveries".

If people had no protection for what they create, they would instead 
have to turn to other ways of making a living, and we would all be 
poorer -- even the people who think it's okay to rip off a creative 
work because they don't want to pay for it. (That's what all this 
nonsense about "ideas can't belong to anyone" boils down to: the 
desire to profit by or enjoy the work of others without paying them 
for the pleasure.)

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                   http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

######

From: Flame of the West <jsolinas@erols.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:21:30 -0400
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <3B9F7D75.6D57E55B@erols.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZS+5Ovu4X7jHqmeK9KWtvAYQG0c6oAriMMITLm4mIL0nPxqqUjLMlD
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Sep 2001 15:49:37 GMT
X-Mailer:  Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language:  en
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51465


Neil Franklin wrote:

> As a creative person I feel threatend im my ability to function and
> add great things to life in the future. Already now an project I want
> to make (a tool for home-made do-it-yourself computer chips) is
> illegal in the US, because it can be used to breach copyright (of
> people who have made components for an existing commercial tool of the
> same type, which I want to replace because of its limitations). 

You and others like you need to organize and put together a 
professional association like the AMA.  Hire your own lobbyists 
and bribe, I mean contribute to some congressmen.

> No intention on my part to use it for this, but it is illegal because
> others could use it that way(!). 

It's just like gun control.  You could say that computer chips 
don't violate copyright laws, people do.

> Nothing needs such protection at any cost. Make it, sell it, improve
> it. Earn money for serving your customers. Its called market economy.
> Everyone else has to live by it, why should people making ideas have
> an unfair exeption, at the cost of everyone else coming after them?

Well, in the realm of prescription drugs, there are research costs to 
recoup, so there is some justification for limiting the right of others 
to use the formula.  But as you say, we are going too far in applying 
this concept to digital content, and solely for the profits of very 
large entertainment companies.

-- 

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.

######

From: Flame of the West <jsolinas@erols.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:32:18 -0400
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <3B9F7FFC.BC6DA50D@erols.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVao47krtyGHXyRHD2ha/0EbRjTMuU9zb7RJu0OIbFwFeULME6MZzSmK
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Sep 2001 15:49:40 GMT
X-Mailer:  Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language:  en
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51470


"Dennis L. McKiernan" wrote:

> If so, if anyone can rip off the writer, producer, inventor, etc., then
> what motive is there in being a writer, producer, inventor, etc. if
> anyone can reproduce the work/product and sell it or give it away?  How
> is the writer, inventor, etc. to make a living?  Where will good works
> come from?  From altruistic folks who simply want to see their name "out
> there"?

There's a difference between being compensated for one's work 
and maintaining control over it.  In the realm of digital content, 
the latter is unattainable without a totalitarian legal and techincal 
infrastructure.  The producers of music and video should just 
get over it, and society should focus on ensuring that they are 
justly compensated; but traditional notions of control over one's 
IP are just not feasible anymore.

> Another way to use the work of others is to come up with an improvement
> that is so novel, that it in itself is
> patentable/copyrightable/trademarkable or can be a brand new trade
> secret.

Under patent law, that is possible now.  Neil is not talking about 
patents/copyrights/trademarks, but the much more intrusive 
and extreme digital IP protection laws like the DMCA.

> The trick here is to get the owner of the property to agree to a deal.

Neil is apparently a software developer.  Can you imagine Microsoft 
agreeing to a deal with him, when they won't even deal with fellow 
corporate giants like Netscape?

> My agent and I struck a deal with them, and the adaptation
> was made into one of the episodes, and it showed last week (well
> butchered by them, but that's what happens to most adaptations).

Congratulations!  Perhaps the closing credits could have something 
like, "Written by Dennis L. McKiernan, Butchered by [name here]."

> My bottom line:  intellectual property laws are in place so that
> intellectual property will continue to be produced at the fantastic rate
> that it is.  Otherwise, it is my contention that intellectual property
> will no longer be seen as a worthwhile goal for folks to aspire to.

As a writer, what do you think?  Would you feel properly compensated 
if your work were passed at will around the Internet, out of your 
control, but with some royalty mechanism so that you were paid for 
each download?

-- 

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 12 Sep 2001 21:41:56 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000323716 1044 10.0.3.2 (12 Sep 2001 19:41:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Sep 2001 19:41:56 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51518

brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:

> Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >> So, Neil, you are against patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade
> >> secrets?
> >
> >I am, as I have written, against any law that robs people of the
> >ability to create. Because this, all summed up, destroys more than it
> >gains.
>
> It is just silly to say copyright "rob[s] people of the ability to
> create". What it does is give an _incentive_ to create, since it
> makes it more likely they'll profit from their creation.

.. and robs people of the ability to create derivative works. And in
some of todays eccesses even to make entirely self-created stuff.


> The US Constitution (Art I sec 8) explains the theory in a nutshell,

I would advise you to lift your eyes above the limits of dusty theory
and go and look at what the actual effects are in real life.


> If people had no protection for what they create, they would instead
> have to turn to other ways of making a living,

You mean, like Tolkien working for an university? Books being written
for the personal satisfaction of the writer (as the majority are, no
money is _not_ the majority motivation)? Or musicians going on tour
or selling fan articles? Or software being co-authored (and extended)
by groups of users for their own profitable use (such as the program I
am writing this post with)?

Nowhere near the problem that "all the world is about money" economists
make it out to be.


> and we would all be poorer

As in Tolkien not writing LoTR. I must have dreampt about reading it.


> (That's what all this
> nonsense about "ideas can't belong to anyone" boils down to: the
> desire to profit by or enjoy the work of others without paying them
> for the pleasure.)

Nonsense. A large (and more important: growing) part is driven by the
realisation that copyright (and IP ingeneral) is a bad deal. Costs
(much larger than previously thought, and growing) more than the
little (much less than previously thought and shrinking) it brings.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:44:31 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.7e.d3
X-Server-Date: 13 Sep 2001 01:44:00 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51622

Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in 
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>
>> Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in
>> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> >"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >> So, Neil, you are against patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade
>> >> secrets?
>> >
>> >I am, as I have written, against any law that robs people of the
>> >ability to create. Because this, all summed up, destroys more than it
>> >gains.
>>
>> It is just silly to say copyright "rob[s] people of the ability to
>> create". What it does is give an _incentive_ to create, since it
>> makes it more likely they'll profit from their creation.
>
>. and robs people of the ability to create derivative works. And in
>some of todays eccesses even to make entirely self-created stuff.

I would respond to this, but I cannot imagine what an "eccess" (or 
perhaps "ecces" or "eccesse") might be. Even if I read it as a typo 
for "excesses" it still makes no sense that I can see.

>> and we would all be poorer
>
>As in Tolkien not writing LoTR. I must have dreampt about reading it.

No, but you _do_ seem to be dreaming if you think copyright was not 
important. Remember what happened when Ace Books published a _legal_ 
version without his approval?

>> (That's what all this
>> nonsense about "ideas can't belong to anyone" boils down to: the
>> desire to profit by or enjoy the work of others without paying them
>> for the pleasure.)
>
>Nonsense. A large (and more important: growing) part is driven by the
>realisation that copyright (and IP ingeneral) is a bad deal. Costs
>(much larger than previously thought, and growing) more than the
>little (much less than previously thought and shrinking) it brings.

Translation: You resent paying for something and think you should 
just steal it. You try to claim that it is the law that is wrong 
because it forbids you to steal.

(And you ought not to write "realization" when you mean 
"rationalization".)

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                   http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 13 Sep 2001 23:01:04 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000414864 436 10.0.3.2 (13 Sep 2001 21:01:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Sep 2001 21:01:04 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51630

brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:

> Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:
> >
> >> It is just silly to say copyright "rob[s] people of the ability to
> >> create". What it does is give an _incentive_ to create, since it
> >> makes it more likely they'll profit from their creation.
> >
> >. and robs people of the ability to create derivative works. And in
> >some of todays eccesses even to make entirely self-created stuff.
>
> I would respond to this, but I cannot imagine what an "eccess" (or
> perhaps "ecces" or "eccesse") might be. Even if I read it as a typo
> for "excesses"

Wow, a spelling flame (thinly veilled).


> it still makes no sense that I can see.

What is difficult to understand in that sentance? Some of todays
copyright law excesses do really forbid people making their own
stuff.

Try writing an tool to view legally bought (= paid for) DVDs, illegal
(in the U.S.) according to the DMCA.

That for all purposes is robbing people of the ability to create (in
this case an PC or embedded processor based DVD player), even
entirely self-created (i.e. not derived from others work) stuff.

And yes, criminalising tools and their making (as opposed to their use
for illegal purposes) is against all rules of a free society.


> >> and we would all be poorer
> >
> >As in Tolkien not writing LoTR. I must have dreampt about reading it.
>
> No, but you _do_ seem to be dreaming if you think copyright was not
> important. Remember what happened when Ace Books published a _legal_
> version without his approval?

We are discussiong here whether authors would write without financial
gain to live from. Tolkien definitely lived and wrote the majority of
his life without making money from it. Q.E.D.

That he after publishing tried to get everything he could (who would
not in todays society?) does not impact that at all. Even without
any financial gain he would have written anyway. See how many
Silmarillion variants he did write, generally compare the volume of
LotR and HoME.

And without publishing costs (read: webpages) he would most likely
also have published it at some time, assuming that he would have not
just gone on editing and editing, as he actually did.


> >> (That's what all this
> >> nonsense about "ideas can't belong to anyone" boils down to: the
> >> desire to profit by or enjoy the work of others without paying them
> >> for the pleasure.)
> >
> >Nonsense. A large (and more important: growing) part is driven by the
> >realisation that copyright (and IP ingeneral) is a bad deal. Costs
> >(much larger than previously thought, and growing) more than the
> >little (much less than previously thought and shrinking) it brings.
>
> Translation: You resent paying for something and think you should
> just steal it.

Demonstrate where I said that.

Advice: leave away your failled attempts at pop psychology, also known
as pretending to know others motivations better than they do.

Hint: I have in this room allone 10m of bookshelfs, full of paid
for books, including 16 Tolkiens (2 JRRT (Hobbit, LotR) and 14 CT
(Silm, UT, Home I-XII)).


I do not resent people making money (hint: I do also), but I do
absolutely dislike laws that harm many (taking away their freedoms)
to profit a few (those few authors who actually make an living from
professional writing). Laws should improve society, not harm it.


> You try to claim that it is the law that is wrong
> because it forbids you to steal.

I advise you to re-read what I wrote. That is the entire reason.


Shall we to count how many unpaid for copies of pay-for software
we have on our computers?

Mine: 0, since years. Last was IIRC a copy of Norton Commander and
dBase III on my last remaining MS-DOS 3.3 system, in the days of
the 486.

Yours? Not one little "seldom used" utility?


> (And you ought not to write "realization" when you mean
> "rationalization".)

I may be a lousy typist (I am) and manage to misstype c for x.

But I definitely have enough command of the english language to know
that "realization" is the word I wanted.

There really exist quite a lot (and growing amount) of people who are
seeing through the propaganda of the copyrightists and _realising_
that it does not compute the way that it is claimed to.

Welcome to the real world.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:27:24 -0400
Organization: Oak Road Systems
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.88
X-Server-Date: 14 Sep 2001 01:26:57 GMT
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51695

Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in 
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
(quoting me)
>> You try to claim that it is the law that is wrong
>> because it forbids you to steal.
>
>I advise you to re-read what I wrote. That is the entire reason.

Well, since you admit it, there really seems little to discuss. If 
you object to laws against stealing, there is no chance whatever 
that we will come to a point of agreement.

-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
                                   http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 14 Sep 2001 18:01:13 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000483274 382 10.0.3.2 (14 Sep 2001 16:01:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Sep 2001 16:01:14 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51708

brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:

> Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> (quoting me)
> >> You try to claim that it is the law that is wrong
> >> because it forbids you to steal.

Error: I have said (multiple times) that I object to laws that
surpress freedom to create.

Ia heve nothogn against laws that prevent stealing, SO LONG THEY DO
NOT HARM FRREDOM. Freedom is more important than ownership. Sad that
you can not get this point.


> >I advise you to re-read what I wrote. That is the entire reason.
>
> Well, since you admit it, there really seems little to discuss.

You seem incapable of understanding arguments. And yes that definitely
makes further discussion useless. Good Bye.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Message-ID: <3BA2222A.D4FA5507@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 36
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:27:42 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.102.108
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000481262 12.83.102.108 (Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:27:42 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:27:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51762

Neil:
  Derivative works:

  My series has so far spanned thirteen works:  twelve novels and a
collection of short(er) stories.  There is still a collection of stories
to write, to say nothing of an additional novel or two (if I can ever
get around to them).
  Some of my readers have written _for their own private amusement_
stories set in my world, and some of those stories overlap some of mine.
  Now, if those stories were published and sold, and if I had in mind a
similar tale, then I would be preempted _in my own world_.
  However, because of the copyright laws, those stories do not now
preempt me, and I can write those stories and continue to make a living
from my own intellectual property.
  
  Fanfic is a splendid thing:  it lets folks "play" in other creators'
universes/worlds, and they derive a great deal of satisfaction from it. 
Some rights holders allow fanfic to be published, and in some cases this
has led to problems for the rights holder (for example, Andre Norton's
"Witch World" series ran into difficulties because of fanfic).
  Fanfic for personal use, or for use in a very limited and private
manner (such as, setting a fantasy roleplaying game in some author's
world, and limiting it to that FRP group) is okay.  But fanfic published
for gain, or published in the public domain, will shoot down the
original author quicker than you can say Bob's your brother.
  
  ---Dennis

--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

Message-ID: <3BA22E82.F8D8E5E4@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:20:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.103.61
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000484422 12.83.103.61 (Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:20:22 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:20:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51773



Neil Franklin wrote:
> 

  ...<snip>...

> Freedom is more important than ownership. Sad that
> you can not get this point.

  Well then, it's okay for me to have the freedom to come and take your
car as my own, as well as your house and other property.
  No?
  But you said ...

  I suspect you mean that my freedom ends when it encroaches on your
rights, eh?
  And likewise, your freedom ends when it encroaches on my (copy)rights.

  ---Dennis
--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:26:43 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: carlfhostetter.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1000492097 8029 128.183.221.44 (14 Sep 2001 18:28:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Sep 2001 18:28:17 GMT
User-Agent: Thoth/1.3.1 (Carbon/OS X)
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!Carl.Hostetter
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51798

> Ia heve nothogn against laws that prevent stealing, SO LONG THEY DO
> NOT HARM FRREDOM. Freedom is more important than ownership. 

Freedom is impossible without ownership: ownership of one's self, and
one's goods, and one's creations. If you do not own these things, then
you can be prevented from their use or enjoyment. And that is
subjugation.

######

Message-ID: <3BA271C8.44797B22@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:07:25 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.101.217
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000501645 12.83.101.217 (Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:07:25 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:07:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51761

Indeed, Carl.  Indeed.
  ---Dennis

"Carl F. Hostetter" wrote:
> 
> > Ia heve nothogn against laws that prevent stealing, SO LONG THEY DO
> > NOT HARM FRREDOM. Freedom is more important than ownership.
> 
> Freedom is impossible without ownership: ownership of one's self, and
> one's goods, and one's creations. If you do not own these things, then
> you can be prevented from their use or enjoyment. And that is
> subjugation.

--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

From: the softrat <softrat@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:36:10 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <m915qtsmb255bcia9hno45jnhl0nt892jc@4ax.com>
References: <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Lines: 21
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51829

On 14 Sep 2001 18:01:13 +0200, Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
wrote:

>Error: I have said (multiple times) that I object to laws that
>surpress freedom to create.

That's what you say, but combining all you have said, what you really
object to is anyone wanting you to pay for something you want. What
you propose would suppress the freedom to create by removing economic
incentives to create.

Never mind responding. I probably won't read it anyway, not from 'Neil
Franklin' anyway. I just thought that you should know that not just
one person thinks that you are a spoiled, self-righteous, greedy,
illogical, stupid twit.


the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
We must learn to work as a team... like the lemmings.

######

From: Flame of the West <jsolinas@erols.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:41:57 -0400
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3BA33E83.8DDB052C@erols.com>
References: <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <m915qtsmb255bcia9hno45jnhl0nt892jc@4ax.com>
Reply-To: jsolinas@erols.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZS+zbZi/bYSC0u+XZ3YMVKh5V154guHSEdsW+RzcNdlN1pMOejrNFX
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2001 11:46:16 GMT
X-Mailer:  Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language:  en
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51720


the softrat wrote:

> I just thought that you should know that not just
> one person thinks that you are a spoiled, self-righteous, greedy,
> illogical, stupid twit.

I do wish you would learn to speak your mind frankly 
and not sugar-coat everything.

-- 

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth.

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 15 Sep 2001 23:58:25 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <6u1yl83ym6.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ugqolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com>
<3BA2222A.D4FA5507@worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000591105 1117 10.0.3.2 (15 Sep 2001 21:58:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2001 21:58:25 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51851

"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>   Now, if those stories were published and sold, and if I had in mind a
> similar tale, then I would be preempted _in my own world_.
>   However, because of the copyright laws, those stories do not now
> preempt me, and I can write those stories and continue to make a living
> from my own intellectual property.

You can still make a living from:

a) selling copies of the text you have already written (yes some
people, including myself, will actually buy them, even if we can
download them for free from the net. That is assuming they are any
good)
b) writing other stories in the world you created (no one is stopping
you)
c) writing an accidenly similar story and marketing it as "from the
original author" (note: this would be no more illegal as the fans
story. Today the fanfic will prevent you, but that is exactly the bad
side of the law, getting rid of it helps both sides)

That should be plenty enough to live from.

Hint: Authors writing in the real world have to put up with other
authors writing in the same world. Sometimes they ale find out that
someone else has just published an similar story. They seem to get
on fine despite this.

Hint 2: most professions have to put up with something called
competition. They also seem to get along just fine.


>   Fanfic is a splendid thing:  it lets folks "play" in other creators'
> universes/worlds, and they derive a great deal of satisfaction from it.

But apparently you want to deny them sharing that satisfaction with
others (which includes you).

If I were an story author I would like to read fanfic in my world, I
would actually collect every single piece. (I am not an story author,
I am a software author, and I do enjoy people sending me extensions
to my programs, I even invite them to do so).

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Why would any sane person
dislike that?


> Some rights holders allow fanfic to be published, and in some cases this
> has led to problems for the rights holder (for example, Andre Norton's
> "Witch World" series ran into difficulties because of fanfic).

Please explain. I have never heard of either author, world, nor the
problems. Also check out if these problems would still exist if IP
laws were reduced or disbanded.

I do know other worlds (such as Elfquest) where the original publishers
have actually published fanfic. And yes they also support fan web
sites, inluding with their logo on them.


> But fanfic published
> for gain, or published in the public domain, will shoot down the
> original author quicker than you can say Bob's your brother.

That this will happen is obvious, given the observed behaviour. The
question is whether this is good for society. I doubt it very much.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 16 Sep 2001 00:08:31 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <6uy9ng2jkw.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com>
<6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BA22E82.F8D8E5E4@worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000591711 1117 10.0.3.2 (15 Sep 2001 22:08:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2001 22:08:31 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51852

"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Neil Franklin wrote:
>
> > Freedom is more important than ownership. Sad that
> > you can not get this point.

Given the density that some people here are displaying, I suppose I
should have written that full out: "freedom to create" and "owneship
of ideas".

I suppose it is demanding too much from some readers intelligence to
remember that we are in a discussion about intellectual property and
freedom to create and to expand this automatically.

Duh.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 16 Sep 2001 00:32:19 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com><6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000593139 1197 10.0.3.2 (15 Sep 2001 22:32:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2001 22:32:19 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51853

"Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:

> > Ia heve nothogn against laws that prevent stealing, SO LONG THEY DO
> > NOT HARM FRREDOM. Freedom is more important than ownership.
>
> Freedom is impossible without ownership: ownership of one's self, and
> one's goods, and one's creations.

May I remind you, that we are discussion here ownership of ideas,
especially of book worlds, more generally of authored texts.

Freedom is absolutely possible without these. In fact these actually
_reduce_ freedom (to create, and a lot more[1]). This is exactly the
entire point I am making.

Ownership of _physical_objects_ is a neccessarity. Ownership of
ideas and texts is not a neccessity.


> If you do not own these things, then
> you can be prevented from their use or enjoyment. And that is
> subjugation.

We are not talking about these things. So your objection does not
apply.


[1] Newest horror news from the copyright law front: SSSCA

Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, Sponsors: Sen.
Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Commerce committee,
and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html

This proposed law will make it mandatory for every "interactive
digital device" (= includes all computers and mobile phones) to
be equiped with federally certified "security technology" (read Sec.
202 of the law: copy prevention software).

- Any software that is availabe as source code can be modified and
  installed -> not certifiable, so only closed source, non verifiable
  code, where you have to take the governments word that is is kosher

- disassembling this software enables modifying, so it is "helping
  circumventing" in the sense of the DMCA -> federal felony, don't
  count on any consumer protection groups finding flaws. The computer
  security industry is already seeing this effect

- dito no checks if the software is implementing censorship hiden
  behind the mask of "this is an illegal copy" (really it was just
  somethign objectionable to the government).

- expect virus writers to target such programs (mandatory everywhere,
  wide spread target, add to that reviled), deinstaling them is
  explicitely forbidden in the act (Sec. 103) -> federal felony.

Welcome to the land with no freedom.


Is the idea of giving up intellectual property so difficult?


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 16 Sep 2001 00:56:43 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <6usndo2hck.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <m915qtsmb255bcia9hno45jnhl0nt892jc@4ax.com> <3BA33E83.8DDB052C@erols.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000594603 1218 10.0.3.2 (15 Sep 2001 22:56:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Sep 2001 22:56:43 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51854

Flame of the West <jsolinas@erols.com> writes:

> the softrat wrote:
>
> > I just thought that you should know that not just
> > one person thinks that you are a spoiled, self-righteous, greedy,
> > illogical, stupid twit.

I really do not care one little bit about what _you_ think of me, if it
were not for ...

A few weeks ago someone (I can not remember who) said that no one here in
r.a.b.t is a regular, until they have been flamed by softrat.

... thank you for the honours.


> I do wish you would learn to speak your mind frankly
> and not sugar-coat everything.

Not worth wasting your time on castigating him, Flame.

Softy, like everyone else, has the right to speak his mind and gain
the fitting reputation. Which he has done.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Subject: Re: Question re copyright
From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@elvish.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Message-ID: <150920012146352183%Aelfwine@elvish.org>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Thoth/1.2.3 (Carbon/OS X)
Lines: 25
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:46:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.9.51.64
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.md.home.com 1000604794 65.9.51.64 (Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:46:34 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 18:46:34 PDT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.md.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51931


> Freedom is absolutely possible without these. In fact these actually
> _reduce_ freedom (to create, and a lot more[1]). This is exactly the
> entire point I am making.

So, it violates your freedom to create if you can't use someone else's
creations? So much for originality. In any event, this is your
assertion, not a fact, and I don't accept it. Even if it were true,
that would not excuse your appropriation of another's creations. If you
want to use them, reach some agreement with the creator. If you can't,
that's tough.

> Ownership of _physical_objects_ is a neccessarity. Ownership of
> ideas and texts is not a neccessity.

I disagree.

> [1] Newest horror news from the copyright law front: SSSCA

Let me understand: you object to the government wanting to monitor you
conversations or electronic exchanges. As do I, I assure you. But
aren't those conversations and exchanges just ideas and texts, which
you insist you do not own? Since you don't own them, how can you object
to their use by the government, or anyone else? Privacy also depends on
ownership.

######

From: Solinas <jsolinas@erols.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 06:19:10 -0400
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <3BA47C9E.A3A7EFBE@erols.com>
References: <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <m915qtsmb255bcia9hno45jnhl0nt892jc@4ax.com> <3BA33E83.8DDB052C@erols.com> <6usndo2hck.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Reply-To: tal_ulc@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVa8TbTslmGlUoZdEsSTOfkOK0rLKu9MHQMzIQ+9/BuNDgs0iFPU3D5s
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2001 10:23:49 GMT
X-Mailer:  Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language:  en
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:51877



Standing on his warship's bridge, Neil Franklin ordered in Klingon:
> Flame of the West <jsolinas@erols.com> writes:
> > the softrat wrote:
> > > I just thought that you should know that not just
> > > one person thinks that you are a spoiled, self-righteous, greedy,
> > > illogical, stupid twit.
> 
> I really do not care one little bit about what _you_ think of me, if it
> were not for ...
> 
> A few weeks ago someone (I can not remember who) said that no one here in
> r.a.b.t is a regular, until they have been flamed by softrat.

And I still haven't been! I used to think I was a regular!
<shnip>

> --
> Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
> Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
> - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight, Lady of Rivendell

Elbereth Gilthoniel!

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 17 Sep 2001 01:02:59 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <6u7kuyd9i4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com>
<6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
 <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <150920012146352183%Aelfwine@elvish.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000681379 838 10.0.3.2 (16 Sep 2001 23:02:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Sep 2001 23:02:59 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52005

"Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@elvish.org> writes:

> > Freedom is absolutely possible without these. In fact these actually
> > _reduce_ freedom (to create, and a lot more[1]). This is exactly the
> > entire point I am making.
>
> So, it violates your freedom to create if you can't use someone else's
> creations?

It violates _everyones_ freedom, if they can not create what they
want to create, which includes derivative works. Heath who started
this thread for example: He wanted to write an story situated in ME,
and was forced to give up, because of fear of legal trouble.

One work less for humanity. No gain for either Tolkien (dead) or his
estate (Heaths book would have not stopped one single sale, more likely
actually introduced one or two people to Tolkiens works).


> So much for originality.

As much as it may surprise you: the majority of creativity goes into
making works containing stuff already seen. You need to look no
further than this newsgroups "E-Text" project. Totally new thing are
_very_ seldom. Yes, even Tolkien, who was more original than most,
copied lots of concepts from northern mythology.


> > Ownership of _physical_objects_ is a neccessarity. Ownership of
> > ideas and texts is not a neccessity.
>
> I disagree.

A free society without ownership of physical objects is impossible (we
agree on that).

A free society without ownership of ideas and exclusive publication of
texts can exist, as many such societies have existed. I need to look
no further than the country I live in: a democracy since 700 years and
no IP laws until about 100 years ago. That makes 600 years of free
society without. Q.E.D.


> > [1] Newest horror news from the copyright law front: SSSCA
>
> Let me understand:

You missunderstand the law text, reread it.


> you object to the government wanting to monitor you
> conversations or electronic exchanges.

That law it is not about monitoring (which the government is
allready doing, anyway). It is about denying access by the citizens
to whatever information an government-certified program forbids. And
that without any legal method of scrutinising the inner workings of
said program.

Just make the program trigger on any critisizing the government, no
one can prove that without proving being guilty of breaking the DMCA
-> off to prison. End of government accountibility, which is a
fundamental building stone of democracy -> end of democracy.


> you insist you do not own? Since you don't own them, how can you object
> to their use by the government, or anyone else?

I am not objecting to the government reading stuff (which said law is
not about). I am objecting to them limitting access to stuff, without
any need to justify themselves. Democracy lives from scrutiny.
Scrutiny requires free flow of information without government meddling.


> Privacy also depends on ownership.

That one is a lost battle anyway. Privacy is dead in the computer
age. Learn to live without it.

Relying on the law to protect you from the government is a farce.

Hope lies not in keeping your own actions secret (the old doctrin of
self defence). Hope lies in preventing your enemies of being able to
secretly conpire against you and attack you, without fear of arousing
resistance of your supporters or even the general populace.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999)
From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen)
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7
X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1000744965 128.135.12.7 (Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:42:45 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:42:45 CDT
Organization: The University of Chicago
X-SessionID: 9Kpp7-12019-N4-2419@news.uchicago.edu
X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4
X-Hash: e75217c1 1c137d21 4ede32d5 c1493494 fb09286d
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:42:45 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!171.64.14.106!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52054

Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
<6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: 
> "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:
> > Freedom is impossible without ownership: ownership of one's self,
> > and one's goods, and one's creations.

> May I remind you, that we are discussion here ownership of ideas,
> especially of book worlds, more generally of authored texts.

I'd be interested to know how you feel about the following two
parallel scenarios:

1. A man goes into business as a carpenter.  After several years of
   hard work, he builds up a substantial inventory of hand-crafted
   furniture.  He uses that inventory as the basis of his business.

2. A man goes into business as a carpenter.  After several years of
   hard work, he develops a new technique for building furniture that
   is sturdier and more attractive than previous methods.  He uses
   that technique as the basis of his business.

Without some notion of intellectual property (patents, in this case),
it seems to me that the second carpenter would not be as successful as
the first: while the first one has physical objects that he can sell
after his years of work, the second one has only an idea.  As soon as
other carpenters see his furniture, they will be able to copy his
technique and use it themselves.  Yes, this would get the better
furniture to the public faster, but what financial incentive does a
budding carpenter have to develop new techniques at all?

In the scenario above, the new technique is all that the carpenter has
on which to build his business.  If there were intellectual proerty
law in place, this innovative carpenter could immediately start making
furniture better than his competitors', and might well be able to
create a successful business on that basis.  Alternately, he could
license his technique to the existing companies, and spend his time
researching even more new innovations in carpentry.  On the other
hand, without the protection of patent law, a carpenter who chose that
second path would probably have a great deal of trouble starting a new
business using his new technique if the old, established competitors
were able to offer the same product (and of course, there would be
absolutely no way for him to continue to spend all his time developing
new techniques: licensing wouldn't exist).

In the context of these examples, can you explain why you believe the
absence of intellectual property law will be better for the consumer?
How could a carpenter justify spending any substantial time and effort
doing work that would never help him financially?  (Say, for example,
that he has a wife and family who depend on his income for their
livelihood.)  Or have I made some fundamentally flawed assumption in
my discussion?
						Steuard Jensen

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 17 Sep 2001 23:29:13 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 221
Message-ID: <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000762153 842 10.0.3.2 (17 Sep 2001 21:29:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Sep 2001 21:29:13 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52120

sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:

> Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
>
> > May I remind you, that we are discussion here ownership of ideas,
> > especially of book worlds, more generally of authored texts.
>
> 1. A man goes into business as a carpenter.  After several years of
>    hard work, he builds up a substantial inventory of hand-crafted
>    furniture.  He uses that inventory as the basis of his business.

Good honnest business, work for money. How it should be.


> 2. A man goes into business as a carpenter.  After several years of
>    hard work, he develops a new technique for building furniture that
>    is sturdier and more attractive than previous methods.  He uses
>    that technique as the basis of his business.
>
> Without some notion of intellectual property (patents, in this case),
> it seems to me that the second carpenter would not be as successful as
> the first: while the first one has physical objects that he can sell
> after his years of work, the second one has only an idea

Various points:

- This carpenter most likely will not spend 100% of his time sitting
around producing ideas. He will far more likely spend most time
making and selling existing type furniture, every so often musing on
improvements.

That is how most real innovations happen, inspired out of solving
real-world problems[1]. Even high-tech industries such as chipmakers
only spend 10-15% of their worker time on research and development.
For someone making furniture that is less than 5% or even 1%.

The type of person who likes innovating and inventing will gladly
spend that amount of time doing it simply for the fun it is [2].

[1][2] I am by profession engineer, so I know these effects all to
good. The worst thing of being out of work (which I once was) turned
out to be not having real-world problems asking for solutions and so
driving me to create. And the loss of the fun that is.


- In addition to an idea (when he arrives at one) he will also have
more: the understanding of why the idea is that way and not an other,
the design that stems from the idea. Then he starts producing and
selling, while his idea-less competitor is still totally unaware.

His competitor will earliest even hear of the idea when the new
product gets marketed. The competitor will now have to first: try
and identify what is the new idea, try to identify why it is like
that and not other, start up his own planning and then production.

And after that delay convince customers to buy his copy and not the
established original (assuming the original inventor has marketed the
new product so that his name is attached to its design in the public).


Original inventors have lived off of this advantage since milennia,
way before patents were invented.

In these two points we see that our inventor is nowhere near as bad
off as one could naively believe.

But now the really bad side of patents:


Both carpenters are concerned that one day their current product will
be outdated. Both spend time (on and off, spread over years) and
arrive around the same time at the same idea (ideas have this way of
"being in the air", driven by technology changes, society mores, ...).

Our carpenter then develops a product based on the idea. While this
his competitor runs a bit earlier to the patent office and claims to
own the idea (and consequently spends less time developing an product,
and so does not appear on the market, so our carpenter is unaware of
it).

Now our carpenter starts selling his new furniture - and some time
later gets sued. He now has to pay the idea-owner, despite never in
any way profiting from the idea owners idea generating investment,
nor from his development work. Money for nothing!


Before anyone regards this as an artificial example: if happend to
no one less than Intel, the chipmaker. Intel in 1969 invented the
microprocessor and started selling it in 1971. In 1989(!) they were
sued by (and lost millions to) an inventor who in 1968 patented the
idea of an microprocessor (actually idea of an computer with all
elements integrated on a single chip).

Note that the inventor never even developed an implementation of his
idea. In fact he (apart from making other inventions) spent the
entire time 1969-1989 repeatedly re-submitting revised patent claims,
getting an patent issued in 1989 (and so valid until 1989+17=2006,
but valid since first claim, 1968).

In the mean time Intel spent its investors (and later its customers)
money developing and delivering microprocessors to customers. Now
they get to pay for "missusing" someone elses idea, out of their
customers money, customers who did not either get anything from the
inventor.


Problem is, that patent law regards the first inventor as exclusive
owner and every one else as nobodys. Al the talk about "owning ones
ides" only applies to the first to register the idea, everyone else
gets denied the ownership of their ideas. So much for claiming this
to be an property law.

Note: some may object that a patent search would have warned Intel. Not
so: a patent search only can find issued patents, claims are not
publically visible, to protect claimants if their claim fails, then
they have not lost their secrecy. In this case a search would find
this inventors patent after 1989. Any search between 1968 and 1989,
i.e. when anyone was getting into and building up the microprocessor
business, would have never turned it up.

Such a law has all the danger of treadmines. Take the general risk in
new businesses (will the customer buy our new idea?) and then add a
bit more legally generated risk. Gives less innovation being turned to
product. The consumer has just lost.


Some call this daylight robbery (of ideas, business investments,
products) with the government as weapon. This is actually what my
sig line, that started this discussion, referred to, in its original
context.

I am involved in the movement to get the european governments to not
extend patent law to software (which is what I today am a small
producer of, I do not want to live in an undocumented treadminefield).


> In the scenario above, the new technique is all that the carpenter has
> on which to build his business.

Actually he still has his old business making his old furniture. He in
addition has his new technique he can gamble a new business on (any
new business is a gamble, customers reactions are unpredictable).


> If there were intellectual proerty
> law in place, this innovative carpenter could immediately start making
> furniture better than his competitors', and might well be able to
> create a successful business on that basis.

Without he can also. He just has to figure in competitors copying it,
as opposed to an state-granted monopoly.

If it is an successfull idea, that will only reduce profit, not stop
it. Best example being IBM whose PC idea got copied by everyone and
their dog.

And if the idea was no good, then IP law will not save him from
customers not liking it. Say like many non-PC computers that
bombed. Usually because the maker failled such things as making an
reliable product, or servicing customers.


>  Alternately, he could
> license his technique to the existing companies, and spend his time
> researching even more new innovations in carpentry.

There exist a few pure IP firms, who do nothing other than design
and license (and try to sue everyone else). Rambus is an example of
such. Their attempts to try and claim their patents forbid their
competitors products (based on different techiques) have earned then
near-universal contempt. Not to mention having over 300 patents
declared irrelevant to the cases by the judges involved.

And sofar they have only made money on competitors who preferred
paying to fighting their false claims (because less expensive).
A "nice" gamble on what is essentially blackmail, if just all
competitors had buckled. Infineon and Micron did not, Rambus has
today the nickname Rambust, because many see it as purely a
question of time until the firm fails.


> hand, without the protection of patent law, a carpenter who chose that
> second path would probably have a great deal of trouble starting a new
> business using his new technique if the old, established competitors
> were able to offer the same product

Which will cost them also re-engineering costs and give them an
delayed entry into the new products market. Time for the original
maker to set up his reputation. Intel is partially the processor
leader because they were the first. Motorola (the PPC processors
in Macs) are the second partially because they were the first
competitor to Intel (started 1973).


> (and of course, there would be
> absolutely no way for him to continue to spend all his time developing
> new techniques: licensing wouldn't exist).

That 100% idea generating business model would be impossible. But as
seen, it is a minority model, and fraught with many troubles. And with
questionable capability of actually generating new stuff that is not
also possible without it.


> livelihood.)  Or have I made some fundamentally flawed assumption in
> my discussion?

Basically the standard flawed assumption of IP law: that it only
brings great gain and has no cost. While in reality it seems to bring
a lot smaller gain at quite a bit of cost.

Result is summed up, depending on whose study one wants to believe,
fairly little gain, no gain, or up to quite a bit of damage to society.
And even "no gain" makes it an law that medles and disadvantages some
without any justification.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:46:52 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <180920010946524076%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: carlfhostetter.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1000821457 20286 128.183.221.44 (18 Sep 2001 13:57:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 2001 13:57:37 GMT
User-Agent: Thoth/1.3.1 (Carbon/OS X)
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.online.be!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!Carl.Hostetter
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52204

In article <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
<neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:

> Original inventors have lived off of this advantage since milennia,
> way before patents were invented.

Oh? Cite an example or two, please., excluding those who had wealthy
patrons.

Patents were instituted hundreds of years ago, specifically to make it
vastly more likely than it had been previously that an originator or
inventor could see some material reward for his idea or creation.
Copyright arose for the same reason: to promote creativity (which,
speaking historically, it has, immensely). Before copyright and patent
laws inventors and artists very often  saw their work appropriated by
others. Unless they had wealthly patrons, I can't think of anyone
offhand who actually made a living from the fruits of his creations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

######

Message-ID: <3BA78A9A.EC9950EF@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <20010907121615.00667.00000227@nso-mq.aol.com> <1a59e6ba.0109071323.5379a51a@posting.google.com> <6u3d5yiq9b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9A7550.3B86288E@worldnet.att.net> <6uwv372i1b.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3B9D057D.1AEEF44B@worldnet.att.net> <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <150920012146352183%Aelfwine@elvish.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 25
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:55:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.101.227
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1000835737 12.83.101.227 (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:55:37 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:55:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52153

It occurs to me that intellectual property is one of the things that
drives capitalism and one of the many things that makes this democracy
the world leader in innovation and progress, which of course contributes
to our high standard of living.
  I suspect that many citizens of the several nations of the former
Soviet Bloc find intellectual property to be at odds with the principal
of collectivism.  That is, where they were formerly free, via collective
ownership, to latch onto someone else's creation and appropriate it as
their own, now they are faced with individual ownership, and the rights
of that individual to control the products of his or her own ideas ...
and that seems somehow "wrong."
  Yet, part of democracy is the freedom to patent or copyright _novel_
ideas for a limited time, and to gain from those ideas, and that helps
spur innovation in a capitalistic democracy, and it helps raise the
standards of living in that democracy.
  I suspect that this escapes the mentality of the collective.
  ---Dennis
--
Dennis L. McKiernan ~ http://home.att.net/~dlmck

Latest release:
  _Once Upon a Winter's Night_ (July 2001)
Other recent releases:
  _Silver Wolf, Black Falcon_
  _The Iron Tower_, omnibus edition

######

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: Matt Neumann <mattneu@purpleturtle.com>
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: hou-xpc02.tx.boeing.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <3BA78B51.7B98664A@purpleturtle.com>
Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: none
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:58:41 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD   (Windows NT 5.0; U)
Lines: 40
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!1731822!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!xyzzy!nntp
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52156

Neil Franklin wrote:
> 
> Now our carpenter starts selling his new furniture - and some time
> later gets sued. He now has to pay the idea-owner, despite never in
> any way profiting from the idea owners idea generating investment,
> nor from his development work. Money for nothing!
> 
> Before anyone regards this as an artificial example: if happend to
> no one less than Intel, the chipmaker. Intel in 1969 invented the
> microprocessor and started selling it in 1971. In 1989(!) they were
> sued by (and lost millions to) an inventor who in 1968 patented the
> idea of an microprocessor (actually idea of an computer with all
> elements integrated on a single chip).
> 
> Note that the inventor never even developed an implementation of his
> idea. In fact he (apart from making other inventions) spent the
> entire time 1969-1989 repeatedly re-submitting revised patent claims,
> getting an patent issued in 1989 (and so valid until 1989+17=2006,
> but valid since first claim, 1968).
> 
> In the mean time Intel spent its investors (and later its customers)
> money developing and delivering microprocessors to customers. Now
> they get to pay for "missusing" someone elses idea, out of their
> customers money, customers who did not either get anything from the
> inventor.
> 
> Problem is, that patent law regards the first inventor as exclusive
> owner and every one else as nobodys. Al the talk about "owning ones
> ides" only applies to the first to register the idea, everyone else
> gets denied the ownership of their ideas. So much for claiming this
> to be an property law.

I think your conclusion doesn't follow from your example.  Surely, this
demonstrates that the US's implementation of Patent Law is flawed.  It
doesn't support your contention that having NO patent law is better.

-- 
-Matt (mattneu@hotmail.com)
Angband in action!  Constant escalation to new depths to find angrier,
meaner letters and more punctuation!

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 19 Sep 2001 00:20:51 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <180920010946524076%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000851652 775 10.0.3.2 (18 Sep 2001 22:20:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 2001 22:20:52 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52242

"Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:

> In article <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
> <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:
>
> > Original inventors have lived off of this advantage since milennia,
> > way before patents were invented.
>
> Oh? Cite an example or two, please.

Roughly every single one.

Metal smeltering/smithing/etc
All the stuff needed to use oxen/horses to pull
Ploughs
Boats, sails
Mills
Everything to do with preparing food, all the menues
Spear, Bow&Arrow, Sword, Axe

Many more, but you only asked for 2 and I am too lazy to deliver more
lines

Actually roughly every basic technology was invented before patents
appeared.


> excluding those who had wealthy
> patrons.

Most inventors did not have patrons. Hint: Patrons require an society
rich enough to produce enough idle rich people who then will spend
some of it on their entertainment.

That would be zero before about 1000B.C. and zero between 500-1000.
Both of these times saw lots of technical innovations.

Most fundamental technological inventents a) predate such level of
riches or b) do not entertain idle rich such as kings.

Patrons have _some_ importance in arts, but next to none in technology.

In technology a running business, paying customers, and the ever
present "can I do it better" create new stuff.


> Patents were instituted hundreds of years ago, specifically to make it
> vastly more likely than it had been previously that an originator or
> inventor could see some material reward for his idea or creation.

History error: patents were introduced (at least in the U.S.) to
promote _disclosure_ of technological details (that is why previous
publication voids patent applications).

This was done because lawmakers, being the typical techno-ignoramuses
they are, do not understand that reverse-engineering exists, and so
thought that an law that temporarily forbids copying, but then gives
instructions, would make spreading faster.

Unfortunately in the real world of technology stuff would spread
anyway, and the law just makes it impossible until later. Typical
meddling by incompetents.


> Copyright arose for the same reason: to promote creativity (which,
> speaking historically, it has, immensely).

There are less storks today, less children are born, so we have proof
that storks deliver children. Beware of the statistics trap.

Increased material wealth increased free time to create. Actual use
would have followed automatically.

FYI: ca 90% of all books written and submitted to publishers never
even get published (= zero financial gain for the author) and of
those published the majority are not a financial success either
(if you compare royalties with writing time paid at industrial salary).

As much as it may surprise you: the LARGE majority of writers will
never make any financial gain. Consequently money can not be their
motivation to write (unless they are insane or blind to the prospects).
Ergo a law increasing money to the few successfull of them is not the
driving force to make more of them write.

Free time combined with the human desire to communicate is what does it.
If law really wanted to increase creating, it would look to reduce the
massive amount of time wasted in fighting each other to make an living.


> others. Unless they had wealthly patrons, I can't think of anyone
> offhand who actually made a living from the fruits of his creations.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Try roughly every single artisan. Every baker, carpenter, smith, ...


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 19 Sep 2001 00:37:14 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <6ur8t4p1lx.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <6uvgip5m5w.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160897bb8c00ae2598c880@news.mindspring.com> <6uheu8yz5n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.1609d98ec8e7760f98c88f@news.mindspring.com> <6ug09qolf3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <MPG.160b270ac81a3e5498c89c@news.mindspring.com><6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <150920012146352183%Aelfwine@elvish.org> <3BA78A9A.EC9950EF@worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000852634 801 10.0.3.2 (18 Sep 2001 22:37:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 2001 22:37:14 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52243

"Dennis L. McKiernan" <dlmck@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> It occurs to me that intellectual property is one of the things that
> drives capitalism and one of the many things that makes this democracy
> the world leader in innovation and progress, which of course contributes
> to our high standard of living.

It has occured to many economists, that competition is what drives
capitalism. Competition and the fear of losing customers to
competitors is what drives people to try and keep upfront. That is
regarded today as basic economics, is in 101.

IP, which is fundamantally monopolism and protectionism, hinders
competition, makes lazy. It is an assault on our standard of living.


>   I suspect that many citizens of the several nations of the former
> Soviet Bloc find intellectual property to be at odds with the principal
> of collectivism.

Not surprising, as many citizens of the west also find IP to be at odds
with basic liberties.


>   Yet, part of democracy is the freedom to patent or copyright _novel_
> ideas for a limited time, and to gain from those ideas,

Yet, part of democracy is the freedom to invent and create and not
have ones inventions and creations denied by others.


> and that helps
> spur innovation in a capitalistic democracy,

Helps spur _some_ innovation at the cost of losing other innovation.
Not much different from robbery that makes _some_ people richer at the
cost of others losing riches.


>   I suspect that this escapes the mentality of the collective.

I suspect the downsides escape the mentality of protectionists.


Spewing a bit of propaganda is easy. Spewing back some more also.
Now back to our regularly sheduled discussion...


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 19 Sep 2001 00:49:12 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <6uofo8p11z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BA78B51.7B98664A@purpleturtle.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000853352 805 10.0.3.2 (18 Sep 2001 22:49:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 2001 22:49:12 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52244

Matt Neumann <mattneu@purpleturtle.com> writes:

> Neil Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Problem is, that patent law regards the first inventor as exclusive
> > owner and every one else as nobodys. Al the talk about "owning ones
> > ides" only applies to the first to register the idea, everyone else
> > gets denied the ownership of their ideas. So much for claiming this
> > to be an property law.
>
> I think your conclusion doesn't follow from your example.  Surely, this
> demonstrates that the US's implementation of Patent Law is flawed.

The principle of "first here, get all" is in _all_ states patent
laws. It is the central position, of this type of "ownership", that it
is by the first to register and prohibits everyone else copying, and
so also owning the same idea, even if convieved independently.

The only difference U.S. to rest of the world is the long amount of
time a patent can remain unpublished but still strike. In other
countries it is limited, usually in the 1-2 year bracket. Still a
danger for later independant inventors.


>  It
> doesn't support your contention that having NO patent law is better.

Would you suggest an alternative patent system that is:

a) still meaningfull ownership for the first inventor, and
b) does not rob the later inventor of his work

Until someone manages to invent such an patent system (which I regard
as impossible), we only have the choice of "first takes all" or "none
at all".

Unless the former is clearly proven to be better (no such proof has
been found in any serious study) the law should keep away from meddling.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Subject: Re: Question re copyright
From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Message-ID: <190920010029532207%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <180920010946524076%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Thoth/1.3.1 (Carbon/OS X)
Lines: 88
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 04:29:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.9.51.64
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news1.rdc1.md.home.com 1000873792 65.9.51.64 (Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:29:52 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:29:52 PDT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.md.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52317

In article <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
<neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:

> "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:
> 
> > In article <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
> > <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:
> >
> > > Original inventors have lived off of this advantage since milennia,
> > > way before patents were invented.
> >
> > Oh? Cite an example or two, please.
> 
> Roughly every single one.
> 
> Metal smeltering/smithing/etc
> All the stuff needed to use oxen/horses to pull
> Ploughs
> Boats, sails
> Mills
> Everything to do with preparing food, all the menues
> Spear, Bow&Arrow, Sword, Axe
> 
> Many more, but you only asked for 2 and I am too lazy to deliver more
> lines

You seem to have missed my point, unless you mean to make it for me.
You contended that inventors and creators were able to derive material
gain from their original ideas long before patents and copyright arose.
I asked you to name some names. You can't name the inventors of any of
the technologies and processes you list here. You therefore cannot use
them as evidence that their inventors were able to derive material gain
from them, or that they were able to protect their innovations from
appropriation by others.

> > excluding those who had wealthy
> > patrons.
> 
> Most inventors did not have patrons. Hint: Patrons require an society
> rich enough to produce enough idle rich people who then will spend
> some of it on their entertainment.
> 
> That would be zero before about 1000B.C. and zero between 500-1000.

Exactly my point.

> Both of these times saw lots of technical innovations.

Indeed; but 1) you can't demonstrate that the innovators profitted from
them; and 2) the rate and significance of the innovations is far
greater today.

> Patrons have _some_ importance in arts, but next to none in technology.

Not now they don't -- I would submit, thanks to patents that enable
innovators to recoup the costs of doing the research that leads to
innovation (and for that matter, government and industry thereby do
serve as patrons of a sort) -- but at one time they had a huge
influence.

> > Patents were instituted hundreds of years ago, specifically to make it
> > vastly more likely than it had been previously that an originator or
> > inventor could see some material reward for his idea or creation.
> 
> History error: patents were introduced (at least in the U.S.) to
> promote _disclosure_ of technological details (that is why previous
> publication voids patent applications).

Yes, what you say is indeed a history error: US Constitution, Article
I, setion 8: "The Congress shall have power to ... promote the progress
of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries." The purpose is twofold: 1) to secure exclusive rights --
thereby promoting innovation -- for a limited time,  thereby 2)
promoting the spread and adoption of innovation.

> > others. Unless they had wealthly patrons, I can't think of anyone
> > offhand who actually made a living from the fruits of his creations.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
> 
> Try roughly every single artisan. Every baker, carpenter, smith, ...

I thought we were speaking of individual innovators who were able to
make a solid living off their innovations, before patent and copyright
laws arose, and without the support of a wealthy patron. Certainly
that's what _I_ was talking about. I still can't think of anyone. Can
you? So far, all you've done is point to tradesman and craftsmen
practicing broad industry, not to specific innovators.

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 19 Sep 2001 23:41:27 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <6uzo7q2708.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@ch
onsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@c
honsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.f
ranklin.ch> <180920010946524076%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.
franklin.ch> <190920010029532207%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000935688 1558 10.0.3.2 (19 Sep 2001 21:41:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2001 21:41:28 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52349

"Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:

> In article <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
> <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:
>
> > "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:
> >
> > > In article <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
> > > <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Original inventors have lived off of this advantage since milennia,
> > > > way before patents were invented.
> > >
> > > Oh? Cite an example or two, please.
> >
> > Roughly every single one.
>
> You seem to have missed my point,

Not at all, you just missed the consequences of what I wrote.


> the technologies and processes you list here. You therefore cannot use
> them as evidence that their inventors were able to derive material gain

Of course I can. If the inventors had not had success from making and
selling their inventions, they would have stopped making them and gone
back to the previous versions. And with only a few of the new type
made (and not successfull) no one would have copied them. Ergo we
would not be seeing historical record of these inventions.

Their simple spreading and becoming visible to us shows that the
inventors keeped on making the new innovative version, and therefore
must have been successfull with them.


> from them, or that they were able to protect their innovations from
> appropriation by others.

They did not "protect". But _despite_ that they were capable to make
an successfull business out of their ideas. THAT is my point: that
protection (read: monopoly) is not neccessary for success.

All those inventions prove that point.

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 19 Sep 2001 23:41:27 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <6uzo7q2708.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6upu8tahiu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <140920011426439869%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <180920010946524076%Carl.Hostetter@home.com> <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <190920010029532207%Carl.Hostetter@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1000935688 1558 10.0.3.2 (19 Sep 2001 21:41:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 2001 21:41:28 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52349

"Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:

> In article <6uu1y0p2d8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
> <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:
>
> > "Carl F. Hostetter" <Carl.Hostetter@home.com> writes:
> >
> > > In article <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin
> > > <neil@franklin.ch.remove> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Original inventors have lived off of this advantage since milennia,
> > > > way before patents were invented.
> > >
> > > Oh? Cite an example or two, please.
> >
> > Roughly every single one.
>
> You seem to have missed my point,

Not at all, you just missed the consequences of what I wrote.


> the technologies and processes you list here. You therefore cannot use
> them as evidence that their inventors were able to derive material gain

Of course I can. If the inventors had not had success from making and
selling their inventions, they would have stopped making them and gone
back to the previous versions. And with only a few of the new type
made (and not successfull) no one would have copied them. Ergo we
would not be seeing historical record of these inventions.

Their simple spreading and becoming visible to us shows that the
inventors keeped on making the new innovative version, and therefore
must have been successfull with them.


> from them, or that they were able to protect their innovations from
> appropriation by others.

They did not "protect". But _despite_ that they were capable to make
an successfull business out of their ideas. THAT is my point: that
protection (read: monopoly) is not neccessary for success.

All those inventions prove that point.


> > > excluding those who had wealthy
> > > patrons.
> >
> > That would be zero before about 1000B.C. and zero between 500-1000.
>
> Exactly my point.

Not. Your claim was that either patents or patrons are required. Above
line demonstrates that neither were in effect. And despite that there
was success.


> > Both of these times saw lots of technical innovations.
>
> and 2) the rate and significance of the innovations is far
> greater today.

The amount of people is larger. The amount of time to innovate per
person is larger. The amount of scientific knowledge available is
larger (and not patented!). The pressure to innovate is larger.
These together are enough to explain the larger amount if innovation.


> > Patrons have _some_ importance in arts, but next to none in technology.
>
> innovation (and for that matter, government and industry thereby do
> serve as patrons of a sort)

Which is IMHO the proper way to go today. Same as science is funded by
government (and private!) institutions, because patents or copyright
would kill the fundamentally needed exchange of ideas, same technology
and arts could be funded by funding institutions.

And some are: the TUG (TeX User Group) funds out of its membership
dues extensions to TeX that the members have voted on.

This could make patents and copyright superflouos. And get rid of
their damage they make.


> -- but at one time they had a huge
> influence.

On art (music such as Bach, writing such as Luther), not on technology.


> > > Patents were instituted hundreds of years ago, specifically to make it
> > > vastly more likely than it had been previously that an originator or
> > > inventor could see some material reward for his idea or creation.
> >
> > History error: patents were introduced (at least in the U.S.) to
> > promote _disclosure_ of technological details (that is why previous
> > publication voids patent applications).
>
> Yes, what you say is indeed a history error: US Constitution, Article

That may be text got write down to grant an right to congress. But the
reason for granting that right, and documented in the actual detailed
articles of patent law, was to get publication (and _so_ promote the
arts and sciences by spreading information). That ignored the
existance of reverse-engineering, replacing "a lot of work to copy"
by "illegal to copy".


> > Try roughly every single artisan. Every baker, carpenter, smith, ...
>
> I thought we were speaking of individual innovators who were able to
> make a solid living off their innovations,

I am speaking of all the individual inventors in all above professions,
who made an solid living off of their _new_businesses_, which required
as part successfully selling their new innovated versions.


> laws arose, and without the support of a wealthy patron. Certainly
> that's what _I_ was talking about. I still can't think of anyone. Can
> you? So far, all you've done is point to tradesman and craftsmen
> practicing broad industry, not to specific innovators.

Because the actual innovators were either never recorded (todays
infatuation with recording everyting is a new trend), or I do not
know the recorded names. The names are irrelevant anyway. Important is
that they must have made a living from it, else the idea would have
been dropped, by them and by others, or not even transferred and copied.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999)
From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen)
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <ZYJr7.260$N4.19750@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7
X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001352121 128.135.12.7 (Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:22:01 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:22:01 CDT
Organization: The University of Chicago
X-SessionID: ZYJr7-62851-N4-19629@news.uchicago.edu
X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4
X-Hash: 856ddee0 c6716188 9d911db8 2a7aebe7 3540f394
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:22:01 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52891


Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
<6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: 
> sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:
> > Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
> > > May I remind you, that we are discussion here ownership of ideas,
> > > especially of book worlds, more generally of authored texts.

[Snip my carpenter example, and your reply; you've made some good
points suggesting that the scenario as I intended it wasn't
particularly realistic, and I think further discussion of those
details would get away from the true aim of the discussion as you
described it above.]

Okay, how about a couple of more book-related scenarios, then?  Again,
I'm interested in how each situation would be handled in the absence
of intellectual property law, and in what sense that would be fair to
everyone involved.

1. A man named Ronald Kientol spends years crafting an excellent book,
   which he calls "The Sword of the Things".  However, he hasn't ever
   published a book before, and his work is very unusual: the
   publishers he talks to are unwilling to risk the substantial costs
   involved in publishing a book for which there may be no market.
   After a while, he gives up and goes back to his ordinary job.

   Into the picture comes Pierre Santoni, who has no writing skills in
   particular but who is a good salesman and self-promoter.  Pierre
   somehow gets his hands on a manuscript of Ronald's book, and using
   his bargaining ability to its fullest he manages to get the book
   published... under his own name.  The sales go through the roof,
   and within a year he is already making a substantial income from
   the project.

   It's not clear how this saga would play out.  At the very least,
   Pierre will have received a substantial amount of money for doing
   no work whatsoever.  Ronald might or might not try to publicize the
   fact that he actually wrote the book, and he might or might not
   gain substantial public support.  Pierre might be able to crank out
   a bunch of cheap, derivative sequels himself regardless.  How is
   Pierre's success fair?


2. If that example is a bit too blatant, imagine instead that Pierre
   just changes a few names: the book is now "The Blade of the Dings",
   it's hero's name is changed from Eriol to Rumil, that sort of
   thing.  (The changes clearly _wouldn't_ be enough to make the book
   legal under _current_ copyright laws, as the effort involved in
   that would be tantamount to writing an entirely new book.)  Now, if
   Ronald ever realizes that this popular book "The Blade of the
   Dings" is based on his own novel, he'll have a much harder time
   convincing the world of that fact.  (Feel free to imagine as much
   or as little alteration of the original on the part of Pierre as
   you'd like, as long as it wouldn't pass muster under today's laws.)


3. To take an entirely different example, imagine that a woman named
   Priscilla Tolstoy spends years developing a complex, detailed
   fantasy world, complete with a full history, related languages, and
   the like.  She's very focused on the beauty of the history itself,
   so she publishes it under the title _The Still Carillon_.  Sadly,
   because the book is so dense (and because it "reads like the Old
   Testament", as the reviews on Amazon.com say), it receives little
   attention, and Priscilla never makes more from the book than her
   advance.

   However, at least one person does read it and realize its
   potential: a relatively unknown writer named Barry Tooks.  Barry
   immediately begins to write stories set in Priscilla's world, some
   of them just showing glimpses of the underlying history and some of
   them actually narrating the stories from the history itself.  The
   books are okay, but Barry isn't that great of a writer; most of
   their appeal comes from the glimpses of historical depth and detail
   that he gives.  That alone is enough to gain him a fairly
   substantial fan base, and he ends up doing pretty well
   financially.  He never mentions Priscilla or her book, and because
   she had such limited readership the connection between the books
   goes unnoticed.


In all these cases, it seems to me that in the absence of intellectual
property law it is possible for the truly creative people behind these
books to go unrewarded, while others profit substantially from their
work.  The situation certainly doesn't seem fair to me, and I can't
see any way to make it so.

Under the current system of intellectual property, none of these
scenarios would be possible: every one of them would be a cut and
dried case of copyright infringement, and at the very least the
original authors would get something.  If Pierre and Barry wanted to
do similar things under current law, they would need to somehow obtain
the rights to the original material from Ronald and Priscilla.  Pierre
could offer to act as an agent for Ronald, with the two of them
splitting the proceeds of the book after it was published.  Barry
could offer to collaborate with Priscilla on sequels to her history,
which might well end up being better than anything Barry could have
written on his own.

I'll admit that under current law there is a somewhat greater chance
that Ronald's story would never get published or that Barry's novels
would never be written, but at least their work wouldn't be _stolen_.
It would feel very wrong to me if any of the above scenarios came to
pass.
						Steuard Jensen

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 24 Sep 2001 22:38:41 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 226
Message-ID: <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uvgik2ih8.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9Kpp7.28$N4.2537@news.uchicago.edu> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <ZYJr7.260$N4.19750@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1001363921 443 10.0.3.2 (24 Sep 2001 20:38:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 2001 20:38:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:52942

sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:

> Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>:
> > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:
> > > Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
> > > > May I remind you, that we are discussion here ownership of ideas,
> > > > especially of book worlds, more generally of authored texts.
>
> 1. A man named Ronald Kientol spends years crafting an excellent book,
>    which he calls "The Sword of the Things".  However, he hasn't ever
>    published a book before, and his work is very unusual: the
>    publishers he talks to are unwilling to risk the substantial costs
>    involved in publishing a book for which there may be no market.

Which they do quite often. I have heard numbers of 90% rejects of
manuscipts.


>    After a while, he gives up and goes back to his ordinary job.

I would actually expect him to have never given up his job. After all,
what would he have lived from while writing? JRRT had an university
job while writing LotR. Even with previous TH publication no publisher
would have forwarded over 10 years of income for an sequel which he a
few times nearly abandonned.


>    Pierre ... under his own name.

I would call that making an false claim (of being the writer), case of
fraud or at least deceit. There exist good criminal laws about that.

Whether Kientol can prove it, could be problematic. Possibly he can if
the publisher he tried it at still remembers. But that problem arises
also with copyright law, so it makes no difference.


>    no work whatsoever.  Ronald might or might not try to publicize the
>    fact that he actually wrote the book, and he might or might not
>    gain substantial public support.

I would advise him to look for proving it to an judge. Force Pierre to
admit that he is not the author (at considerable loss of face).

And then Ronald should have no problem selling his next book. So
Pierre the salesman gets (financial) gain from Ronald, and Ronald gets
(marketing) gain from Pierre. And I suspect the later will turn out to
be more, when Ronald follows it up with more and more books (we are
assuming he is a good writer), while the former will not have much of
a future career in "writing" (every publisher asks "who is this from?").


>  Pierre might be able to crank out
>    a bunch of cheap, derivative sequels himself regardless.  How is
>    Pierre's success fair?

Taking the original not.

The sequels are OK with me. If they are cheap they will fail with
readers as "more of the same" or even "cheap follow up to make more
sales". If they are good (unlikely) they stand on their own merits
and deserve success.


> 2. If that example is a bit too blatant, imagine instead that Pierre
>    just changes a few names: the book is now "The Blade of the Dings",
>    it's hero's name is changed from Eriol to Rumil, that sort of
>    thing.

Standard "hiding" method, should not fool the judge in an fraud case.


>    (Feel free to imagine as much
>    or as little alteration of the original on the part of Pierre as
>    you'd like, as long as it wouldn't pass muster under today's laws.)

As I do not know the exact current terms I will have to pass that one.

But if a judge in an fraud case does not recognize them as the same,
then the alterations must be large. And such a patchwork is most
likely not a good and well selling book, unless Pierre in the end did
end up re-writing it all new.

There exist quite a few cases of programmers modifying an existing
program so long that in the end there is no or little original code
left. I have done this myself with office colleagues programs. That
also is considered an entirely new program, even by the original authors.


>    Priscilla Tolstoy spends years developing a complex, detailed
>    fantasy world, complete with a full history, related languages, and
>    the like.  She's very focused on the beauty of the history itself,
>    so she publishes it under the title _The Still Carillon_.  Sadly,
>    because the book is so dense (and because it "reads like the Old
>    Testament", as the reviews on Amazon.com say), it receives little
>    attention, and Priscilla never makes more from the book than her
>    advance.

Readers tastes... the bane of every writer who writes for the sale.
I have also heard here numbers of 90% faillure of what gets published.

I suppose that is why so much sold stuff is such "safe to sell" crap.
Just listen to any modern pop radio station.

The nice thing with JRRT is exactly that he did not write for profit
(= with as little cost as possible make largest sales volume possible)
but for the desire to create.

And yes, I do think that no copyright will reduce the quantity of
texts by some measure (the part made by for-profit authors). But I
think it will be mainly the cheap mass produced stuff without
quality that vanishes. And even if that is 90%, the remaining 10% will
be more than anyone could ever want to read.


>    immediately begins to write stories set in Priscilla's world, some
>    of them just showing glimpses of the underlying history and some of
>    them actually narrating the stories from the history itself.

No different from if Barry liked some country in the real world (say
early 19th century rural Britain, colonial India, the Wild West), and
wrote stuff there, possibly even real persons lives. What about some
unknown persons life story being told, as if it were an invented story.

Or perhaps more like writing stories in older mythological worlds
(nordic, athenian, arthurian), possibly even with existing but unknown
mythological characters.

Only difference is that the worlds and characters are newer inventions.


>    books are okay, but Barry isn't that great of a writer; most of
>    their appeal comes from the glimpses of historical depth and detail

>    He never mentions Priscilla or her book,

Comparable if, say, Beowulf had been some obscure text and Tolkien had
in his translation not mentioned that he is only translator (OK, he
even pretended to be translator in LotR).

Definitely dishonnest. Also a case for demanding that he sets the
record straight (be that for scientific or personal reasons).
Recognition for Priscilly will follow, and she will be able to get
more readers, thanks to Barry making her world more known.

Of course any decent person would put some remark in, pointing to
the source, perhaps is the foreword, epilogue, an appendix, etc.
Simple law about attribution should be enough.


> In all these cases, it seems to me that in the absence of intellectual
> property law it is possible for the truly creative people behind these
> books to go unrewarded, while others profit substantially from their
> work.  The situation certainly doesn't seem fair to me, and I can't
> see any way to make it so.

Without laws about fraud this could happen. That would be unfair. Of
course I support fraud law to the fullest. I despise people who lie
and cheat.


> Under the current system of intellectual property, none of these
> scenarios would be possible: every one of them would be a cut and
> dried case of copyright infringement, and at the very least the
> original authors would get something.

Under fraud law they are also cut&dried cases. And the authors will at
least get recognition, and then be capable of exploiting that. SO they
have even gained.


> I'll admit that under current law there is a somewhat greater chance
> that Ronald's story would never get published or that Barry's novels
> would never be written,

Which I would also expect. And that would be a loss for all
involved. Authors, false authors and readers.

In fact I have quite a long time harboured the notion, that copyright
is an near-ideal weapon to shoot in ones own foot. So many classic
cases of being too gready for ones own good.

Just think of someone who has never read Tolkien chancing over Heaths
book whose plans started this thread, and then wanting to follow up on
its background. May even sell more original Tolkiens.


Live and let live is my motto. You may in the end profit unexpectedly
from others actions, if you just let them act.

Of course the entire Open Source software scene works on exactly this
principle. Everyone adds what he can, everyone gets all, including all
that the others make.

My addition may make it just interesting enough, that one of them
millions out there, instead of giving up, uses my stuff and adds
something that I will gain from (or someone else who then makes
something I can use).


> but at least their work wouldn't be _stolen_.

I dislike the use of "stealing" in this respect. Because it implies
_taking_away_ of some _thing_, loss and non availability of that thing
to the original owner.

OTOH copying does not strip the original author of being able to use
the text, the worst is, he loses an sales opportunity, which is the
same effect any competitors product can have.


I am generally against taking laws of the atom world (where thing are,
in one place and not an other) to the bit world (where data can
replicate and spread) without questioning them. A new world is here
and it demands new ways of thinking.

Just look at the changes to society that the change from horses to
motor vehicules made. Bits are even stranger and are going to have an
even large impact. Expect entire lifestyles and professions to vanish.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <ZYJr7.260$N4.19750@news.uchicago.edu> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999)
From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen)
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <jq5s7.314$N4.25413@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7
X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001448207 128.135.12.7 (Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:03:27 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:03:27 CDT
Organization: The University of Chicago
X-SessionID: iq5s7-80119-N4-25443@news.uchicago.edu
X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4
X-Hash: bdc840ea 93c56198 22e87aa9 6e3bf970 0af045b5
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:03:27 GMT
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.csl-gmbh.net!news.stealth.net!yellow.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53130

Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
<6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: 
> sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:
> >    Pierre ... under his own name.

> I would call that making an false claim (of being the writer), case
> of fraud or at least deceit. There exist good criminal laws about
> that.

So you at least support the idea of intellectual property to the
extent that one person can't take another person's ideas as their own.
That's good... but I think it can be hard to define.  (See below.)

> > 2. If that example is a bit too blatant, imagine instead that
> > Pierre just changes a few names: the book is now "The Blade of the
> > Dings", it's hero's name is changed from Eriol to Rumil, that sort
> > of thing.  (Feel free to imagine as much or as little alteration
> > of the original on the part of Pierre as you'd like, as long as it
> > wouldn't pass muster under today's laws.)

[Referring to just changing names:]
> Standard "hiding" method, should not fool the judge in an fraud case.
[Referring to more general changes:]
> As I do not know the exact current terms I will have to pass that one.
> 
> But if a judge in an fraud case does not recognize them as the same,
> then the alterations must be large. And such a patchwork is most
> likely not a good and well selling book, unless Pierre in the end
> did end up re-writing it all new.

How do you draw this line, though?  In your ideal world of
intellectual property law, are "retellings" of a tale allowed?  (Why
shouldn't they be?  Why would a retelling be any worse than a sequel?
Or, for that matter, a free implementation of someone else's program
or tool?)  If so, it seems that Pierre could say that he had written a
"retelling" of the same story, and be perfectly safe.

> And yes, I do think that no copyright will reduce the quantity of
> texts by some measure (the part made by for-profit authors). But I
> think it will be mainly the cheap mass produced stuff without
> quality that vanishes. And even if that is 90%, the remaining 10%
> will be more than anyone could ever want to read.

Why would "for-profit authors" stop writing in the absence of
copyright?  If anything, wouldn't they have even more opportunity to
make money by cashing in on other, more creative authors' worlds?  Or
are you suggesting that authors wouldn't be paid at all for their
writing?  That would be a massive change and would, I think, require a
fundamental restructuring of, well, capitalism as it currently exists.

> >    immediately begins to write stories set in Priscilla's world, some
> >    of them just showing glimpses of the underlying history and some of
> >    them actually narrating the stories from the history itself.

> No different from if Barry liked some country in the real world (say
> early 19th century rural Britain, colonial India, the Wild West),
> and wrote stuff there, possibly even real persons lives.

The difference in this case is that Priscilla's world was her own
invention, the product of her own substantial labor: she obviously
deserves quite a bit of the credit for the success of Barry's books.
When writing historical fiction, creating the world in which the
characters live isn't really part of the work involved (though
researching it might be).  In fantasy, creating the world seems to be
at least half of the effort, more in many cases (certainly in the case
of Tolkien!).

To draw an analogy from programming, it might be reasonable to compare
using someone else's fantasy world as the basis for a new book to using
someone else's libraries and classes as the basis of a new program.
If the new program is primarily a user-friendly interface to the old
libraries, then the author of those libraries deserves a substantial
part of the credit for the success of the new program.

> Or perhaps more like writing stories in older mythological worlds
> (nordic, athenian, arthurian), possibly even with existing but
> unknown mythological characters.

That would be fine under current copyright law, too: even if those
worlds were invented by someone in particular, they have long since
passed into the public domain. :)

> Of course any decent person would put some remark in, pointing to
> the source, perhaps is the foreword, epilogue, an appendix, etc.
> Simple law about attribution should be enough.

That would be a useful thing in your scenario, I think.  However, it
still doesn't really cover the situation when a substantial part of
the creative effort behind a work was not done by its author.  

						Steuard Jensen

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 29 Sep 2001 01:13:17 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usndlld5i.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <ZYJr7.260$N4.19750@news.uchicago.edu> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <jq5s7.314$N4.25413@news.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1001718798 656 10.0.3.2 (28 Sep 2001 23:13:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 2001 23:13:18 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53395

sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:

> Quoth Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove> in article
> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>:
> > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes:
> > >    Pierre ... under his own name.
>
> > I would call that making an false claim (of being the writer), case
> > of fraud or at least deceit. There exist good criminal laws about
> > that.
>
> So you at least support the idea of intellectual property to the
> extent that one person can't take another person's ideas as their own.

a) If you look back to my first posts in this discussion, you will see
that my dislike of IP comes from its restricting freedom to create, as
soon as that creation is seen to endanger (in any wa, sometimes very
unlikely) the profits of someone who has already created something
related. Attributing authorship does not restrict anyones creating, so
I have no reason to be against it.

b) I do not regard attribution as IP. An attribution like "Einstein
invented relativity" does not derive from Einstein having the IP to
relativity (which he did not, as scientific discoveries are not
copyrightable, AFAIK). It is simply a report of an historical fact,
and as such any attribution can be true or false.


> > But if a judge in an fraud case does not recognize them as the same,
> > then the alterations must be large. And such a patchwork is most
>
> How do you draw this line, though?

I suppose there existy no "formula" for this. It will be one of those
things where intent comes into it, and so how the person in question
presents his activity.

Compare this situation with the present legal debate over tools that
are claimed to be usable for copyright violations (such as libdecss).
Were they writen for violating (the MPAAs claim) or for an other
legitimate use (for viewing paied for DVDs, the authors claim, which
is believable given the circumstances).


>  In your ideal world of
> intellectual property law, are "retellings" of a tale allowed?

Yes, obviously, as even republication is allowed (so long its
relationship is attributed).


> Or, for that matter, a free implementation of someone else's program
> or tool?)

That is actually even legal under present copyright, Linux as
re-implementation Unix is an largely visible example.

Only if the re-implementation uses an patented technology, is there
today a problem, a large one if one can not read an file format without
using that technology (say re-implementing Quicktime is impossible
without using the patented Sorensen codec technology, so there is no
QT viewer for Linux, and all then Trailers are in QT, grrrrr).

This effect of patents is the main reason for the anti software
patent movement I referred to, being the background for my sig line
that started this discussion.


> > And yes, I do think that no copyright will reduce the quantity of
> > texts by some measure (the part made by for-profit authors). But I
>
> Why would "for-profit authors" stop writing in the absence of
> copyright?

Lack of profit?

- book is successfull, large market demand for copies
- competitors to their publisher start printing, without author fees
- original publisher loses part[1] of sales because more expensive
- publishers may[2] get to prefer to be second publishers
- less/no first publisher contracts for authors, no income, no profit
- without income for-profit authors will change to other work
- what remains are the non-profit authors, who want to get word out


[1] He will retain part because he is "the original" and can market
this, but how large this part is is unknown, estimates vary _widely_

[2] This is the unpredictable bit, but likely given todays "bottom
line" dominated economy


>  If anything, wouldn't they have even more opportunity to
> make money by cashing in on other, more creative authors' worlds?

If they can cash in. Which I suspect to not be the case. But the world
may surprise me on this one.


> writing?  That would be a massive change and would, I think, require a
> fundamental restructuring of, well, capitalism as it currently exists.

Not quite as large an restructuring as that.

As all the argro, manufacturing[3] and service industries will stay.
All these have an one-to-one relationship to amount of work vs amount
of customers served. And the product is not copyable[4].

But the end of copyright will most likely be the end of anything
copyable (story/text/music/picture) being made as a paid profession.
Most likely replaced it by becoming again an culture where elements
grow and are recombined, like it was before the printing press.

The culture that makes Linux, and the scraping by and often faillure
of firms trying to make money out of selling copies of Linux, can be
seen as pointers to how it will change.


[3] This includes publishers, as far as they reorganise to be book
manufacturers, delivering text-put-to-paper, competing the same as car
manufacturers deliver metal-turned-into-cars.

[4] At least until we get StarTrek like replicators. Or some other
technology that makes copies producable from raw design data without
any professional staff and machinerey needed. That will then be the
end of industry and capitalism as we know it. Ever noticed that there
is no money or industry or banks in ST? OK, this is far future Si-Fi.


> > >    immediately begins to write stories set in Priscilla's world, some
> > >    of them just showing glimpses of the underlying history and some of
> > >    them actually narrating the stories from the history itself.
>
> > No different from if Barry liked some country in the real world (say
> > early 19th century rural Britain, colonial India, the Wild West),
> > and wrote stuff there, possibly even real persons lives.
>
> The difference in this case is that Priscilla's world was her own
> invention, the product of her own substantial labor: she obviously
> deserves quite a bit of the credit for the success of Barry's books.

Credit, as in attribution, certainly. Credit, as in exclusive creating
stories in the world, here we are back at the problem with IP and
limiting others creating.


> When writing historical fiction, creating the world in which the
> characters live isn't really part of the work involved

As this was done by the actual people who live/lived there. They did
not get IP rights to their "creation". They only profit they did get
was from doing what they did.


> researching it might be).  In fantasy, creating the world seems to be
> at least half of the effort, more in many cases (certainly in the case
> of Tolkien!).

Dito without IP for the world itsself, the author still can profit
(as far as first publishers exist) from her own stories in the world
(assuming they sell). And then there is the fun profit from simply
making the world, as Tolkien demonstrates nicely (the secret vice).


> If the new program is primarily a user-friendly interface to the old
> libraries, then the author of those libraries deserves a substantial
> part of the credit for the success of the new program.

One of the reasons for using free libraries. :-)

Else such "screen scraper" programs usually require the base program
to allready be present, pre-installed by the user, before installing
the second program.


> > Or perhaps more like writing stories in older mythological worlds
> > (nordic, athenian, arthurian), possibly even with existing but
> > unknown mythological characters.
>
> That would be fine under current copyright law, too: even if those
> worlds were invented by someone in particular, they have long since
> passed into the public domain. :)

Which may never happen for anything written since about 1900, if the
IP industry lobby keeps on the way it is (presently authors life plus
75 years) :-(.


> still doesn't really cover the situation when a substantial part of
> the creative effort behind a work was not done by its author.

As far as ensuring financial profit to the author it can not. That is
why I suspect the for-profit author will disappear. That is the price
to pay for no limits on creating.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery

######

Lines: 48
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Date: 29 Sep 2001 10:02:32 GMT
References: <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Message-ID: <20010929060232.29833.00001305@mb-cm.aol.com>
Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53438

Neil Franklin wrote:
>a) If you look back to my first posts in this discussion, you will see
>that my dislike of IP comes from its restricting freedom to create, as
>soon as that creation is seen to endanger (in any wa, sometimes very
>unlikely) the profits of someone who has already created something
>related. Attributing authorship does not restrict anyones creating, so
>I have no reason to be against it.

You seem concerned with the idea that people are being discouraged from
creating. However, the entire purpose of IP law is to make sure that people are
NOT discouraged from creating: Specifically, IP law protects the ability for
the creator of a work to earn profit from that work.

Without that protection artists could not make money from their work. As such,
artists would be able to produce as much work as they are currently able to
produce.

You are casually dismissing these people as "for-profit" creators. But that's
moronic. Think it through: If a creator has to spend time doing something OTHER
than creating in order to pay the bills, then they are able to spend LESS time
creating. That means LESS artistic output by talented people.

>The culture that makes Linux, and the scraping by and often faillure
>of firms trying to make money out of selling copies of Linux, can be
>seen as pointers to how it will change.

The complete absence of any open source computer games of decent, cutting-edge
quality should be a big clue to you as to why your idea sucks.

Or, to put it another way, if the only movies you want to see are movies shot
on the budget of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, then, by all means, advocate the
elimination of copyright.

>[4] At least until we get StarTrek like replicators. Or some other
>technology that makes copies producable from raw design data without
>any professional staff and machinerey needed. That will then be the
>end of industry and capitalism as we know it.

When this happens, the abolishment of copyright will make sense. But not
before.

>Which may never happen for anything written since about 1900, if the
>IP industry lobby keeps on the way it is (presently authors life plus
>75 years) :-(.

Here we can agree. The current term of copyright protection is an obscene
perversion of the system.

######

Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail
From: Neil Franklin <neil@franklin.ch.remove>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Subject: Re: Question re copyright
Date: 30 Sep 2001 19:39:04 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <6uadzczih3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>
References: <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <20010929060232.29833.00001305@mb-cm.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch
X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1001871546 658 10.0.3.2 (30 Sep 2001 17:39:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 2001 17:39:06 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53511

triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) writes:

> Neil Franklin wrote:
> >a) If you look back to my first posts in this discussion, you will see
> >that my dislike of IP comes from its restricting freedom to create, as
>
> You seem concerned with the idea that people are being discouraged from
> creating.

Yes, a lot. And not just discouraged, but actually forced to not do it
("if you publish this creation we will sue you, so forget creating it").


> However, the entire purpose of IP law is to make sure that people are
> NOT discouraged from creating:

Small error: not "NOT discouraged" but "encouraged" is the official
line. There is a small but important difference: that there was no
original active discouragment that is being fought by this measure.


> Specifically, IP law protects the ability for
> the creator of a work to earn profit from that work.

At the cost of forbidding others to create, as soon as their creations
are somewhat similar. With "somewhat" covering larger and larger fields.


> Think it through: If a creator has to spend time doing something OTHER
> than creating in order to pay the bills, then they are able to spend LESS time
> creating. That means LESS artistic output by talented people.

For continuation of that line read my response to Stewards post.


> >The culture that makes Linux, and the scraping by and often faillure
> >of firms trying to make money out of selling copies of Linux, can be
> >seen as pointers to how it will change.
>
> The complete absence of any open source computer games of decent, cutting-edge
> quality should be a big clue to you as to why your idea sucks.

Easily explainable by a lack of interest in such games by those who
write for Linux. Also even more by the needed base technology (3D
graphics, OpenGL) only becoming usable in the last year. Give 3D the
same time that the kernel had (say 5 years) and then look again.


> >[4] At least until we get StarTrek like replicators. Or some other
> >technology that makes copies producable from raw design data without
> >any professional staff and machinerey needed. That will then be the
> >end of industry and capitalism as we know it.
>
> When this happens, the abolishment of copyright will make sense. But not
> before.

Interestingly the official line is predictable: expanding copyright to
cover industrial designs as well.

If not copyrighting industrial is OK, then why is not copyrighting art
not OK?


> >Which may never happen for anything written since about 1900, if the
> >IP industry lobby keeps on the way it is (presently authors life plus
> >75 years) :-(.
>
> Here we can agree. The current term of copyright protection is an obscene
> perversion of the system.

And not just the term, also the extent of the monopolising granted.
The later is far more damaging. Just forbidding distribution of 1:1
copies would be a lot more acceptable.


--
Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/
Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer
- Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery