Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 117 Message-ID: <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001783621 128.135.12.7 (Sat, 29 Sep 2001 12:13:41 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 12:13:41 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: 9jnt7-135820-N4-41068@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: a2a9fe65 fa355852 a04003e1 5ed1d049 8b713b80 Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:13:41 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!128.135.12.170.MISMATCH!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53455 Quoth Neil Franklin in article <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: [Referring to eliminating income from writing:] > > That would be a massive change and would, I think, require a > > fundamental restructuring of, well, capitalism as it currently > > exists. > 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. I just don't understand why intellectual work should have so much less monetary worth than physical (or psychological?) work. That seems to be the essence of what you're saying, anyway: no matter how many peoples' lives are made better by your good idea, you shouldn't receive even a penny in return. It's significant to me that intellectual work consists precisely of the kinds of work that have the potential to benefit many people at once. (When you write a novel once, many people can enjoy it. When you come up with a new medicine, many sick people can be cured.) As far as I'm concerned, if someone comes up with a new breed of corn that can save farmers thousands of dollars in production costs and make millions of people healthier, that person deserves some thanks from society. I believe that such a person should be encouraged to spend as much time as she wants on developing other innovations for the good of humanity. I emphatically do _not_ believe that such a person should be forced to spend eight hours a day flipping burgers at McDonalds if she wants to support her family. Furthermore, I suspect that it would be very difficult for her to develop such a product if her main concern was flipping burgers long enough to feed her children. Our current system of intellectual property law _does_ reward people for innovating (and consequently for making everybody's lives better). It does reward people for providing entertainment (and consequently for making everybody's lives better). As far as I can tell, your suggested world fails to reward some of the people who most deserve society's support and praise. You might be able to make up the difference by vastly increasing the size and funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Science Foundation (and the corresponding entities outside the USA), but then the population would still be paying for those things, just less directly. (Incidentally, the NSF and similar government entities are the reason that many (most?) scientific discoveries are not patented or kept secret: they provide a way for basic research to be funded without relying on corporate support. This is absolutely vital for fields of science whose economic benefits, if any, may be many decades away, but it is also very helpful in making "profitable" research available to the public faster. Corporate sponsorship almost invariably means patents and trade secrets.) > 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. That's actually something that I've wondered about for a long time. How do the people who create Linux make their livings? If they have jobs in the software industry, what would they end up doing instead if the intellectual property laws that make that industry profitable were abolished? Would people pay tens of thousands of dollars for degrees in computer science if they knew there were no paying jobs that would use their skills? Would the average programmer be as good if almost nobody were formally educated in programming? > [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. Note that car manufacturers spend a great deal of money paying their own engineers to design good cars, just as publishers spend a great deal of money paying authors to design good books. What car company would pay its own engineers if they could just copy the work of the engineers next door? How could a car company that did pay a staff of engineers compete with a company that just copied its designs for the next year's market? (The second company could, after all, spend 3/4 of the money that it saved on engineering to improve minor cosmetic details of the design, so their product would be better and they'd still make more money.) If nobody was paying engineers, what would happen to the rate of innovation in car design? > > 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. If Barry actually does make any money from his writing, Priscilla certainly deserves a share of it, and probably a substantial one. Otherwise, you're saying that fantasy authors who are good at inventing worlds are worth less than fantasy authors who are good at inventing plots or characters (Priscilla would have a very hard time copying Barry's other stories and placing them in her unique world). I'm not willing to concede that. > And then there is the fun profit from simply making the world, as > Tolkien demonstrates nicely (the secret vice). Tolkien was most certainly a "for profit" author to a considerable extent: one needs only to read through his letters to see how important the income from his books was to him. He was driven to create by other factors, of course, but I don't think that LotR would ever have been written without a monetary motive. (Remember that it was the publisher who insisted on a sequel to _The Hobbit_ rather than a finished Silmarillion.) Steuard Jensen ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: 30 Sep 2001 20:46:46 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 259 Message-ID: <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1001875606 692 10.0.3.2 (30 Sep 2001 18:46:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Sep 2001 18:46:46 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53512 sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > [Referring to eliminating income from writing:] > > > > 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. > > I just don't understand why intellectual work should have so much less > monetary worth than physical (or psychological?) work. It is not that it has less worth. It is that ensuring payment comes at an lot higher price (in restricting others), which makes the entire desirable/not calculation different. If it were possible to ensure income, without the harm all such IP systems produce, no one would be against it. Note that this may just be a problem with todays IP laws being far too wide, but how to reduce them to non-harming level without them first hitting useless for their intent, I do not know. > be the essence of what you're saying, anyway: no matter how many > peoples' lives are made better by your good idea, you shouldn't > receive even a penny in return. ..., you should not behave in a way that harms others. Such as monopolising an idea and preventing others exporing and using it. If you are capable of making income without such harm, go for it. > As far as I'm concerned, if someone comes up with a new breed of corn > that can save farmers thousands of dollars in production costs and > make millions of people healthier, that person deserves some thanks > from society. Sure. But not the right to prevent someone else from making an even better breed of corn. Which is what IP laws give. > Our current system of intellectual property law _does_ reward people > for innovating (and consequently for making everybody's lives better). Which no one doubts. > You might be able to make up the > difference by vastly increasing the size and funding of the National > Endowment for the Arts and the National Science Foundation Which would be an _exellent_ thing to do. > but then the population would > still be paying for those things, just less directly. But only paying in money, not additionally in loss of freedom to create and getting what would have come from that. > (Incidentally, the NSF and similar government entities are the reason > that many (most?) scientific discoveries are not patented or kept > secret: they provide a way for basic research to be funded without > relying on corporate support. Exactly. > This is absolutely vital for fields of > science whose economic benefits, if any, may be many decades away, but > it is also very helpful in making "profitable" research available to > the public faster. EXACTLY! Available faster and more wide spread, and not to mention allowing derivative work, which is what a lot of science is about. > Corporate sponsorship almost invariably means > patents and trade secrets.) Which is exactly the bane of IP in the arts (replace sponsor with publisher). > > The culture that makes Linux, and the scraping by and often faillure > > That's actually something that I've wondered about for a long time. > How do the people who create Linux make their livings? There are 100s of ways to get to Rome... Some of the ones I know: 1 work for an hardware manufacturer, who pays for it, because he wants his hardware to be more attractive to users. IBM, HP, Compaq, Apple (for the FreeBSD competitor of Linux) all have such employees. Linus Torwalds, the central organiser is among these. Also most of the architecture porting guys. 2 work for an hardware distributor, who pays for it, because he wants his service to be more attractive. VA Linux is such an PC-based specialist. Many of the distribution and discussion sites are run on their server (is also an advert for what they do, and high load test case). 3 work for an Linux CD distributor, who pays for it, because they so get faster access to updates and some more input into getting their customers problems fixed at higher priority. This was once more important than 1 and 2 but is not dropping strongly with the dot-com hype bombing out. 4 work for an Linux using firm or university and get paid for adapting/improving to that firms needs. Basically the same budget as all in-house programmers/sysadmins, just that they use an shared codebase with the rest of the world, not their own code, saves them programmer time. This one is most likely the largest part. Not surprising, as ca 95% of all programmers worldwide work in such jobs. I am in this group for some if my stuff. Dito most of my Linux-working colleagues. 5 work as an consultant to users of Linux, is a variant of 4, just not permanantly employed. One business guy I know does this. 6 do it for hobby, no financial reward, just the fun. May rival 4 in percentage. But I have no hard numbers to decide whether 4 or 6 is the dominant one. Each of 4/6 dwarf 1-3,5 by an large amount. I am in this group for the rest of my stuff. Dito the rest of my Linux using friends. 7 sell fan articles (T-shits, mugs, ...) like pop groups do. Most large projects have an logo for this purpose. And the actual selling is done by independant businesses, who have meny projects logos on offer, and then donate n% (published on their websites) of the sales cost. 8 get financed by user groups. The TeX typesetting software is famous for its TUG group that has members fees and uses some of them to finance grants for specific features the groups meeting vote for. 9 give speeches. At least some of the ideological leaders do this. This parallels performances/concerts in music groups or even more authors readings in literature. I am sure this list is nowhere near complete. > If they have > jobs in the software industry, Mostly not, if you define software industry as pay-per-license packaged software, like Microsoft/Lotus/Corel/etc make. > what would they end up doing instead if > the intellectual property laws that make that industry profitable were > abolished? What they are doing today. Hardly any Linux developer makes money from software with copyrighted income protection. > Would people pay tens of thousands of dollars for degrees > in computer science if they knew there were no paying jobs that would > use their skills? Surprisingly, most likey yes. Programming is regarded by most better programmers as an addiction, total fun. A bit like science in that respect. > Would the average programmer be as good if almost > nobody were formally educated in programming? Dirty secret of the programming world: most have no formal education whatsoever! Me inclusive :-). And what exists of formal education is mostly not worth much anyway, in the near-unisono view of most good programmers. > deal of money paying authors to design good books. What car company > would pay its own engineers if they could just copy the work of the > engineers next door? I think I will let an lead designer for Siemens memory chips division (today Infineon) speak on this. About 10 years ago my engineering shool class visited them and was surprised at an total lack of secrecy. Designs laying around open in the office. We questioned him. His answer: ----------- Any competitior who spies here and sees anything new that they do not yet know, is so out of date, that they are no longer a competitor. The time to play catch up is too long. ----------- So that is why all chip makers are paying their own engineers: to be out as fast as their competitors, and not hopelessly late. Seems to also apply to the other engineering fields I know the details of (mainly electronic/computer/software). > next year's market? (The second company could, after all, spend 3/4 > of the money that it saved on engineering to improve minor cosmetic > details of the design, so their product would be better and they'd > still make more money.) And it would be later (only after reverse engineering the competitors engineering) and so lose customers to the in the mean time established original inventor. Not surprising that Intel and Motorola (used in Macs) were the first 2 processor companies, in that row. it takes an big fumble to get an original inventor out of the lead. > Otherwise, you're saying that fantasy authors who are good at > inventing worlds are worth less than fantasy authors who are good at > inventing plots or characters Not less worth, but only protectable at far higher cost to society. And so the desirable/not balance strikes again. > > And then there is the fun profit from simply making the world, as > > Tolkien demonstrates nicely (the secret vice). > > Tolkien was most certainly a "for profit" author to a considerable > extent: one needs only to read through his letters to see how > important the income from his books was to him. Which he claims in words, but belies with his actions. LotR was published about at retirement age so its income definitely had no effect on his working life, Silmarillion after death so no effect at all, not to mention taking multiple years of pause from writing LotR and once nearly giving up. Not what an person aiming for money would do. And The Hobbit does not look like it was an great money maker before LotR made him famous. > create by other factors, of course, but I don't think that LotR would > ever have been written without a monetary motive. (Remember that it > was the publisher who insisted on a sequel to _The Hobbit_ rather than > a finished Silmarillion.) Instead we may have gotten an completed canonical Silmarillion, or even The Lost Road, as CT speculated. Most likely commercially lesser works, but literarily possibly even better. -- 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,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) Lines: 32 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.12.7 X-Trace: news.uchicago.edu 1001943152 128.135.12.7 (Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:32:32 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:32:32 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago X-SessionID: Qf_t7-15344-N4-1732@news.uchicago.edu X-Hash-Info: post-filter,v:1.4 X-Hash: 188923dc 22b8f88c 25e88f26 bc1c36bd 1ee65fb7 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:32:32 GMT 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!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53561 [Added AFT in the hopes of attracting comments from authors on both groups. To fill you in, Neil has been arguing that copyright should be abolished to encourage greater creative output (possibly with laws in place to require at least a statement giving credit to those whose work you're building on). I've been arguing that doing so would be very unfair financially to the original creators. For more details, read the thread on RABT.] Quoth Neil Franklin in article <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > You might be able to make up the difference by vastly increasing > > the size and funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and > > the National Science Foundation (and the corresponding > > organizations in countries outside the USA) > Which would be an _exellent_ thing to do. Interesting. Now I've got a considerably better idea of where you're coming from. It would be a pain (writers having to write grant proposals, for example), but it would at least fill the money gap that I've been worried about. Why didn't you mention something of the sort before? :) Of course, the NEA has run into trouble for supporting unpopular art in the past, and you'd want systems in place to support writers who are popular with literary critics _and_ writers who are popular with the general public (the overlap isn't often all that large)... but it's not a bad idea. I have a nasty feeling that not many people would go for it, but who knows. Any thoughts? Steuard Jensen ###### From: WindSparrow@webtv.net Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:49:01 -0700 (MST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 95 Message-ID: <9617-3BB8906D-127@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhQYBjIfzmJJE1bWyuZwLy3l7XtUiwIUXeyEk4eXLSZwfuYkBNy8RPpPY70= Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53540 >[Added AFT in the hopes of attracting >comments from authors on both groups. >To fill you in, Neil has been arguing that >copyright should be abolished to >encourage greater creative output >(possibly with laws in place to require at >least a statement giving credit to those >whose work you're building on). I've >been arguing that doing so would be very > unfair financially to the original creators. > For more details, read the thread on >RABT.] >Quoth Neil Franklin >> in article >><6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> >>:sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu >>(Steuard Jensen) writes: >>>You might be able to make up the >>>difference by vastly increasing the size >>> and funding of the National >>>Endowment for the Arts and the >>>National Science Foundation (and the >>>corresponding organizations in >>>countries outside the USA) >>Which would be an _exellent_ thing to >>do. >Interesting. Now I've got a considerably >better idea of where you're coming from. >It would be a pain (writers having to >write grant proposals, for example), but >it would at least fill the money gap that >I've been worried about. Why didn't you >mention something of the sort before? :) > Of course, the NEA has run into trouble >for supporting unpopular art in the past, >and you'd want systems in place to >support writers who are popular with >literary critics _and_ writers who are >popular with the general public (the >overlap isn't often all that large)... but it's > not a bad idea. I have a nasty feeling >that not many people would go for it, but >who knows. Any thoughts? =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Steuard Jensen Speaking as a hobbyist-author rather than a professional, I can't say either system would put more money in my pocket. I write because I enjoy doing so. And I really really like it when some one I know reads my stuff and says, "Wow, that was great." (Yes, I know, they are my friends, they are supposed to say that, true or not) I'm no more likely to apply for a grant than I am to jump through the current hoops of publication. So do I prefer copyright to an even bigger NEA? Yeah, I think so. The fact that I can sue people who appropriate my work actually protects _them_. If another writer were to receive a grant to muck about in my stuff - without sharing his gains (ill-gotten or otherwise) with me and getting my permission first - that writer might find himself on the wrong end of a Sparrow with a baseball bat ;-) Beyond having no legal recourse against another writer copying, using, or abusing my work, the proposed "artists live by grants" system adds insult to injury by requiring me, the hard-working tax-payer to _pay_ the other writer. Speaking as a consumer, the current copyright, capitalist-driven system allows me to vote with my check-book. If I don't care for a writer's work, I don't buy the book. If I don't like a certain kind of movie, I don't pay to see it. If I think a singer is a low-talent morally repugnant twit who will corrupt my children, I don't have to shell out cash for the album. Hiking taxes to pay for more artistic endeavors over which I am likely to have no say, sounds a bit unfair. And what happens if my favorite writer doesn't get her grant? Why should I have to pay for stuff I think is crap, yet be deprived of what I enjoy? WindSparrow The grass is growing again (you should be too) Out of dark, rich dirt (out of dark, rich hurt) The white flowers are blooming again. . . http://community.webtv.net/WindSparrow/WindSparrowsNest ###### From: "Armour MP" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:32:20 -0400 Lines: 47 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: <3bb8992a$1_1@spamkiller.newsgroups.com> X-Authenticated-User: redwine X-Comments: This message was posted through Spamkiller.Newsfeeds.com X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support, spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings. X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!! X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS) Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!171.64.14.106!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!spamkiller.newsgroups.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53586 "Steuard Jensen" wrote in message news:Qf_t7.24$N4.1803@news.uchicago.edu... > [Added AFT in the hopes of attracting comments from authors on both > groups. To fill you in, Neil has been arguing that copyright should > be abolished to encourage greater creative output (possibly with laws > in place to require at least a statement giving credit to those whose > work you're building on). I've been arguing that doing so would be > very unfair financially to the original creators. For more details, > read the thread on RABT.] > > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > > You might be able to make up the difference by vastly increasing > > > the size and funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and > > > the National Science Foundation (and the corresponding > > > organizations in countries outside the USA) > > > Which would be an _exellent_ thing to do. > > Interesting. Now I've got a considerably better idea of where you're > coming from. It would be a pain (writers having to write grant > proposals, for example), but it would at least fill the money gap that > I've been worried about. Why didn't you mention something of the sort > before? :) > > Of course, the NEA has run into trouble for supporting unpopular art > in the past, and you'd want systems in place to support writers who > are popular with literary critics _and_ writers who are popular with > the general public (the overlap isn't often all that large)... but > it's not a bad idea. I have a nasty feeling that not many people > would go for it, but who knows. Any thoughts? > > Steuard Jensen I doubt it too. And I don't think it's the place for government to decide which authors get money and which don't. I have no objection to copyright per se. But the present condition of perpetual and total copyright ought to be pruned back considerably. It's not in place to protect obscure authors' incomes, but to serve the interests of large entertainment corporations like Disney and Time-Warner. I'm curious: do an author's heirs have to pay inheritance tax on the value of the copyrights that come to them? ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:44:26 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <5tohrtsnlmg83bl9uciu8u1in30gq1f8vf@4ax.com> References: <9617-3BB8906D-127@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net> 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: 16 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53696 On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:49:01 -0700 (MST), WindSparrow@webtv.net wrote: >If I think a singer is a low-talent morally >repugnant twit who will corrupt my children, I don't have to shell out >cash for the album. Clearly you have no real children! the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- "But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened." -- Socrates to Crito, in "Crito" ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:43:34 -0400 Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3BB8F193.F1F755EB@erols.com> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZjS8zIYaUfxZR5MC17mcTaEDzQP5SybHtfA0CAa+xqYRf1cWW5gzhD X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2001 23:10:04 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!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53604 Steuard Jensen wrote: > Of course, the NEA has run into trouble for supporting unpopular art > in the past, and you'd want systems in place to support writers who > are popular with literary critics _and_ writers who are popular with > the general public (the overlap isn't often all that large)... b Why's that, Steuard? If the bleedin' art critics want their vile garbage produced, they can bloody well pay for it themselves. Tax money should be used to pay for art that taxpayers can stomach. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:46:15 -0400 Lines: 18 Message-ID: <3BB8F233.CA146961@erols.com> References: <9617-3BB8906D-127@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <5tohrtsnlmg83bl9uciu8u1in30gq1f8vf@4ax.com> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbzghIZ3ZrdyscG/DY3aaYyTVguiUaCCN3zUQaiSLcoHjues6Gi+hI1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2001 23:10:05 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!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53596 the softrat wrote: > >If I think a singer is a low-talent morally > >repugnant twit who will corrupt my children, I don't have to shell out > >cash for the album. > > Clearly you have no real children! Are you equating "real" children with corrupted ones? -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:31:37 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BB8F193.F1F755EB@erols.com> 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: 12 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!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53697 On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:43:34 -0400, Flame of the West wrote: >Tax money should be used to pay for art that taxpayers can stomach. Like Big Macs? the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- Hex dump: Where witches put used curses... ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:34:40 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <9617-3BB8906D-127@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <5tohrtsnlmg83bl9uciu8u1in30gq1f8vf@4ax.com> <3BB8F233.CA146961@erols.com> 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!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53688 On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:46:15 -0400, Flame of the West wrote: >the softrat wrote: > >> >If I think a singer is a low-talent morally >> >repugnant twit who will corrupt my children, I don't have to shell out >> >cash for the album. >> >> Clearly you have no real children! > >Are you equating "real" children with corrupted ones? What's the diff? How do *you* distinguish? (This could be amusing!) the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- "I don't want to tell you any half-truths unless they are completely accurate." -- Dennis Rappaport, boxing manager ###### From: WindSparrow@webtv.net Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:58:26 -0700 (MST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 27 Message-ID: <25839-3BB96592-331@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <5tohrtsnlmg83bl9uciu8u1in30gq1f8vf@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAseCYGqHBptgUp2UPEYeh0bzv5DgCFHOTfyZYnTRBNPaMS54GlsQTDASp Content-Disposition: Inline 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!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53617 Softie responds: >WindSparrow@webtv.net wrote: >>If I think a singer is a low-talent morally >> repugnant twit who will corrupt my >>children, I don't have to shell out cash >>for the album. >Clearly you have no real children! >the softrat "He who rubs owls Um, well, no. No actual, current children. However I do have my father's temper, so I'm guessing that any children that I might someday have will quickly learn that getting a job and buying with one's own money is so much less painful than requisitioning desired items from the parental stockpile. Windy "What, do I look like I'm made of money?" "Want in one hand, crap in the other. See which hand fills up first." "Refresh my memory, tell me again, which one of your arms is broken?" >>>> Daddy Sparrow ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:23:11 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <5tohrtsnlmg83bl9uciu8u1in30gq1f8vf@4ax.com> <25839-3BB96592-331@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> 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: 29 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53690 On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:58:26 -0700 (MST), WindSparrow@webtv.net wrote: > >Um, well, no. No actual, current children. However I do have my >father's temper, so I'm guessing that any children that I might someday >have will quickly learn that getting a job and buying with one's own >money is so much less painful than requisitioning desired items from the >parental stockpile. > >Windy > >"What, do I look like I'm made of money?" >"Want in one hand, crap in the other. See which hand fills up first." >"Refresh my memory, tell me again, which one of your arms is broken?" >>>>> Daddy Sparrow > Strangely believe it, it doesn't always work out that way, in part because there is another adult party to consider, to wit, your spouse. Of course if you don't have a spouse ..... ... then you get to raise the little angels all by your lonesome. Good luck! the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- What if there were no hypothetical questions? ###### From: colinr@toliman.uio.no (Colin Rosenthal) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 2 Oct 2001 08:26:28 GMT Organization: University of Oslo, Norway Lines: 17 Message-ID: <9pbtnk$683$2@readme.uio.no> References: <9617-3BB8906D-127@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <5tohrtsnlmg83bl9uciu8u1in30gq1f8vf@4ax.com> Reply-To: colin.rosenthal@astro.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Host: toliman.uio.no User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (OSF1) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!colinr Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53620 On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:44:26 -0700, the softrat wrote: >On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:49:01 -0700 (MST), WindSparrow@webtv.net wrote: > >>If I think a singer is a low-talent morally >>repugnant twit who will corrupt my children, I don't have to shell out >>cash for the album. > >Clearly you have no real children! I don't need no stinking rock musicians corrupting my children. I'm quite capable of doing it myself. -- Colin Rosenthal Astrophysics Institute University of Oslo ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 03:24:52 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 56 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53576 > > I just don't understand why intellectual work should have so much less > > monetary worth than physical (or psychological?) work. > > It is not that it has less worth. It is that ensuring payment comes > at an lot higher price (in restricting others), which makes the > entire desirable/not calculation different. > Only to someone who wants to plagerise openly, without giving a share of their proffit to the person who originated the work they are claiming. > If it were possible to ensure income, without the harm all such IP > systems produce, no one would be against it. > except plagerisers > Note that this may just be a problem with todays IP laws being far too > wide, but how to reduce them to non-harming level without them first > hitting useless for their intent, I do not know. Simple.... If person A creates something, and person B uses a pice of person A's work in creating something else, Person A diserves not only an atribution, but also a share in the proffit, and also to be asked permision to use the pice of work first. If person C comes along and uses a part of person B's work, (whether ey know it or not, using the pice that was originaly created by person A) who diserves credit, proffit, and consult? PERSON A..... now if person A dies, all of person A's work goes either to public domain, or to whomever Person A wills their work to belong to (possibly eir child?) and the willed is now the person who gets person A's share of the profit, and consultation for using Person A's work in the prosess of making new work. the willed however cannot pass the rights to work ey did not create to an err, but instead sends it to PD when ey dies. > > be the essence of what you're saying, anyway: no matter how many > > peoples' lives are made better by your good idea, you shouldn't > > receive even a penny in return. > > .., you should not behave in a way that harms others. Such as > monopolising an idea and preventing others exporing and using it. > If you are capable of making income without such harm, go for it. > You should always be asked permision, and get a part of the profit, for any work that uses a part of your own work within it. Also that part should always be credited to you. These three things are the three rights that are protected by present copywrite laws. Some people have entirely plagerised whole songs from other artists, and claimed them as their own. This is not art, it is theft pure and simple. [clip the rest] ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:49:22 -0400 Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3BB8F2EE.ACB070F5@erols.com> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVaNBB02OaYItXnObNcR0MQkCKG4lFcxa0SyGsFgSPM49UoNrUA6/3Lq X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2001 23:10:07 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53607 Ashford Wyrd wrote: > now if person A dies, all of person A's work goes either to public domain, > or to whomever Person A wills their work to belong to (possibly eir child?) > and the willed is now the person who gets person A's share of the profit, > and consultation for using Person A's work in the prosess of making new > work. In practice, the right of "consultation" means that all IP eventually falls under the control of huge corporations. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:51:38 -0400 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3BB8F377.584C1CAF@erols.com> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZ4p0Vx65NNxJMhALeXYnQYqzXGY0CHcvSwygAfeWOXwmETYe3pnhZk X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2001 23:10:08 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!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.online.be!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53603 Neil Franklin wrote: Hey Neil, have you heard that Universal Music Group is planning to issue music CD's that can't be copied? Looks like you and I will be boycotting together soon. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 03 Oct 2001 22:44:44 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 82 Message-ID: <6u4rpgmp1f.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002141887 782 10.0.3.2 (3 Oct 2001 20:44:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Oct 2001 20:44:47 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53703 sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > [Added AFT in the hopes of attracting comments from authors on both > groups. To fill you in, Neil has been arguing that copyright should > be abolished to encourage greater creative output On the base that the present system discourages derived works. The original example starting the discussion was someone wanting to write an novel playing in ME and then giving up because of copyright. > (possibly with laws > in place to require at least a statement giving credit to those whose > work you're building on). As this gives the original author recognition, but does not restict the author creating an derived work. > Quoth Neil Franklin in article > <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>: > > sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) writes: > > > You might be able to make up the difference by vastly increasing > > > the size and funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and > > > the National Science Foundation (and the corresponding > > > organizations in countries outside the USA) > > > Which would be an _exellent_ thing to do. > > Interesting. Now I've got a considerably better idea of where you're > coming from. It would be a pain (writers having to write grant > proposals, for example), Today they have to get an "grant" from an publisher, i.e. get him to carry their work, finance its printing and marketing. > but it would at least fill the money gap that > I've been worried about. Why didn't you mention something of the sort > before? :) Brain which runs at non-infinite speed. :-) More to the point: was concentrating on getting the point through, that there is a problem with the current system. And that better is needed. > Of course, the NEA has run into trouble for supporting unpopular art > in the past, What was the name of that photographer about 10 yeara ago? Created an uproar about government funding "porn". Non-infinite memory also. :-) > and you'd want systems in place to support writers who > are popular with literary critics _and_ writers who are popular with > the general public (the overlap isn't often all that large)... but > it's not a bad idea. Possibly in addition to NEA also some private institutions, like there also exists for funding science. Perhaps some rich artists or collectors who with their inheritances have such funded. Or one institution that uses sales numbers, and an other that uses votes from critics. Actually every organisation can have its own angle, just like the ones funding science have. That creates the best mix. > I have a nasty feeling that not many people > would go for it, but who knows. Any thoughts? In todays anti-government culture that could happen. -- 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 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 03 Oct 2001 23:03:55 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 65 Message-ID: <6u1ykkmo5g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <9617-3BB8906D-127@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002143035 791 10.0.3.2 (3 Oct 2001 21:03:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Oct 2001 21:03:55 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53704 WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > >[Added AFT in the hopes of attracting > >comments from authors on both groups. > > I write because I > enjoy doing so. And I really really like it when some one I know reads > my stuff and says, "Wow, that was great." (Yes, I know, they are my > friends, they are supposed to say that, true or not) Thank you for that statement. One of the points I had made was, that most authors write for the fun of it, and not for the money that may possibly make (if an publisher even takes them). > I'm no more likely > to apply for a grant than I am to jump through the current hoops of > publication. So long it is not made less likely, its OK. > The fact that I can sue people who appropriate my work actually protects > _them_. If another writer were to receive a grant to muck about in my > stuff - without sharing his gains (ill-gotten or otherwise) with me and > getting my permission first - that writer might find himself on the > wrong end of a Sparrow with a baseball bat ;-) A question to you as writer: you have had fun having an idea and writing something based on it, now someone else has an idea (inspired by yours) and writes an derivative work based on it (say an story in an world you have invented), why do you dislike him to the extent of wanting to clobber him? Is imitation not the best flattery? Not to mention seeing someone regard your stuff as worthy of building on? Coming from an other creative group (engineering/programming) I have always been astonished at how artists dislike the idea of someone else using their stuff. This is because I do not get annoyed at someone taking an copy of my work and modifying it. My work is not destroyed by this, as all the other copies (and the design docs) remain. OTOH something new is added. I actually ask people to do so. Could you explain to me why artists feel so threatend by someone deriving something from what they made, despite all the copies of the original work continuing to exist? Not to mention the possibility of people who see the modified version inquiring who made the original and then go out and buy one. > Beyond having no legal recourse against another writer copying, using, > or abusing my work, And why do you dislike people using your work so much that you want an legal recourse to stop them? Could you explain why artists demand such an right, which any other profession does not have? And apparently most do not demand to have. -- 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 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: 03 Oct 2001 23:33:03 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 134 Message-ID: <6uy9msl88g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002144783 809 10.0.3.2 (3 Oct 2001 21:33:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Oct 2001 21:33:03 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53705 "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > > > I just don't understand why intellectual work should have so much less > > > monetary worth than physical (or psychological?) work. > > > > It is not that it has less worth. It is that ensuring payment comes > > at an lot higher price (in restricting others), which makes the > > entire desirable/not calculation different. > > Only to someone who wants to plagerise openly, Why do you call taking something and adding an possible improvement (at least in the eye of then one adding it) as plagiarising? That is in non-arts the normal way how this thing called "progress" works. Improve something and try to sell it. Just think of the guy who took the petrol motor and added the diesel method to it. Some people liked the new way, some prefer the old way. And no one shouted "plagiarizing". And no one sued. And the consumer got more choice. It works in engineering, it works in science. Why should it not be good in art? > without giving a share of > their proffit to the person who originated the work they are claiming. And why should that person have part in it? If the original work was good, it will sell and make its own money for its author. So he has nothing to complain. If it was shit it will not and does not deserve so. So he definitely has nothign to complain, other than his own crappiness. If the new is so much better that the sales of the old collapse, then the inventor of the old can also switch to the new method. No law would hinder him either. He may dislike having to reimplement stuff, but that is what all thi smarket economy stuff is about, getting people to come forward with better stuff. > > Note that this may just be a problem with todays IP laws being far too > > wide, but how to reduce them to non-harming level without them first > > hitting useless for their intent, I do not know. > > Simple.... Not at all simple. If it were there would be no discussion. Note: when someone starts a sentance with the word "simple" he is usually indicating that he has no logical argumentation following. It is called an handwaive, this technique. > A's work in creating something else, Person A diserves not only an > atribution, but also a share in the proffit, Why should he? He still has his original and can do with it what he desires. Justify your demand that others who want to alter/extend something should pay the original creator. > and also to be asked permision > to use the pice of work first. And why should he have this? Do you also ask the maker of something you have bought if you are allowed to alter it? Do you ask an chef before trying to cook something derived from what you saw in his restaurant? Do you ask someone who told you an (non secret) story if you are allowed to tell it further? > now if person A dies, all of person A's work goes either to public domain, Nope, allways to their heirs. In case of JRRT to the estate. > > .., you should not behave in a way that harms others. Such as > > monopolising an idea and preventing others exporing and using it. > > If you are capable of making income without such harm, go for it. > > You should always be asked permision, and get a part of the profit, for any > work that uses a part of your own work within it. Why should one demand this? I certainly do not do it with my works. I explicitely mark them that anyone can spread them and work from them to create even more. Hey cool... I even ask them to send me a copy of the additions, so I can use my established distribution channel to spread it, possibly saving someone third from duplication the work. And I may like to use the extension myself. > Also that part should > always be credited to you. Credit yes, it harms no one and is a help to someone searching for the original behind something. Sound principle in science and in customer service. > These three things are the three rights that are > protected by present copywrite laws. The discussion was not asking for an rehash of the law (which all here know), but about why the law is so and why not different and better. > Some people have entirely plagerised > whole songs from other artists, and claimed them as their own. This is not > art, it is theft pure and simple. Error, claiming false attribution is forgery (making false document) or fraud (claiming something to be other than it is), not theft (taking away an thing from its owner). And the entire discussion is not about an right to make false claims. It is about people deriving an work from an others work, the original question being writing an book that takes place in ME, i.e builds on Tolkiens work. -- 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 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: 03 Oct 2001 23:41:11 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6uvghwl7uw.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BB8F377.584C1CAF@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002145271 809 10.0.3.2 (3 Oct 2001 21:41:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Oct 2001 21:41:11 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53706 Flame of the West writes: > Hey Neil, have you heard that Universal Music Group is planning > to issue music CD's that can't be copied? They are about the fourth case I have heard of. This will just drive away customers, when these things crap out. Not to mention the costs of processing returns by irrate customers, as these broken disks work by being not readable on computer CD-ROMs, and quite a few people listen to music while computing by using their computers CD-ROM drive. Their main CD player being in an other room. Some people are setting out to deliberately get such CDs and then go for replacement "this seems to be broken", and then repeat until store gives refund just to get rid of them and the costs. Oh, and the first case is already out of an record company being sued for knowingly shipping defective wares, because they did not put an "does not work on computer CD drives" warning on the CDs. So soon all these broken CDS will have to be marked as broken. No sale. Instant customer loss. The musicians will love this. > Looks like you and I > will be boycotting together soon. Not just us. This is going to create an backlash. I am once again astonisched at the stupidity that managers are capable of. Customer satisfaction, what is that? -- 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: WindSparrow@webtv.net Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:04:13 -0700 (MST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 99 Message-ID: <22171-3BBC17FD-46@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <6u1ykkmo5g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAgIbd2l6Uo7psZBrFzHqcVAiksIoCFFjpfqxVks1kTxxNKofR1H6C/Cws Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53717 Neil Franklin responds: >>If another writer were to receive a grant >> to muck about in my stuff - without >>sharing his gains (ill-gotten or >>otherwise) with me and getting my >>permission first - that writer might find >>himself on the wrong end of a Sparrow >>with a baseball bat ;-) >A question to you as writer: you have >had fun having an idea and writing >something based on it, now someone >else has an idea (inspired by yours) and >writes an derivative work based on it >(say an story in an world you have >invented), why do you dislike him to the >extent of wanting to clobber him? Depends on who messed with my stuff, and how s/he went about it. Say a friend of mine, whose work _I_ respect, read one of my poems and, inspired, wrote another poem that was heavily laced with references to and echoes of mine. He then makes sure that I am the first person to see his poem. I read it, like it, and am immensely flattered. Perhaps later he asks if I am ok with him submitting it for publication. When he gets his $15 check from the small loca journal that accepted his poem, he takes me out for pizza. I would be cool with this. I would _not_ be cool with it if this friend made $100 off it without getting my permission and without sharing any of the money with me. Likewise, I would _not_ be cool with it if I thought the work to be somehow inferior or repugnant. This is, of course, one of the reasons I insist upon other writers needing my permission to use my work. >Is imitation not the best flattery? Why is it that so often things that are supposed to be flattering, actually make me want to throw up? Like the time a socially inept young man to whom I had made a point of speaking politely and occationally smiling at, asked me to marry him.... I told him I was flattered, but in reality I felt like throwing up. In regards to my writing, if James Taylor by some weird twist of fate got hold of one of my poems and asked my permission to use bits of it as lyrics on his next album, then paid me a decent chunk of change for the privilege - "flattering" would not begin to describe the extreme coolness of it. On the other hand, if one day while turning my radio dial past a hip-hop station, I heard bits of one of my poems being used in a rap describing the rape and torture of police women - "fury" would not begin to describe my extreme anger. >Could you explain to me why artists feel >so threatend by someone deriving >something from what they made, despite > all the copies of the original work >continuing to exist? Um, no. Sorry, I am far too lazy to attempt a long-hand prose explanation of the relationship between an artist and his/her body of work. Go read Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica". When you grok that, you will be a step or three closer to finding an answer for yourself. >>Beyond having no legal recourse >>against another writer copying, using, >>or abusing my work, >And why do you dislike people using >your work so much that you want an >legal recourse to stop them? Could you >explain why artists demand such an >right, which any other profession does >not have? After you have read and grokked "Ars Poetica"... the nearest I can come to an answer for you, is that art is a very soulish activity. If it weren't for the silliness I have been perpetrating in another portion of this thread, I might be tempted to say that art is analogous to raising children, then go on at length about my theories of child-rearing. Suffice it to say, that should I ever be "blessed" with offspring, I will receive _less_ kindly any unauthorized tampering with my child than I might with my writing. (oh yes, I know... my mate is more or less authorized, and teachers, and grandparents, and nosy neighbors....) One other thing, Neil: I noticed that you did not remark much on me, the hobbyist author, having to earn a living at a "day" job (which, by the way, includes getting up close and personal with human waste for less than $20,000/year), and paying even higher taxes so that some _other_ author can get a grant to write something "inspired by" my work - without my permission, and without sharing his material gain with me. Would you do me the favor of waxing eloquent concerning the fairness of this? Thanks, WindSparrow ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 04:31:26 -0400 Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3BBC1E42.3990BB89@erols.com> References: <6u1ykkmo5g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <22171-3BBC17FD-46@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYNStpXNe/CZBnVW3jUk1M6AptWMUad5GL1iXwPWc4XyvVAunQAHQ6t X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2001 08:33:02 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-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53709 WindSparrow@webtv.net wrote: > Likewise, I would _not_ be cool with it if I thought the work to be > somehow inferior or repugnant. This is, of course, one of the reasons I > insist upon other writers needing my permission to use my work. There's a cell on the Internet of people who like to write smutty stories about Tolkien's characters. They are the best argument I've heard of for copyright control. > Why is it that so often things that are supposed to be flattering, > actually make me want to throw up? Like the time a socially inept young > man to whom I had made a point of speaking politely and occationally > smiling at, asked me to marry him.... I told him I was flattered, but in > reality I felt like throwing up. You can expect to get one or more offers of marriage if you hang around this NG long enough. Take my advice and don't barf on your keyboard. It's really hard to clean those things. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 04 Oct 2001 23:38:02 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 160 Message-ID: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6u1ykkmo5g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <22171-3BBC17FD-46@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002231482 1268 10.0.3.2 (4 Oct 2001 21:38:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2001 21:38:02 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53766 WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > Neil Franklin responds: > > >invented), why do you dislike him to the > >extent of wanting to clobber him? > > friend of mine, whose work _I_ respect, read one of my poems and, I was more assuming any random other person on this world. Not personal relationships. There are far more people you do not know, so far more of them will be wanting to do something with it (assuming it spreads enough for them to even know about it). > I would _not_ be cool with it if this friend made $100 off it without > getting my permission and without sharing any of the money with me. And why do you demand from him (or anyone else)? If you use something (say, computer, car, house, magic ring, ...) you legally got from its maker and made a million using it, would you regard it as right, if that maker demanded part of your gain of using it? You made a million doing some e-business, now Intel wants half, despite you already paying them for the computer? > Likewise, I would _not_ be cool with it if I thought the work to be > somehow inferior or repugnant. This is, of course, one of the reasons I > insist upon other writers needing my permission to use my work. If your get something (see above) and decide to alter it, would you regard it as right if its maker demanded permission? You want to re-paint your car and replace the seats, Ford is allowed to say no? > station, I heard bits of one of my poems being used in a rap describing > the rape and torture of police women - "fury" would not begin to > describe my extreme anger. If you use your something (from above) to do something its owner does not like, do you give them a right to be furious and prevent you? Builder of your house disagrees with you holding some kind of parties, or dislikes you doing art in that house? That is the fallacy of IP: unlike with real property, which you as buyer have the full rights, to do with your bought copy what you want, artists demand an special right (ludiciously called property) that denies the buyer his rights to do what he wants with what he has bought a copy of. Justify this demand. Why should the world grant artists this privilege that no one else gets? > >Could you explain to me why artists feel > >so threatend by someone deriving >something from what they made, > > Um, no. Sorry, I am far too lazy to attempt a long-hand prose > explanation of the relationship between an artist and his/her body of > work. Go read Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica". I was asking for an news-post length explanation, not an long-hand prose. :-) And no, I do not have time to read the book. If I did, my "to read" pile would not be over 10 inches high. :-) > >Could you > >explain why artists demand such an > >right, which any other profession does > >not have? > > to an answer for you, is that art is a very soulish activity. So is every other creative job, including the engineering work that goes into every object you use and are allowed to modify in whichever way you desire. If you have time for an book: The Soul of a New Machine, by Tracey Kidder. Is about the work of the engineering team that made the DG Nova computer (in the late 1970s). Perhaps the only time a writer studied the creative process in industry to such an depth. > this thread, I might be tempted to say that art is analogous to raising > children, then go on at length about my theories of child-rearing. > Suffice it to say, that should I ever be "blessed" with offspring, I > will receive _less_ kindly any unauthorized tampering with my child than > I might with my writing. And will you also react unkindly to someone trying to change the direction of your (at some time grown up) childrens life? Say by marrying them, or by offering than a different career direction than you intended? In parenting there exist the moment of "letting go" of the ex-kid, now grown up. The same can be demanded of artists. The time of publication seems to be very analogous to the "coming of age" of an child. > One other thing, Neil: I noticed that you did not remark much on me, > the hobbyist author, having to earn a living at a "day" job (which, by Perhaps because I as the hobbyist programmer also have to earn a living at a "day" job? I have got news for you: Most people have to do that. That is normal! Nothing special at all. Not remarkworthy. If you want your share of lifes neccessarities you have to deliver your part of time to the production of them, the more of them you want the more time it costs. I have settled for 4 days working, 3 days for me. Some artists manage to buck this trend, but they are a very small minority, and it certainly does not present an birthright of all artists. > the way, includes getting up close and personal with human waste for > less than $20,000/year), If you do not like your job, get an new one! I did so also with my last one: tossed it, was out of job until about 1 month from being broke, and then got a new one. Life is what you make of it. Thats real life. Again: normal, not newsworthy. > and paying even higher taxes so that some > _other_ author can get a grant to write something "inspired by" my work > - without my permission, and without sharing his material gain with me. Guess what: I also pay taxes, also some of them go to stuff I do not use of want. The government here has just spent $300mio on saving an missmanaged to near bust airline, despite there being an worldwide surplus of aircarrier capacity and next to no chance they will do more than lengthen its dying. That is what tax is about: everyone pays their part, and everyone gets their stuff paid for. You do not like some of your tax funding people whose art you dislike. Others (perhaps even that same artist) dislike something that is your favourite tax expenditure. > Would you do me the favor of waxing eloquent concerning the fairness of > this? No less fair than what everyone else has to put up with. Why should artists be granted more rights and less unfairness than others, both at the cost of all the others? -- 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: 21 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: mcresq@aol.com (Russ) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 04 Oct 2001 21:38:49 GMT References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Message-ID: <20011004173849.17247.00001497@nso-ch.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!152.163.239.132!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53811 In article <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin writes: >> One other thing, Neil: I noticed that you did not remark much on me, >> the hobbyist author, having to earn a living at a "day" job (which, by >> the way, includes getting up close and personal with human waste for >> less than $20,000/year), > >If you do not like your job, get an new one! I did so also with my last >one: tossed it, was out of job until about 1 month from being broke, >and then got a new one. Life is what you make of it. Thats real life. >Again: normal, not newsworthy. Oh I dunno. One could take the human waste, throw it on a canvas, call it modern art, get an NEA grant for future such art, and get a copyright for the art. Russ ###### Message-ID: <3BBCEFFE.5284D641@worldnet.att.net> From: "Dennis L. McKiernan" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) References: <6u1ykkmo5g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <22171-3BBC17FD-46@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 293 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:26:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.83.102.89 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1002237968 12.83.102.89 (Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:26:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 23:26:08 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:53793 Neil Franklin wrote: > > WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > > > Neil Franklin responds: > > > > >invented), why do you dislike him to the > > >extent of wanting to clobber him? > > > > friend of mine, whose work _I_ respect, read one of my poems and, > > I was more assuming any random other person on this world. Not > personal relationships. There are far more people you do not know, so > far more of them will be wanting to do something with it (assuming it > spreads enough for them to even know about it). Throughout my career as a writer, I have received several stories from fans who wrote in my world, and universally they were dreck, rather like the fan fic you see on the net. As someone else said in an earlier message, and I paraphrase, I would hate to see my world and my work put to such a waste. > > I would _not_ be cool with it if this friend made $100 off it without > > getting my permission and without sharing any of the money with me. > > And why do you demand from him (or anyone else)? > > If you use something (say, computer, car, house, magic ring, ...) you > legally got from its maker and made a million using it, would you > regard it as right, if that maker demanded part of your gain of using it? In every exchange there is a contract, sometimes implied and sometimes in hard copy. And if it was in the contract that any money I make using the item, then I wouldn't buy or rent or lease it unless the cost-benefit were enough in my favor that I would decide to go ahead. > You made a million doing some e-business, now Intel wants half, despite > you already paying them for the computer? Ah, but that isn't in the contract. I pay for the computer, and it's mine to do with as I wish. I can crush it, destroy it, melt it down, use it to make a fortune, or whatever I wish, just as long as I do not infringe on Intel's (or anyone else's) intellectual property In the case of a book, I can burn it, read it, shred it, etc., I just cannot _copy_ it, for part of the contract I make with the bookseller is that I recognize that s/he holds the right to copy (the _copyright_), and I do not. > > Likewise, I would _not_ be cool with it if I thought the work to be > > somehow inferior or repugnant. This is, of course, one of the reasons I > > insist upon other writers needing my permission to use my work. > > If your get something (see above) and decide to alter it, would you > regard it as right if its maker demanded permission? It depends on what I do with the alteration. If it is for my personal use, and if the (implied or overt) contract I had with the seller allowed me to do as I wish with the product and I didn't go on to infringe on the seller's intellectual property rights, then the permission is already granted, as per terms of the item's use. > You want to re-paint your car and replace the seats, Ford is allowed > to say no? Of course not. Painting the car in no way infringes on the agreement between Ford and me. > > station, I heard bits of one of my poems being used in a rap describing > > the rape and torture of police women - "fury" would not begin to > > describe my extreme anger. > > If you use your something (from above) to do something its owner does > not like, do you give them a right to be furious and prevent you? They have the right is it is in the (implied or overt) agreement between us. In the case of intellectual property, the agreement is stated in the laws governing intellectual property. In the use of non-intellectual property, the agreements are also codified in the laws governing the use of that property. > Builder of your house disagrees with you holding some kind of parties, > or dislikes you doing art in that house? It depends on the implied or stated agreement between the builder and the house. For example, if you are leasing the house from the builder and you tear out the walls, the codified law says that he can sue you for recompense. If you own the house, you might have signed an agreement with the builder to keep the house as is, for it is being used as a demonstration home, even though you own it. If you own the house, and there is a zoning restriction on, say, putting up a ham radio tower, then the law will stop you from doing so unless you can get a waiver. It's all in whatever the agreement says or implies, and the laws governing the case. > That is the fallacy of IP: unlike with real property, which you as > buyer have the full rights, to do with your bought copy what you want, > artists demand an special right (ludiciously called property) that > denies the buyer his rights to do what he wants with what he has > bought a copy of. You do not have full rights over "real" property. If your rights infringe upon the IP holder of something in that "real" property (say, the design of that property), and you make a minor modification to that real property and then begin manufacturing it for sale, you are violation of the agreement you made when you bought that property, even though what you are selling is in itself "real" property. So, your rights with that real property are limited. (By the way, as a trivial example of illegal use of your real property, you buy a knife and cut some IP holder's throat. You had full rights over that real property, but used it in an illegal fashion. Ipso Facto, you go to jail is they catch you.) Instead of bitching about Intellectual property, why not create something unique on your own instead of trying to latch onto someone else's idea and using it to make your own fortune ... or better yet, why not create some unique IP of your own and make it available for others to create derivatives from? > Justify this demand. Why should the world grant artists this privilege > that no one else gets? Anyone who creates unique IP gets the same privileges as other IP creators, just as those who create unique real products get privileges of their own. > > >Could you explain to me why artists feel > > >so threatend by someone deriving >something from what they made, > > > > Um, no. Sorry, I am far too lazy to attempt a long-hand prose > > explanation of the relationship between an artist and his/her body of > > work. Go read Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica". > > I was asking for an news-post length explanation, not an long-hand > prose. :-) > > And no, I do not have time to read the book. If I did, my "to read" > pile would not be over 10 inches high. :-) > > > >Could you > > >explain why artists demand such an > > >right, which any other profession does > > >not have? > > > > to an answer for you, is that art is a very soulish activity. > > So is every other creative job, including the engineering work that > goes into every object you use and are allowed to modify in whichever > way you desire. As long as you do not use the modifications in such a way as to step on the IP of others. That is the implied agreement (backed up by the force of law) you enter into when you purchase the item to begin with. Look, you can do anything with IP (copyrights, patents, art, whatever) you wish as long as you do it for your own amusement and do not try to profit from it. People can write as many books as they wish set in my or Tolkien's or any other author's world, as long as it is for their own private enjoyment. So, no matter whether the property is real or intellectual, there are restrictions of its use, and as long as you stay within the laws governing that use, hey, you're okay. But step outside those bounds, and you leave yourself liable for prosecution ... whether it's because you took the muffler off your car and then got picked up for having no muffler, or whether you made a zillion illegal copies of some group's song and gave them away and got thrown in the slammer for making illegal copies, or whether you took someone's written work and modified it and claimed it as your own ... or what damn ever you illegally do with real or intellectual property, it's your butt that's on the line. Lawmakers in civilized countries around the world recognize the rights and limitations of both real and intellectual property, and they set the standards. Live with it. > If you have time for an book: The Soul of a New Machine, by Tracey > Kidder. Is about the work of the engineering team that made the DG > Nova computer (in the late 1970s). Perhaps the only time a writer > studied the creative process in industry to such an depth. As a member of many engineering teams (I spent thirty-one years at Bell Labs, one of the most creative outfits in the world), I can attest to the creativity that goes into the design of darn near anything. I can also attest to the enormous cost of R&D, and so I fully support patent rights and copy rights and trademarks, and so on. Hell, we wouldn't have half the benefits we currently enjoy if we couldn't protect those rights for a limited time in order to recover the costs of the R&D. The same thing is true of full-time writers (of which I now are one :)). The costs of maintaining a family are analogous to those of R&D. > > this thread, I might be tempted to say that art is analogous to raising > > children, then go on at length about my theories of child-rearing. > > Suffice it to say, that should I ever be "blessed" with offspring, I > > will receive _less_ kindly any unauthorized tampering with my child than > > I might with my writing. > > And will you also react unkindly to someone trying to change the > direction of your (at some time grown up) childrens life? Say by > marrying them, or by offering than a different career direction than > you intended? Not a very good analogy. Even so, as long as the children are minors, I want to keep them safe from child molesters and other criminals, just as I want to protect my IP from criminals of a different kind. > In parenting there exist the moment of "letting go" of the ex-kid, now > grown up. The same can be demanded of artists. The time of publication > seems to be very analogous to the "coming of age" of an child. And in patent law and copyright law that time of "letting go" is defined. > > One other thing, Neil: I noticed that you did not remark much on me, > > the hobbyist author, having to earn a living at a "day" job (which, by > > Perhaps because I as the hobbyist programmer also have to earn a > living at a "day" job? I have got news for you: Most people have to > do that. That is normal! Nothing special at all. Not remarkworthy. My "day job" is full time writing. If a criminal came in and took your day job away from you, or even if someone came in and took half your pay, I assume you would be perfectly okay with that, eh? > If you want your share of lifes neccessarities you have to deliver your > part of time to the production of them, the more of them you want the > more time it costs. I have settled for 4 days working, 3 days for me. > > Some artists manage to buck this trend, but they are a very small > minority, and it certainly does not present an birthright of all > artists. And when an artist (writer, musician, artist, dancer, actor, etc.) manages to do so, when s/he achieves enough success (through skill and craft and persistence and luck) to make it a full-time job, then s/he has shown that her/his art is thought to be and might actually be above and beyond that of the others. Now why should s/he allow her/his work to fall into the hands of lesser lights? Why have it turn into dreck by those less talented than s/he. And if you say that others are just as talented, and perhaps are even more so, then why in the world don't those equal or more talented lesser lights create unique properties of their own, rather than stealing from others. I know, I know: we all stand on the shoulders of Giants, but we only stand there when we can make it on our own. Most assuredly a splendid book is now being written by someone who is working full time and writing in their garret at night. And it will be published and become a bestseller. And it will be unique ... not an elaboration of someone else's work. And that's how one gets out of a garret and out of a "day job," or rather the "day job" becomes that which was formerly done in a garret. > > the way, includes getting up close and personal with human waste for > > less than $20,000/year), > > If you do not like your job, get an new one! I did so also with my last > one: tossed it, was out of job until about 1 month from being broke, > and then got a new one. Life is what you make of it. Thats real life. > Again: normal, not newsworthy. Right. Life is what you make it. My life is making intellectual property. ...... > No less fair than what everyone else has to put up with. Why should > artists be granted more rights and less unfairness than others, both > at the cost of all the others? All folks are granted equal rights under the law, if you have the potential and capitalize upon it. You too can capitalize on intellectual property, if you have the potential and make use of it. My neighbor could capitalize upon IP, if he could create something unique and it fell into that realm. The person down the street could do it as we, under the same conditions. So could you, Neil, assuming that you have the imagination to come up with the unique idea or story or invention or art or whatever. You act as if intellectual property law raises some kind of barrier that the common folk cannot take advantage of. Hogwash. Rubbish. Anyone can create intellectual property, if they have the intellect to come up with a new idea or a new and novel way of taking advantage of an old idea. After all, that's all that intellectual property is: something new and novel. And everyone has a shot at it, and not just a favored few. 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: WindSparrow@webtv.net Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:40:13 -0700 (MST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 161 Message-ID: <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhRZRi0nMyF9YiDzrBZhrBmTMOGiFwIVALRpc9Bmdjk1VCafa75GeytlgvaD Content-Disposition: Inline Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53776 Neil Franklin responds to my response (to a response to ... blah blah blah): >I was more assuming any random other >person on this world. Not personal >relationships.... True, introvert that I am, I know far fewer persons than I do not know ;-) Whatever the relationship or lack thereof between myself and any writer who would use my work as a basis for her own, the proper procedure is the same: Getting my permission and sharing the proceeds. I'm sorry, I just don't get why you don't get it, so it is beyond my ability to properly explain it >>I would _not_ be cool with it if this >>friend made $100 off it without getting >>my permission and without sharing any >>of the money with me. >And why do you demand from him (or >anyone else)? I require compensation from the friend (or complete stranger for that matter) for pretty much the same reason he requires compensation from whomever or whatever publishes _his_ work. >You made a million doing some >e-business, now Intel wants half, despite > you already paying them for the >computer? This analogy doesn't quite hold up to the situation I have been discussing above. I think the analogy would go more like this: I stole a computer from Intel, took it apart, messed around inside it, put it back together and then sold the thing and made a profit. Intel figures out who lifted their 'puter then sues me down to the lint betwen my toes and/or puts me in prison. A work of art is not equipment for another to use in a mechanical fashion. >That is the fallacy of IP: unlike with real >property, which you as buyer have the >full rights, to do with your bought copy >what you want, artists demand an >special right (ludiciously called property) >that denies the buyer his rights to do >what he wants with what he has bought >a copy of. Ain't nobody buyin' my stuff: But if they start shelling out for it, I for damn sure want a piece of it. And if you _sell_ my stuff (out of whole cloth or bits and pieces) without seeing to it that I get a piece of it... well, do you want me and my lawyer to come after you, or do you want me and my baseball bat to come after you? Because I will come after you. >Justify this demand. Why should the >world grant artists this privilege that no >one else gets? Maybe no one has thought to mention to you that art is qualitatively different from other kinds of endeavors, be they creative or menial. I'm sorry. It is beyond my capacity as a philosopher to elaborate. If you truly desire to grok that, you will have to find some decent philosophy text with a cogent foray into aesthetics. But whether or not you ever find an explanation that conveys the truth of it to you, it is a truth artists cling to. (And yes, I am well aware that I do not speak for every artist ever to inhabit this world. Some of them probably agree with you. But I'm guessing, and I think it is a good guess, that a good many agree with me) Painting a house with Sherwin-Williams exterior flat latex paint is _not_ the same as painting a house with Winsor-Newton watercolor paints. >>>Could you explain to me why artists >>>feel so threatend by someone deriving >>> something from what they made, >>Um, no. Sorry, I am far too lazy to >>attempt a long-hand prose explanation >>of the relationship between an artist >>and his/her body of work. Go read >>Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica". >I was asking for an news-post length >explanation, not an long-hand prose. :-) > And no, I do not have time to read the >book... Um, "Ars Poetica" is a poem. It is twenty-four lines long. Some of those lines have only one or two words in them. It shouldn't be too hard to find. I suggested it to you because in a short space it is far more capable than I of conveying something of what Art is that makes it so different than anything else. >>>Could you explain why artists demand >>>such a right, which any other >>>profession does not have? >>to an answer for you, is that art is a >>very soulish activity. >So is every other creative job, including >the engineering work that goes into >every object you use and are allowed to >modify in whichever way you desire. Only if I obtain it legally, use it for legal purposes, and do not subsequently violate patents, trademarks, and copyrights with it. One's soul goes into creative Work. I agree, and know it from experience. Yet more of one's soul goes into Art. My stuffed peppers do not carry the same amount or depth of my soul as do my poems. >> Suffice it to say, that should I ever be >>"blessed" with offspring, I will receive >>_less_ kindly any unauthorized >>tampering with my child than I might >>with my writing. >And will you also react unkindly to >someone trying to change the direction >of your (at some time grown up) >childrens life? Say by marrying them, or >by offering than a different career >direction than you intended? Well I don't plan to choose my (hypothetical) child's mate, nor yet shove 'em into a career of my choosing. If ever any of my poems becomes capable of making decisions, I guess I will allow it the same. >In parenting there exist the moment of >"letting go" of the ex-kid, now grown up. >The same can be demanded of artists. Why? Works of art are qualitatively different from children. They are not sentient. They are not setting out in the world to make their own way. Transferring custody and custodial decision-making from the generating authority (parent) to the now mature off-spring is not the same as transferring decision-making and profit from the generating authority (artist) to another artist or to the public. >The time of publication seems to be very > analogous to the "coming of age" of an >child. I can't see my way to that. I certainly did not intend for the analogy to stretch that far. Really now, parents do not have the right to shred their children to ribbons if they don't turn out as expected, yet I am allowed to crumble up and throw out any poem that does not come out as well as I want... Or do you propose to remove that right from me as well as the right to profit from my work? WindSparrow ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 06 Oct 2001 02:22:14 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 273 Message-ID: <6u8zepwrbd.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6u1ykkmo5g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <22171-3BBC17FD-46@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BBCEFFE.5284D641@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002327736 772 10.0.3.2 (6 Oct 2001 00:22:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 2001 00:22:16 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53842 "Dennis L. McKiernan" writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > > I was more assuming any random other person on this world. Not > > the fan fic you see on the net. As someone else said in an earlier > message, and I paraphrase, I would hate to see my world and my work put > to such a waste. Since when is a world wasted by someone else writing an text in it that you do not like? Is the real word wasted if someone does so? > > And why do you demand from him (or anyone else)? > > > In every exchange there is a contract, sometimes implied and sometimes [And so on, yet more description of status quo, no answer to posed question] And why should that contract be the way it is? I am trying in this subthread to find out what makes artists regard this contract as justified. Unfortunately neither you nor Sparrow are riding to the challenge. > > If you use your something (from above) to do something its owner does > > not like, do you give them a right to be furious and prevent you? > > They have the right is it is in the (implied or overt) agreement between > us. In the case of intellectual property, the agreement is stated in Again: the discussion is not about what right they have _today_, but about what rights they _should_ have. Up to now I have seen nothing that goes above " I have got it, so I have it, no need to justify". Are you aware, that there are 10s of millions of anti-copyrightists that have their target set on burrying these laws, and that unless copright profitees manage to put up an _justification_ for their privileges, that these are going to wiped out real fast? I am giving you here an test case to get your act together. Up to now you are getting nowhere. > for recompense. If you own the house, you might have signed an > agreement with the builder to keep the house as is, for it is being used > then the law will stop you from doing so unless you can get a waiver. Esoteric cases, not relevant to the comparison at hand. > > That is the fallacy of IP: unlike with real property, which you as > > infringe upon the IP holder of something in that "real" property (say, Again, special cases, and to bout such that also depend on the same law you have still not justified. > Instead of bitching about Intellectual property, why not create > something unique on your own To kill this non-argument in its infancy: http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/index.html.en 2.2MBytes of programs I have written (including my present projects, 2nd and 3rd from bottom) and 1MByte draft of an aborted book project (would have taken more time that I was prepared to put into it). http://neil.franklin.ch/Articles/index.html.de (in German) 3/4MByte of magazine articles and lectures, including petition text against software patents that got this countries delegation to take abstinence instead of voting for an extension of patents to cover software. > instead of trying to latch onto someone > else's idea and using it to make your own fortune ... _I_ am not at presently intending to do so. But I am defending others (such as Heaths) right to realise and publish the results of their ideas, even if these are ideas that came while reading Tolkiens world. > or better yet, why > not create some unique IP of your own and make it available for others > to create derivatives from? Of course, you (like everyone else) can download as much as you want from my website, modify it to your hearts desire, republish your derived versions, etc, no limits. I am not an anti-sharing anti-social egoist. Of course I would like copies af any additions, to add to the originals, so that other readers also profit from it. > > Justify this demand. Why should the world grant artists this privilege > > that no one else gets? > > Anyone who creates unique IP gets the same privileges as other IP > creators, just as those who create unique real products get privileges > of their own. I was not comparing IP rights to IP rights, I was comparing IP richts to physical property rights. Your line here is 100% avoiding the issue. > > So is every other creative job, including the engineering work that > > goes into every object you use and are allowed to modify in whichever > > way you desire. > > As long as you do not use the modifications in such a way as to step on > the IP of others. That is the implied agreement (backed up by the force > of law) you enter into when you purchase the item to begin with. And you have still not justified the custom and law that dictate that agreement. > profit from it. People can write as many books as they wish set in my > or Tolkien's or any other author's world, as long as it is for their own > private enjoyment. Which sort of defeats the basic idea of an story (spoken or written) being something that one tells to others, doesn't it? > So, no matter whether the property is real or intellectual, there are > restrictions of its use, and as long as you stay within the laws > governing that use, hey, you're okay. And now try an actually justify that law. Quick, before it goes away. > But step outside those bounds, > and you leave yourself liable for prosecution ... Nice description of obviosity. But not answering the question at hand. > Lawmakers in civilized countries around the world recognize the rights > and limitations of both real and intellectual property, and they set the > standards. And a massive and fast growing amount of people do not recognize these rights. Look at history for how long such laws tend to last. > Live with it. Of watch it being changed - soon. At the present speed of developments I expect to see the death of copyright in my lifetime. What I have seen so far in this thread has not given me any reason to revise this estimate. > As a member of many engineering teams (I spent thirty-one years at Bell > Labs, one of the most creative outfits in the world), I can attest to > the creativity that goes into the design of darn near anything. At least that. > Hell, we wouldn't > have half the benefits we currently enjoy if we couldn't protect those > rights for a limited time in order to recover the costs of the R&D. You seem to be entirely unaware of: a) incremental design, cuting up the work (and costs) into small portions. GBytes of Linux being the proof of this pudding. b) science, which costs just as much as R&D and also manages to live without IP restrictions of people turning it into usefull stuff. > > In parenting there exist the moment of "letting go" of the ex-kid, now > > grown up. The same can be demanded of artists. The time of publication > > seems to be very analogous to the "coming of age" of an child. > > And in patent law and copyright law that time of "letting go" is > defined. And now justify, why letting go should be not defined at publication. > > Perhaps because I as the hobbyist programmer also have to earn a > > living at a "day" job? I have got news for you: Most people have to > > do that. That is normal! Nothing special at all. Not remarkworthy. > > My "day job" is full time writing. If a criminal came in and took your > day job away from you, Such "criminals" are called competitors. Ever heard the story of how many people working in the horse&cart trade had their jobs taken away by an superior trade called cars? Was fully legal. And their attempts to make it illegal were rapidly wiped out. > or even if someone came in and took half your > pay, I assume you would be perfectly okay with that, eh? Guess what: if someone came and offered an better product and my customers were only prepared to pay half, I would simply go and find myself an new job. Perhaps even making the new better product. That is called market economy, out here in the real world. > to fall into the hands of lesser lights? Why have it turn into dreck by > those less talented than s/he. As the original work is not destroyed, you have now another thing to justify: why someone making something additonal is supposed to destroy the original. > And if you say that others are just as > talented, and perhaps are even more so, then why in the world don't > those equal or more talented lesser lights create unique properties of > their own, rather than stealing from others. Because the flash of inspiration gave then an idea that expanded someting existing? > I know, I know: we all stand on the shoulders of Giants, but we only > stand there when we can make it on our own. Yes. One of the few things we agree on. Now you have to justify why the giants are supposed to have the right to knock all those coming after them down. > > No less fair than what everyone else has to put up with. Why should > > artists be granted more rights and less unfairness than others, both > > at the cost of all the others? > > All folks are granted equal rights under the law, if you have the > potential and capitalize upon it. Unless you have an idea others have already had. Or you have an idea that extends someone elses. Then you don't any more in the crazy world of IP. > So could you, Neil, assuming that you have the imagination to come up > with the unique idea or story or invention or art or whatever. Go see my website and you can answer that question. Of course you may not even have the neccessary knowlege to understand the stuff there. So perhaps this Usenet discussions can help you: http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/alt.sys.pdp10/20001231_PDP_10_in_an_FPGA_chip_starting http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/alt.sys.pdp10/20010516_FPGA_clone_status_1st_milestone_reached > You act as if intellectual property law raises some kind of barrier > that the common folk cannot take advantage of. Hogwash. Rubbish. It raises an barrier that anyone with an idea that is similar to someone elses can not get over. -- 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 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 06 Oct 2001 02:54:59 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 187 Message-ID: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002329699 875 10.0.3.2 (6 Oct 2001 00:54:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 2001 00:54:59 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53843 WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > Neil Franklin responds to my response (to a response to ... blah blah > blah): > > >I was more assuming any random other > >person on this world. Not personal > >relationships.... > > True, introvert that I am, I know far fewer persons than I do not know > ;-) Whatever the relationship or lack thereof between myself and any > writer who would use my work as a basis for her own, the proper > procedure is the same: Getting my permission and sharing the proceeds. > I'm sorry, I just don't get why you don't get it, so it is beyond my > ability to properly explain it OK, I will try explaining the question for the umpteenth time: W H Y ? Why do you do you, as artist, demand this procedure? Why do you not accept the alternative one that allows anyone to create anything they want to? > >>I would _not_ be cool with it if this > >>friend made $100 off it without getting > >>my permission and without sharing any > >>of the money with me. > > >And why do you demand from him (or > >anyone else)? > > I require compensation from the friend (or complete stranger for that > matter) for pretty much the same reason he requires compensation from > whomever or whatever publishes _his_ work. So extend the question: why do you and he demand this? Are you aware that there exist many people who do not make this demand? Are you aware that those others do not regard your insistance as natural? Are you aware that they do not at all understand why an creative person would ever get the idea of standing in the way of someone elses creativity? > discussing above. I think the analogy would go more like this: I stole > a computer from Intel, The other fallacy of IP: equating physical objects with ideas. Physical objects can not be taken away (called stealing) without them becoming inaccessible to their previous owner. Ideas can be _duplicated_ (called learning or copying) and modified, without becoming non-available. So analogising taking away an computer with someone making an derivative work simply does not fly. At least not in the eyes of anyone who understands the fundamental difference if atoms and bits. And there are many today that do understand that, and their number is growing fast. > of it... well, do you want me and my lawyer to come after you, or do you > want me and my baseball bat to come after you? Because I will come > after you. Now if you could only deliver the reason why you would want to do this, then my (and many others) question would be answered. > >Justify this demand. Why should the > >world grant artists this privilege that no > >one else gets? > > Maybe no one has thought to mention to you that art is qualitatively > different from other kinds of endeavors, be they creative or menial. Mentioned yes, but no one has managed to give me an reason to accept this claim. > you truly desire to grok that, you will have to find some decent > philosophy text with a cogent foray into aesthetics. As I have writen programs myself, and certainly know that aesthetices is an important thing there also (at least for the better programmers), I fail to see why the aesthetical component of an program makes someone else changing it less acceptable. Of course I may dislike the new version, but so I dislike lots of other things. Still does not justify wanting an law to forbid them. > >>>Could you explain to me why artists > >>>feel so threatend by someone deriving > >>> something from what they made, > > >>and his/her body of work. Go read > >>Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica". > > >I was asking for an news-post length > >explanation, not an long-hand prose. :-) > > Um, "Ars Poetica" is a poem. It is twenty-four lines long. Some of > those lines have only one or two words in them. Oh, so short. I will look for it. > It shouldn't be too hard to find. First link in google: http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=985 I will revanche with an small text of mine: http://neil.franklin.ch/Jokes_and_Fun/Zero_Component_Machine Not quite sure if an non-engineer will understand it, particularly the feelings that get expressed in it. > I suggested it to you because in a short space it is far > more capable than I of conveying something of what Art is that makes it > so different than anything else. Well it conveys what makes an poem. But it does not convey why someone making an derived work destroys the original. Nor does it explain why an book written in someone elses imaginary world would destroy that world, to an extent that it justifies forbidding such an book. > >>to an answer for you, is that art is a > >>very soulish activity. > > >So is every other creative job, including > >the engineering work that goes into > >every object you use and are allowed to >modify in whichever way you > desire. > > > One's soul goes into creative Work. I agree, and know it from > experience. Yet more of one's soul goes into Art. My stuffed peppers > do not carry the same amount or depth of my soul as do my poems. At last something that looks like an argument :-). Do I get this right: you are placing original authors sensitivities above the later authors ideas? > >In parenting there exist the moment of > >"letting go" of the ex-kid, now grown up. > >The same can be demanded of artists. > > Why? Works of art are qualitatively different from children. They are > not sentient. They are not setting out in the world to make their own > way. In a sense they are. I assume you are not familiar with the idea of memes? > >The time of publication seems to be very > > analogous to the "coming of age" of an >child. > > I can't see my way to that. I certainly did not intend for the analogy > to stretch that far. The problem with analogies: they develop an own life. Quite like kids actually. :-) > their children to ribbons if they don't turn out as expected, yet I am > allowed to crumble up and throw out any poem that does not come out as > well as I want... Or do you propose to remove that right from me Why should I? Are you denying others the realisation their ideas by it? -- 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: WindSparrow@webtv.net Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 00:48:15 -0700 (MST) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Lines: 128 Message-ID: <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAuAhUAsgXd34w3beRc7iLasBqYnp+DjoYCFQCzw6/UOOS9NCa1R+wClCOVSkAuWw== Content-Disposition: Inline 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!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!webtv.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53859 Neil Franklin etc etc (you know the drill): >W H Y ? I guess it boils down to this: My work is my work because it is MY work. It was MY effort, MY time, MY skill (however poor) with words, MY soul poured into it. If I could get hold of YOUR soul and pour it onto paper, I probably would not mind so much somebody else mucking about with it. >Why do you not accept the alternative >[procedure] that allows anyone to create >anything they want to? I have a horrible wrenching feeling in my gut when a poem of mine makes the transition from my hand-writing to type-written (you don't ever want to feel the way I did when I saw how it looked on a computer screen). I once allowed my mother to type some of my poems for me. She got the brillant idea to give one a title, and put it on without talking to me about it first. Blech! I had the same feeling then as when some guy I didn't know cornered me at a party and kissed me without my permission. Mind you, I managed to explain to Mom how I felt _without_ grabbing the most sensitive portion of her anatomy and twisting as hard as I could, like I did with that ... male person. But I did ask her to retype that poem without the title. Considering how I feel about little editorial changes like that, imagine how I would feel if someone decided to really change things around? Before I allow someone to do something like that to MY work, I want to be sure that the end result does leave me feeling violated. Remember that my work contains bits of my soul in it. I do not think it is too much to ask, as a free woman in a free country, to have control over who gets to muck about with my soul. >>>>I would _not_ be cool with it if this >>>>friend made $100 off it without >>>>getting my permission and without >>>>sharing any of the money with me. >>>And why do you demand from him (or >>>anyone else)? >>I require compensation from the friend >>(or complete stranger for that matter) >>for pretty much the same reason he >>requires compensation from whomever >>or whatever publishes _his_ work. >So extend the question: why do you and >he demand this? Because we live in a market-based, capitalist, money-making kind of society. I get really _irritated_ at my day job when I bust my butt to get stuff done, only to watch my co-workers butts getting flat from being sat on so much, too. If anyone gets to make money off my effort, why shouldn't I get some of that money. The only way it would be fair for an artist not to share in the profit from the use of his or her work, is when _no_one_ gets any profit from the use of that work. Do you nag at the big publishing companies for making a profit the way you nag at me for reserving the right to profit from my work? >Are you aware that there exist many >people who do not make this demand? >Are you aware that those others do not >regard your insistance as natural? >Are you aware that they do not at all >understand why an creative person >would ever get the idea of standing in >the way of someone elses creativity? Nope. Completely oblivious. Don't understand poeple who hate chocolate, either. >>discussing above. I think the analogy >>would go more like this: I stole a >>computer from Intel, >The other fallacy of IP: equating physical >objects with ideas. I thought I pointed that out... that my poems are not equipment. >So analogising taking away an computer >with someone making an derivative work > simply does not fly. At least not in the >eyes of anyone who understands the >fundamental difference if atoms and bits. Um, no offense, but originally it was your analogy. You likened someone taking my work to use in their own work without my permission and without sharing their profit to someone buying a computer and using it as equipment in a highly profitable business. That one just doesn't fly. Being allowed to read a poem, is not the same as purchasing a computer. One purchases a computer so as to use the computer - and it is agreed upon by the vendor that the person who buys the computer will USE the computer. Use it as equipment, not as the basis for creating new computers without the permission of Intel nor without sharing the profit with Intel. I allow other people to _read_ my poems for the enjoyment of _reading_. Any other use constitutes a violation of the conditions under which I allowed the reading to occur. At this time, the copyright law backs me up on this, and provides for recompense for such violations. If and when the law changes, I will change how I allow others to access my work to protect it myself. >>One's soul goes into creative Work. I >>agree, and know it from experience. Yet >> more of one's soul goes into Art. My >>stuffed peppers do not carry the same >>amount or depth of my soul as do my >>poems. >At last something that looks like an >argument :-). Do I get this right: you are >placing original authors sensitivities >above the later authors ideas? Yep. Me and the copyright laws. WindSparrow ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:45:19 -0400 Lines: 32 Message-ID: <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYpLMXxLLYPbrFvTyvBZ/EZzjCrqmS1dmbUzST0a3V3Z3fmeElnGJxZ X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 2001 16:03:22 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!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53849 WindSparrow@webtv.net wrote: > I had the same feeling then as when some guy I didn't know cornered me > at a party and kissed me without my permission. Mind you, I managed to > explain to Mom how I felt _without_ grabbing the most sensitive portion > of her anatomy and twisting as hard as I could, like I did with that ... > male person. *LOL!* I guess that's the last time that cad tried that little trick. > Considering how I feel about little editorial changes like that, imagine > how I would feel if someone decided to really change things around? > Before I allow someone to do something like that to MY work, I want to > be sure that the end result does leave me feeling violated. Remember > that my work contains bits of my soul in it. I do not think it is too > much to ask, as a free woman in a free country, to have control over who > gets to muck about with my soul. I wonder if it's possible for our legal system to make distinctions between artistic expression (see Windy) and software (see Neil). I really does seem a bit silly that two such very different situations must be lumped under the name "intellectual property" and treated exactly the same way. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 06 Oct 2001 23:24:27 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 78 Message-ID: <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002403467 1175 10.0.3.2 (6 Oct 2001 21:24:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 2001 21:24:27 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53916 WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > Neil Franklin etc etc (you know the drill): > > I have a horrible wrenching feeling in my gut when a poem of mine makes > the transition from my hand-writing to type-written (you don't ever want > to feel the way I did when I saw how it looked on a computer screen). Interesting. [picture an astonnished elf, err vulcan, err ... whatever] It is an life form, but not as we know it. > I had the same feeling then as when some guy I didn't know cornered me > at a party and kissed me without my permission. Mind you, I managed to > explain to Mom how I felt _without_ grabbing the most sensitive portion > of her anatomy and twisting as hard as I could, like I did with that ... > male person. But I did ask her to retype that poem without the title. ROTFL! > Before I allow someone to do something like that to MY work, I want to > be sure that the end result does leave me feeling violated. Remember > that my work contains bits of my soul in it. Even more interesting stuff. > >So extend the question: why do you and > >he demand this? > > Because we live in a market-based, capitalist, money-making kind of > society. I suppose I have there an advantage growing up in an non-money subculture. > I get really _irritated_ at my day job when I bust my butt to > get stuff done, only to watch my co-workers butts getting flat from > being sat on so much, too. None of my co-workers would be allowed to do that. Boss would look to that. Looks like you really do nead an new job, if even just to get an new boss. :-) > The only way it would be fair for an artist not to share in the profit > from the use of his or her work, is when _no_one_ gets any profit from > the use of that work. OK with me. I was not interested in people wanting to _sell_ derivative works, just in people wanting to _make_ and _distribute_ them. > computer. One purchases a computer so as to use the computer - and it > is agreed upon by the vendor that the person who buys the computer will > USE the computer. Use it as equipment, not as the basis for creating > new computers without the permission of Intel nor without sharing the > profit with Intel. Funny, I am using this computer to make an new one: http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/PDP-10/ And frankly the only agreement between me and the guy I bought it from was, that I am now the owner of this computer. No restrictions on using it, like it is the case with any case of buying. Or did you sign some usage contract the last time you bought some object? -- 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: Ermanna Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 09:21:13 -0400 Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3BC056C2.3E7BB059@erols.com> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZ4b8WQDm0W4QSez0fW0EEnW2xAmLPsMWN3NsvbVtqR9G0f2jdXRZ8b X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Oct 2001 15:36:11 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!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:53919 Neil Franklin made dwagin-sized wripples in the Force: > WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > > The only way it would be fair for an artist not to share in the profit > > from the use of his or her work, is when _no_one_ gets any profit from > > the use of that work. > > OK with me. I was not interested in people wanting to _sell_ derivative > works, just in people wanting to _make_ and _distribute_ them. You are describing fan-fiction, are you not? By my older sister, there's plenty of that. My sister writes very good stories. > -- > 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 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 08 Oct 2001 00:52:46 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6uy9mngj0h.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BC056C2.3E7BB059@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002495166 2204 10.0.3.2 (7 Oct 2001 22:52:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Oct 2001 22:52:46 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54009 Ermanna writes: > Neil Franklin made dwagin-sized wripples in the Force: > > WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > > > > The only way it would be fair for an artist not to share in the profit > > > from the use of his or her work, is when _no_one_ gets any profit from > > > the use of that work. > > > > OK with me. I was not interested in people wanting to _sell_ derivative > > works, just in people wanting to _make_ and _distribute_ them. > > You are describing fan-fiction, are you not? Not neccessarily, at least not of the way fanfic is usually done, as short stories. I am more thinking of anyone who reads Tolkien, likes the world, and is inspired to set an story in there. Say like Heath wanting to set an story in the east. Or in the second age. Or the entire history of all ages from an Orcs point of view, say even develop the Orcs to the extent Tolkein did the elves. Anything. Could be a full blown story. That is of course what makes invention and ideas: their unpredictability. -- 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: tbarrie@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org (Trevor Barrie) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Giant ants are cool Lines: 10 Message-ID: <9prl3r$9it$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user1-76.gradstudents.utoronto.ca (142.150.176.76) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1002527044 21361572 142.150.176.76 (16 [90758]) X-Orig-Path: unknown!not-for-mail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!user1-76.gradstudents.utoronto.CA!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54093 In article <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >I wonder if it's possible for our legal system to make distinctions >between artistic expression (see Windy) and software (see Neil). >I really does seem a bit silly that two such very different situations >must be lumped under the name "intellectual property" and >treated exactly the same way. OTOH, all of Windy's arguments apply just as well to software as they do to, say, poetry. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:31:33 -0400 Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3BC1B8C0.4F975FE2@erols.com> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com> <9prl3r$9it$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZLbbQXK7blboOcM4kuuVrz8vLUP/SHT7PWJP7XwpUOO62Dmr8nHKjp X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Oct 2001 15:08:34 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!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54017 Trevor Barrie wrote: > >I really does seem a bit silly that two such very different situations > >must be lumped under the name "intellectual property" and > >treated exactly the same way. > > OTOH, all of Windy's arguments apply just as well to software as they > do to, say, poetry. Really? Windy makes clear that she pours her soul into her poetry. That's why she'd feel violated if anyone messed with it without her permission. That would only apply to programmers if they regarded their software as expressions from their souls. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-Earth. ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:16:51 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <6mn3st8de7ofclud9upid304c01oi3h20d@4ax.com> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com> <9prl3r$9it$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> <3BC1B8C0.4F975FE2@erols.com> 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: 16 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!feed.textport.net!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54103 On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:31:33 -0400, Flame of the West wrote: > >Really? Windy makes clear that she pours her soul into her >poetry. That's why she'd feel violated if anyone messed >with it without her permission. That would only apply to >programmers if they regarded their software as expressions >from their souls. Some do. (It's all the soul they have. Look at their product.) the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- Evolution is a harsh mistress. ###### From: Ermanna Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:31:09 -0400 Lines: 43 Message-ID: <3BC1FEEB.E5971002@erols.com> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BC056C2.3E7BB059@erols.com> <6uy9mngj0h.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYW0Qz3ALBuIOEV8lBAESv6zhUQqEgwT7v/ktU9TUUXGfivduL1soZh X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Oct 2001 19:32:39 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-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!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:54118 Neil Franklin made dwagin-sized wripples in the Force: > Ermanna writes: > > Neil Franklin made dwagin-sized wripples in the Force: > > > WindSparrow@webtv.net writes: > > > > > > The only way it would be fair for an artist not to share in the profit > > > > from the use of his or her work, is when _no_one_ gets any profit from > > > > the use of that work. > > > > > > OK with me. I was not interested in people wanting to _sell_ derivative > > > works, just in people wanting to _make_ and _distribute_ them. > > > > You are describing fan-fiction, are you not? > > Not neccessarily, at least not of the way fanfic is usually done, as > short stories. > > I am more thinking of anyone who reads Tolkien, likes the world, and > is inspired to set an story in there. Say like Heath wanting to set an > story in the east. Or in the second age. Or the entire history of all > ages from an Orcs point of view, say even develop the Orcs to the > extent Tolkein did the elves. Anything. Could be a full blown story. Sounds like fan-fiction to me. I've read some, and that seems to be the sort of thing that is written. If printed, a few of my sister's stories would be small books. In one sci-fi series we've stopped watching, the fan-fics are better then the series. > That is of course what makes invention and ideas: their unpredictability. > > -- > 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! ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:12:03 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 104 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54187 first I am not the same person in the conversation, but I think I have valuable input to this debate that may answer some of the pro-plagiarist's/pro-piratist's/anti-copywritist's questions > OK, I will try explaining the question for the umpteenth time: > > W H Y ? > > Why do you do you, as artist, demand this procedure? > Because the act of creating art takes more inner passion than creating a concreet product. Your aret IS you, it is not simply a part of you. > Why do you not accept the alternative one that allows anyone to create > anything they want to? > Stealing someone elses work is NOT creating something new, no matter how you try to say it is. A colage dosent take anywhere near as much creativity as a painting, or a drawing, or even a photograph, because the raw matirials you are usiing is the creative work of others, rather than truely raw matirials (here we concider paint, canvas, photographic paper, etc... to be raw matirials, as they contain no information until you fill them up).... Using another poets words by accident simply means that you came up with the same words, either because they are a cliche in your shared culture, or because you have a similar message to get accross, but to use over 10% of another poets words is evidence that you did it on purpose, as a means of lessening the amount of work that YOU yourself need to do in matching up words......This is called plagerism, or stealing another person's work. This is not creating something new, and thus is moraly reprehensable. The original poet diserves to be compensated for the part of your non work, that is their actual hard work (= > > I require compensation from the friend (or complete stranger for that > > matter) for pretty much the same reason he requires compensation from > > whomever or whatever publishes _his_ work. > > So extend the question: why do you and he demand this? > Because the OP created the work, in reality, and not the friend/stranger... or at least a significant part of the work. Recreating something is not as much work as the original creation, so the original creator diserves to proffit more off the creation, than the person who re-created it. > Are you aware that there exist many people who do not make this > demand? > Yes I am. They are called children, plagerisers, and non clip-artist. > Are you aware that those others do not regard your insistance as > natural? > Are you aware that many do not regard creativity as natural? Perhaps they are the same people. > Are you aware that they do not at all understand why an creative > person would ever get the idea of standing in the way of someone > elses creativity? > Nobody is standing in the way of anyone elses creativity... so long as that creativity is TRUE. It is NOT creativity to copy something that has already been done, and thus what you propose actuly takes away from the true creativity of the person who would rather make something derivative of another persons true creativity, in saying that they can be lasy, rather than actuly creating something entirely of their own work. > > > discussing above. I think the analogy would go more like this: I stole > > a computer from Intel, > > The other fallacy of IP: equating physical objects with ideas. > > Physical objects can not be taken away (called stealing) without > them becoming inaccessible to their previous owner. Ideas can be > _duplicated_ (called learning or copying) and modified, without > becoming non-available. > > So analogising taking away an computer with someone making an > derivative work simply does not fly. At least not in the eyes of > anyone who understands the fundamental difference if atoms and > bits. And there are many today that do understand that, and their > number is growing fast. > With ideas, avalability is not the question, but rather the act of discovery. the hard work of searching inside yourself to find the idea, which may never come back to you the same way again, unless you record it right that instant. So in reality, if someone were to take away your record of the idea, and alter it without your concent, the idea would never be accessable again in the same way. I'm geting tired of your retoric sir. Ive cliped the rest of the post, as it is too redundent, with you not understanding that creation of are is too personal a passion to not proffit from the exploitation of. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:25:20 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54180 > > computer. One purchases a computer so as to use the computer - and it > > is agreed upon by the vendor that the person who buys the computer will > > USE the computer. Use it as equipment, not as the basis for creating > > new computers without the permission of Intel nor without sharing the > > profit with Intel. > > Funny, I am using this computer to make an new one: > > http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/PDP-10/ > > And frankly the only agreement between me and the guy I bought it from > was, that I am now the owner of this computer. No restrictions on using > it, like it is the case with any case of buying. Or did you sign some > usage contract the last time you bought some object? > When you buy an electronic product (I. E. ; television, VCR, DVD player, computer ect...) from a retailer, Do you sign a warenty registration and send it to the company? I know I do. That is a contract, which limits how you can use that computer, if you expect the company to honer your right to have the product fixed if it should malfunction. ###### From: Tiffany Case Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 20:25:50 -0500 Organization: none Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3BC2521E.23CBA796@yahoo.com> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: person53705@yahoo.com NNTP-Posting-Host: t-7-180-130.dialup.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.doit.wisc.edu 1002590740 12516 144.92.180.130 (9 Oct 2001 01:25:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@doit.wisc.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 01:25:40 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (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!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54114 Ash ford Ward wrote: > > Stealing someone elses work is NOT creating something new, no matter how you > try to say it is. A colage dosent take anywhere near as much creativity as a > painting, or a drawing, or even a photograph, because the raw matirials you > are usiing is the creative work of others, rather than truely raw matirials When Marcel Duchamp turned a prefabricated urinal on its side, signed it and labeled it "Fountain" --was it art? Discuss. -TC ###### From: the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 9 Oct 2001 10:57:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3ac4908.0110090957.16f2ff61@posting.google.com> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.54.55.33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1002650245 19920 127.0.0.1 (9 Oct 2001 17:57:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 17:57:25 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54199 Flame of the West wrote in message news:<3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com>... > > I wonder if it's possible for our legal system to make distinctions > between artistic expression (see Windy) and software (see Neil). > I really does seem a bit silly that two such very different situations > must be lumped under the name "intellectual property" and > treated exactly the same way. Well, that reflects Neil's valid points in these reoccuring discussions: that corporations take advantage of copyright laws to make a profit. These laws were designed to protects artists, not so Disney and Time Warner can hoard the material and make a buck (rather, quite a number of bucks) from it by gouging consumers. ###### From: the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 9 Oct 2001 11:03:22 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 8 Message-ID: <3ac4908.0110091003.107210a@posting.google.com> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BC2521E.23CBA796@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.54.55.33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1002650602 20068 127.0.0.1 (9 Oct 2001 18:03:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 18:03:22 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!209.30.0.50!nntp.flash.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54193 Tiffany Case wrote in message news:<3BC2521E.23CBA796@yahoo.com>... > > When Marcel Duchamp turned a prefabricated urinal on its side, signed it and > labeled it "Fountain" --was it art? > > Discuss. > Maybe it was his way of saying he needed glasses.... ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 09 Oct 2001 22:44:23 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 124 Message-ID: <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002660263 488 10.0.3.2 (9 Oct 2001 20:44:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 20:44:23 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54214 "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > > Why do you not accept the alternative one that allows anyone to create > > anything they want to? > > Stealing ... > ... colage dosent take anywhere near as much creativity as a So you are calling all collagists thiefs? Hmmm. > because the raw matirials you > are usiing is the creative work of others, And putting them together is your creative work, the new piece of art. It may be less work that putting words together to make an book, but so is a photograph less work than a paining. Art is not in the amount of work, it is in having an idea and realising it. > but to use over 10% of another > poets words is evidence that you did it on purpose, as a means of lessening > the amount of work that YOU yourself need to do Or you did it for an deliverate effect. The new work requires it (say you are making an "what if" type altered story). And what about someone using 50% of an existing plotline, but writing all word himself? And in either case it does not diminish that the part you did is an work of art. And so long it is not the entire work of the other author it will not be harming him (so long people can not use your work as an full substitute for the original). > words......This is called plagerism, or stealing another person's work. By some people, not by others. Simply declaring "it is so" has never constituted an valid argument in an "how should it be" discussion. To demonstrate it on an today undisputed case: "there has allways been slavery" was not an valid argument in the "should slavery be abolished" discussion. > original poet diserves to be compensated for the part of your non work, that > is their actual hard work (= Why, when he is not being damaged? Compensation for non-damage may be something some lawyers dream of, but against the rest of societies views. > > Are you aware that there exist many people who do not make this > > demand? > > Yes I am. They are called children, plagerisers, and non clip-artist. You seem to have missed the meaning of that line of mine. I was talking about _authors_ who do not demand such restrictions on their own _entirely_original_ works. Most of these are grown ups, and are doing so. Are you aware of the existance of these people? Given how you missed the meaning of that line, I assume you are not. You may want to look into their world view. > > Are you aware that those others do not regard your insistance as > > natural? > > Are you aware that many do not regard creativity as natural? Perhaps they > are the same people. Unlikely. As the ones I am talking about are themselves creative people, often of the compulsivly creative type. In fact it is their attitude to creativity (everyone does it) that makes them regard the "IP is needed to encourage creation" argument as bunk. > > Are you aware that they do not at all understand why an creative > > person would ever get the idea of standing in the way of someone > > elses creativity? > > Nobody is standing in the way of anyone elses creativity... so long as that > creativity is TRUE. It is NOT creativity to copy something that has already > been done, I am not talking about verbatim copies. I am talking about derived (= modified) works. > another persons true creativity, in saying that they can be lasy, rather > than actuly creating something entirely of their own work. Creating an "what if" story does not constitute lasyness. It constitutes having an idea an working that idea out. > > The other fallacy of IP: equating physical objects with ideas. > > > > Physical objects can not be taken away (called stealing) without > > them becoming inaccessible to their previous owner. Ideas can be > > _duplicated_ (called learning or copying) and modified, without > > becoming non-available. > > right that instant. So in reality, if someone were to take away your record > of the idea, and alter it without your concent, the idea would never be > accessable again in the same way. I am not talkling about taking away an original. I am assuming the maker of the derivative work is taking one on many identical copies of the original and only modifying that one copy and then reproducing that new original. > I'm geting tired of your retoric sir. I am getting tired of you attacking straw men. -- 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 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 09 Oct 2001 23:07:52 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 52 Message-ID: <6uadz04j4n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002661673 505 10.0.3.2 (9 Oct 2001 21:07:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 21:07:53 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54215 "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > > > USE the computer. Use it as equipment, not as the basis for creating > > > new computers without the permission of Intel nor without sharing the > > > profit with Intel. > > > > Funny, I am using this computer to make an new one: > > > > http://neil.franklin.ch/Projects/PDP-10/ > > > > And frankly the only agreement between me and the guy I bought it from > > was, that I am now the owner of this computer. No restrictions on using > > computer ect...) from a retailer, Do you sign a warenty registration and > send it to the company? What is that? Why send it in? I need the proof that the device is still under warranty. They just need to see the proof when I demand it fixing, if/when it has broken. When anyone here buys something, customer selects it, pays (cash or credit card), the vendor writes the sales date (= begin of waranty period) on the sales reciept, customer takes it (product and reciept) home. In case product goes wrong customer brings the broken stuff and the reciept as proof of purchase date and place with them to the shop. Vendor fixes it or has it fixed by manufacturer or exchanges it. > That is a contract, which limits how > you can use that computer, if you expect the company to honer your right to > have the product fixed if it should malfunction. Huh? What dump do live in? Here where I live any manufacturer is required by law to offer warranty (min 3 months, but usual is 1 year) on anything they sell. Any attempt to limit it is illegal, as in cheating the customer, comparable with knowingly selling faulty product. That is called consumer protection law. The only contract here is that I give the vendor (and indirectly the manufacturer) an agreed on amount of money and they give me ownership of the agreed on device or service. -- 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: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 05:29:15 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6uadz04j4n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 68 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54286 > > computer ect...) from a retailer, Do you sign a warenty registration and > > send it to the company? > > What is that? Why send it in? I need the proof that the device is > still under warranty. They just need to see the proof when I demand it > fixing, if/when it has broken. > The warenty dosent start until you register the warenty... You need proof, you photocopy the registration forms before sending them in. > When anyone here buys something, customer selects it, pays (cash or > credit card), the vendor writes the sales date (= begin of waranty > period) on the sales reciept, customer takes it (product and reciept) > home. > as well as registration contract, which can be as simple as a 3X5 card or as complex as a 3 copy carbonised form. The manufacturers warenty begins when you register for it, Only the distributers warenty begins when you buy the product. > In case product goes wrong customer brings the broken stuff and the > reciept as proof of purchase date and place with them to the shop. > Vendor fixes it or has it fixed by manufacturer or exchanges it. > Corect. that is through the vendor/distributer. The manufacturer is bound to fix/replace faulty matirial by the registration, not by the purchase, and that registration is a contract which limits under what what conditions the manufacturer is bound to fix/replace the product. I. E. a television being poped open so you can see the electronics inside voids the manufacturers warenty, unless it is opened by a registered television repair person. > > > That is a contract, which limits how > > you can use that computer, if you expect the company to honer your right to > > have the product fixed if it should malfunction. > > Huh? What dump do live in? > > Here where I live any manufacturer is required by law to offer warranty > (min 3 months, but usual is 1 year) on anything they sell. Any attempt > to limit it is illegal, as in cheating the customer, comparable with > knowingly selling faulty product. > The manufacturer is required to OFFER the warenty (include registration forms with the product) a minimum of 1year (usualy 5) The warenty is allowed to limit unauthorised tampering with the products working parts (comparable to purposly breaking a product because you want a free upgrade) The reseller is also required to GIVE you a warentee without such contractual limitation minimum of 3 months usualy 1 year. You are completely confusing the manufacturers obligations with the resellers obligation. > That is called consumer protection law. > > The only contract here is that I give the vendor (and indirectly the > manufacturer) an agreed on amount of money and they give me ownership > of the agreed on device or service. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:07:30 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 124 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54293 "Neil Franklin" wrote in message news:6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch... > "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > > > > Why do you not accept the alternative one that allows anyone to create > > > anything they want to? > > > > Stealing ... > > ... colage dosent take anywhere near as much creativity as a > > So you are calling all collagists thiefs? Hmmm. > Not entirely. I'm saying that their actual creativity is less than if they produced the same efect without using the previous work of others. Also that when the artist/s who's work is being used as raw matirials is known, that they diserve both an atribution, and a share in any proffit that is gained from the final pice (which in the case of most collages is not enough to wory about anyway) > > > because the raw matirials you > > are usiing is the creative work of others, > > And putting them together is your creative work, the new piece of art. > > It may be less work that putting words together to make an book, but > so is a photograph less work than a paining. Art is not in the amount > of work, it is in having an idea and realising it. > Here is where we agree... Where we disagree is where the line is drawn between are and simple plagerism. Translating a work from one language to another to me is right on that line leaning tword art. Especialy if the work being translated is poetry, as you then have to come up with an inventive way of conveying the same meaning (or as close as possible) in the new language, without altering the rythm if you can help it. In my opinion translaters diserve atribution on a seperate page from the original author. However, simply compiling a number of works together also is right on the line, leaning tword non-art. If you aply this standard to other media, you will begin to see where I come from. > > > but to use over 10% of another > > poets words is evidence that you did it on purpose, as a means of lessening > > the amount of work that YOU yourself need to do > > Or you did it for an deliverate effect. The new work requires it > (say you are making an "what if" type altered story). And what about > someone using 50% of an existing plotline, but writing all word himself? > A plotline is analogous to a chord progression in a song, the actual words you use are the melody. as long as the melody is over %90 original, even if the chords are %100 derived from another song (there is a finite number of standardised chord progressions which make up the basic sound of any particular genere of music usualy not tampered with verry much from song to song) then no aligations of plagery can be found. This is not the same as using over %10 of a poem (very speciffic word patterns) or writing a poem consisting meerly of two or three lines of various already existing poems and stringing them together, without a single original word of your own. > And in either case it does not diminish that the part you did is an > work of art. And so long it is not the entire work of the other author > it will not be harming him (so long people can not use your work as an > full substitute for the original). > This is where parady laws come into play. They already exist, in part to protect the original artist from being mistreated by the paradyist, and in part to protect the paradyist from legal action from the original artist. If you have ever seen such things as Mad Magazine, Cracked, or various other publications which function primarily by making humorous comments of popular culture, than you know where I'm going. This kind of thing is encouraged in current law, as long as the original artist is payed proper compensation, and alowed at least to check over the work to make sure they are not being trashed completely. > > > words......This is called plagerism, or stealing another person's work. > > By some people, not by others. Simply declaring "it is so" has never > constituted an valid argument in an "how should it be" discussion. > Should and Could are words which invalidate themselves in any argument. They have no basis in reality, and are meerly subjective fantasies, which are not shared by all. > To demonstrate it on an today undisputed case: "there has allways been > slavery" was not an valid argument in the "should slavery be abolished" > discussion. > Slavory is wrong because all persons are created equal, with inaliable rights. This is based on Greek phelosophy, and later stated rather eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. The DOI may not be comon law in the US, but it is the document which gave the US her autonimy. A country made free by such statements can not ignore the self-evident truth of it. > > > original poet diserves to be compensated for the part of your non work, that > > is their actual hard work (= > > Why, when he is not being damaged? Compensation for non-damage may be > something some lawyers dream of, but against the rest of societies views. > They may be damaged by the context in which you placed their words, or in presenting a pice of their work at a time before they are ready for it to be made public. To use another persons exact words is to bond with their soul. If that bond is unwanted, then it is the same as rape. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:46:33 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6uy9msl88g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 124 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!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54296 > > > A's work in creating something else, Person A diserves not only an > > atribution, but also a share in the proffit, > > Why should he? He still has his original and can do with it what he > desires. Justify your demand that others who want to alter/extend > something should pay the original creator. > They shouldnt, unless they proffit from the original creators work, rather than meerly the extension. Say the original creator hasnt pattented eir idea yet. The person extending on that work pattents the final product, and is given credit for the work that was not their own creation, because that work has not yet been patented. The extender is responsible for profiting of the original creators work when the original creator was not ready to make that work public yet. the original creator diserves not only the pattent on eir own part of the product, but compensation for any damages caused by the extendor's neglegence to em. > > > and also to be asked permision > > to use the pice of work first. > > And why should he have this? > see above... Perhaps the original creator was not ready to make eir work public, or maybe ey want to make sure that ey are not being made to look foolish by the new product. > Do you also ask the maker of something you have bought if you are > allowed to alter it? > Yes if I expect the manufacturer to honer their part of the warenty, this is part of registration contracts. > Do you ask an chef before trying to cook something derived from what > you saw in his restaurant? > only if I were going to make a profit off the derived food. > Do you ask someone who told you an (non secret) story if you are > allowed to tell it further? > If it is not secret, then it is public, and can be told further. This is how folk tails grow and evolve. If the story were secret, I would ask to whome it can be safely told. > > > now if person A dies, all of person A's work goes either to public domain, > > Nope, allways to their heirs. In case of JRRT to the estate. > That was because he willed it to his son. Note also that I am speaking of improvements to the system, not of the way it is now. > > > > .., you should not behave in a way that harms others. Such as > > > monopolising an idea and preventing others exporing and using it. > > > If you are capable of making income without such harm, go for it. > > > > You should always be asked permision, and get a part of the profit, for any > > work that uses a part of your own work within it. > > Why should one demand this? I certainly do not do it with my works. I > explicitely mark them that anyone can spread them and work from them > to create even more. Hey cool... > But you request a copy of any changes. This is the same as compensation in your field. > I even ask them to send me a copy of the additions, so I can use my > established distribution channel to spread it, possibly saving someone > third from duplication the work. And I may like to use the extension > myself. > > > > Also that part should > > always be credited to you. > > Credit yes, it harms no one and is a help to someone searching for the > original behind something. Sound principle in science and in customer > service. > > > > These three things are the three rights that are > > protected by present copywrite laws. > > The discussion was not asking for an rehash of the law (which all here > know), but about why the law is so and why not different and better. > > > > Some people have entirely plagerised > > whole songs from other artists, and claimed them as their own. This is not > > art, it is theft pure and simple. > > Error, claiming false attribution is forgery (making false document) or > fraud (claiming something to be other than it is), not theft (taking > away an thing from its owner). > > And the entire discussion is not about an right to make false claims. > It is about people deriving an work from an others work, the original > question being writing an book that takes place in ME, i.e builds on > Tolkiens work. > > This is not in fact prohibeted by present IP laws. However I believe that the right to comercialy publish said work is monopolised by two or three publishers, who may be difficult to get through. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: 11 Oct 2001 00:33:42 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 68 Message-ID: <6ug08rktvd.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6995-3BBEB73F-359@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669sjwc4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6uadz04j4n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002753222 909 10.0.3.2 (10 Oct 2001 22:33:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Oct 2001 22:33:42 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54333 "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > > > computer ect...) from a retailer, Do you sign a warenty registration and > > > send it to the company? > > > > What is that? Why send it in? I need the proof that the device is > > The warenty dosent start until you register the warenty... That may be the case where you live. It is definitely not the case here. > you photocopy the registration forms before sending them in. Here there is not even a registration form to copy or send in. > > credit card), the vendor writes the sales date (= begin of waranty > > period) on the sales reciept, customer takes it (product and reciept) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > as well as registration contract, which can be as simple as a 3X5 card or as > complex as a 3 copy carbonised form. Or non existant. I have seen cards as you describe them - in an direct import from Japan, but they were also stamped by the vendor, not signed by me, not sent in. > The manufacturers warenty begins when > you register for it, Only the distributers warenty begins when you buy the > product. Here we only have one warranty. How it is defined between manufacturer and distributor, no one would care. In the end the distributor has to provide the interface to the customer. > > In case product goes wrong customer brings the broken stuff and the > > reciept as proof of purchase date and place with them to the shop. > > Vendor fixes it or has it fixed by manufacturer or exchanges it. > > Corect. that is through the vendor/distributer. The manufacturer is bound to > fix/replace faulty matirial by the registration, not by the purchase, By the law here it is the purchase that established my right to warranty. > The manufacturer is required to OFFER the warenty (include registration > forms with the product) a minimum of 1year (usualy 5) That may be the law where you live, but not here where I live (hint: not in the USA). > You are completely confusing the manufacturers obligations with the > resellers obligation. No. You are confusing the laws where you live (I assume: USA) with those in other countries (I did say "here where I live", which is a hint at being in an other country), which are not 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 ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (was Re: Question re copyright) Date: 11 Oct 2001 01:12:21 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 50 Message-ID: <6ubsjfks2y.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <1a59e6ba.0109070800.5412103c@posting.google.com> <6uwv2owcha.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6usnd6zz76.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9jnt7.480$N4.41170@news.uchicago.edu> <6u7kugzfc9.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6uy9msl88g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1002755541 964 10.0.3.2 (10 Oct 2001 23:12:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Oct 2001 23:12:21 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54334 "Ashford Wyrd" writes: > > > A's work in creating something else, Person A diserves not only an > > > atribution, but also a share in the proffit, > > > > Why should he? He still has his original and can do with it what he > > desires. Justify your demand that others who want to alter/extend > > something should pay the original creator. > > Say the original creator hasnt pattented eir idea yet. Huh? There exist no patents for art (which is what we have been discussing for the last 20 or so posts). Patents are an entire different kettle of fish (and already discussed in the thread that lead to this one, so I am not entering any rehashes of that). > work when the original creator was not ready to make that work public yet. Huh? The 2nd. We have in the entire thread been discussing taking published stuff and modifying it. What has unpublished (and so possibly confidential) stuff got to do with argumenting against that? 2 more straw men, methinks. > > Why should one demand this? I certainly do not do it with my works. I > > explicitely mark them that anyone can spread them and work from them > > to create even more. Hey cool... > > But you request a copy of any changes. This is > the same as compensation in your field. > > > I even ask them to send me a copy of the additions, so I can use my You misunderstood that line. I _ask_ for a copy (= tell the person I would like one). I do not _request_ (= demand, as part on an license). The person copyinging and modifying is under no obligation. I have just told then that I accept copies and like to do so (so it is worth thier time to send them). Pure encouragement, not force. P.S.: I am going off-line tomorrow, because of going on holiday. I do not intend to after returning continue this then stale thread. -- 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: p@shadws.DELETE.THIS.PLEASE.co.AND.THIS.uk (P. Ingerson) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:47:32 GMT Organization: [FI-ction] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fi-ction Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-119.clown-sweetlips.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 1002772107 3660 62.136.248.119 (11 Oct 2001 03:48:27 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Oct 2001 03:48:27 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!opentransit.net!wanadoo.fr!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54711 On that frabjous day Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:07:30 -0500, Ashford Wyrd said "Calloo Callay" and chortled with joy before adding... | | They may be damaged by the context in which you placed their words, or in | presenting a pice of their work at a time before they are ready for it to be | made public. To use another persons exact words is to bond with their soul. | If that bond is unwanted, then it is the same as rape. | Wait a minute. You're seriously saying that quoting someone's words out of context "is the same as rape"!?! When I was six or seven years old, I was raped by my best friend's father. It traumatised me for the rest of my life. Even today, after all this time, I'm still suffering from some of the after-effects of that incident. OTOH you could quote my words out of context, and it wouldn't bother me too muchall. As long as I had equal right to reply, why should I care? Perhaps you should appologise to all rape victims for your heartless lowering of our traumas to the irrelevant, insignificant level of mere copyright violation. ###### From: tbarrie@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org (Trevor Barrie) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:49:11 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Giant ants are cool Lines: 12 Message-ID: <9q3me7$53n$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> References: <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3BBF2706.C3BC35F2@erols.com> <9prl3r$9it$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> <3BC1B8C0.4F975FE2@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user1-76.gradstudents.utoronto.ca (142.150.176.76) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1002791644 22484171 142.150.176.76 (16 [90758]) X-Orig-Path: unknown!not-for-mail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!user1-76.gradstudents.utoronto.CA!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54798 In article <3BC1B8C0.4F975FE2@erols.com>, Flame of the West wrote: >> OTOH, all of Windy's arguments apply just as well to software as they >> do to, say, poetry. > >Really? Windy makes clear that she pours her soul into her >poetry. That's why she'd feel violated if anyone messed >with it without her permission. That would only apply to >programmers if they regarded their software as expressions >from their souls. Many do, to the limited extent that that's a meaningful phrase. ###### From: tbarrie@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org (Trevor Barrie) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Giant ants are cool Lines: 64 Message-ID: <9q3n33$57n$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: user1-76.gradstudents.utoronto.ca (142.150.176.76) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1002791645 22484171 142.150.176.76 (16 [90758]) X-Orig-Path: unknown!not-for-mail Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!user1-76.gradstudents.utoronto.CA!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54784 In article , Ashford Wyrd wrote: >This is not the same as using over %10 of a poem (very speciffic word >patterns) or writing a poem consisting meerly of two or three lines of >various already existing poems and stringing them together, without a single >original word of your own. The difficulty with using original words of your own is that nobody will know what they mean.:) >> And in either case it does not diminish that the part you did is an >> work of art. And so long it is not the entire work of the other author >> it will not be harming him (so long people can not use your work as an >> full substitute for the original). >> > >This is where parady laws come into play. They already exist, in part to >protect the original artist from being mistreated by the paradyist, and in >part to protect the paradyist from legal action from the original artist. If >you have ever seen such things as Mad Magazine, Cracked, or various other >publications which function primarily by making humorous comments of popular >culture, than you know where I'm going. This kind of thing is encouraged in >current law, as long as the original artist is payed proper compensation, >and alowed at least to check over the work to make sure they are not being >trashed completely. Surely you're not suggesting that Mad, Cracked and the like pay compensation to the people whose works they parody, and get their approval beforehand??? >> > words......This is called plagerism, or stealing another person's work. >> >> By some people, not by others. Simply declaring "it is so" has never >> constituted an valid argument in an "how should it be" discussion. >> > >Should and Could are words which invalidate themselves in any argument. They >have no basis in reality, and are meerly subjective fantasies, which are not >shared by all. And yet you use the word "wrong" later on, which has exactly the same status as "should". >> > original poet diserves to be compensated for the part of your non work, >> > that is their actual hard work (= >> >> Why, when he is not being damaged? Compensation for non-damage may be >> something some lawyers dream of, but against the rest of societies views. >> > >They may be damaged by the context in which you placed their words, If you're misrepresenting their beliefs, that's deception; it's a totally different issue from so-called intellectual property. >or in presenting a piece of their work at a time before they are ready for >it to be made public. We're clearly discussing what happens _after_ a work is made public. >To use another persons exact words is to bond with their soul. >If that bond is unwanted, then it is the same as rape. Good grief. As if the rhetorical excesses in this thread hadn't become absurd enough already. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 06:53:13 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <9q3n33$57n$1@giantantfarm.dyn.dhs.org> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 88 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54766 > >This is not the same as using over %10 of a poem (very speciffic word > >patterns) or writing a poem consisting meerly of two or three lines of > >various already existing poems and stringing them together, without a single > >original word of your own. > > The difficulty with using original words of your own is that nobody > will know what they mean.:) > I wasnt saying to invent new words, but to string together your own phrases rather than copying the phrases already used by someone else. > Surely you're not suggesting that Mad, Cracked and the like pay compensation > to the people whose works they parody, and get their approval beforehand??? > Yes, they do. I've personaly interviewed editors who work for Mad, and this came up as an isue that is verry important in deciding what goes into an isue, and what is left out. > >> > words......This is called plagerism, or stealing another person's work. > >> > >> By some people, not by others. Simply declaring "it is so" has never > >> constituted an valid argument in an "how should it be" discussion. > >> > > > >Should and Could are words which invalidate themselves in any argument. They > >have no basis in reality, and are meerly subjective fantasies, which are not > >shared by all. > > And yet you use the word "wrong" later on, which has exactly the same > status as "should". > Right and wrong is not a fantasy, so much as a code of ethical behaviour. Should and should not are a fantasy of what one wishes were true. Example; It is wrong to purposly cause a person harm. Should it be concidered wrong to be rude to people? > >> > original poet diserves to be compensated for the part of your non work, > >> > that is their actual hard work (= > >> > >> Why, when he is not being damaged? Compensation for non-damage may be > >> something some lawyers dream of, but against the rest of societies views. > >> > > > >They may be damaged by the context in which you placed their words, > > If you're misrepresenting their beliefs, that's deception; it's a totally > different issue from so-called intellectual property. > You do not have to misrepresent someone's beliefs to cause them damage by the context in which you fraim their work. > >or in presenting a piece of their work at a time before they are ready for > >it to be made public. > > We're clearly discussing what happens _after_ a work is made public. > We're discussing various resons why intelectual property is seen as either sacrosanct, or mundane. You are trivialising the argument by limiting the situation being discussed. > >To use another persons exact words is to bond with their soul. > >If that bond is unwanted, then it is the same as rape. > > Good grief. As if the rhetorical excesses in this thread hadn't become > absurd enough already. Are you saying that you do not pour your soul into your poetry? (if not you are not a true poet) Are you saying that blending your work with the work of others does not create a bond between you and them? Are you saying that unwanted bonding is not comparable to rape? ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:00:16 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 48 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54720 "P. Ingerson" wrote in message news:3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net... > On that frabjous day Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:07:30 -0500, Ashford Wyrd > said "Calloo Callay" and chortled with joy before adding... > > | > | They may be damaged by the context in which you placed their words, or in > | presenting a pice of their work at a time before they are ready for it to be > | made public. To use another persons exact words is to bond with their soul. > | If that bond is unwanted, then it is the same as rape. > | > > Wait a minute. You're seriously saying that quoting someone's words out > of context "is the same as rape"!?! > > When I was six or seven years old, I was raped by my best friend's > father. It traumatised me for the rest of my life. Even today, after > all this time, I'm still suffering from some of the after-effects of > that incident. > > OTOH you could quote my words out of context, and it wouldn't bother me > too muchall. As long as I had equal right to reply, why should I care? > > Perhaps you should appologise to all rape victims for your heartless > lowering of our traumas to the irrelevant, insignificant level of mere > copyright violation. > I'm not saying that at all. You are taking my words out of context here. What I am saying, is that there are many ways that you can harm someone by using a part of their artistic work within your own. One of those ways is to place their words in a context which makes them look foolish. When you create a bond, whether physical, emotional, psychological, or intellectual, with another person, you had best have the other persons consent, or the unwanted bond is a form of rape. You were forced into an unwanted physical bond with someone who you thought you could trust. That most certainly is a very difficult experience for you. I am saying that to be forced into an intellectual bond with someone you do not want your ideas blended with can be just as traumatic, but in a different way. Both experiences have broken the trust you placed in a person (or the public in general). ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:30:48 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <9l3cst8e2msgobkugtj44ebbk9ngam1ijn@4ax.com> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> 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: 29 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!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54979 On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:47:32 GMT, p@shadws.DELETE.THIS.PLEASE.co.AND.THIS.uk (P. Ingerson) wrote: > >Wait a minute. You're seriously saying that quoting someone's words out >of context "is the same as rape"!?! > >When I was six or seven years old, I was raped by my best friend's >father. It traumatised me for the rest of my life. Even today, after >all this time, I'm still suffering from some of the after-effects of >that incident. > >OTOH you could quote my words out of context, and it wouldn't bother me >too muchall. As long as I had equal right to reply, why should I care? > >Perhaps you should appologise to all rape victims for your heartless >lowering of our traumas to the irrelevant, insignificant level of mere >copyright violation. Please forgive him. Asshole Weird does not know whereof he speaks (or writes). He rarely does. He is dyslexic. It causes him to use meaningless words and phrases. He may sound rational occasionally but it is just a side effect of his disease. Ignore anything he writes as you would any other form of snot. the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- Turn on, log in, fight spam. ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 18:23:07 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> <9l3cst8e2msgobkugtj44ebbk9ngam1ijn@4ax.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 15 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!falcon.america.net!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:54804 "the softrat" wrote in message news:9l3cst8e2msgobkugtj44ebbk9ngam1ijn@4ax.com... > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:47:32 GMT, > p@shadws.DELETE.THIS.PLEASE.co.AND.THIS.uk (P. Ingerson) wrote: > Please forgive him. Asshole Weird does not know whereof he speaks (or > writes). He rarely does. He is dyslexic. It causes him to use > meaningless words and phrases. He may sound rational occasionally but > it is just a side effect of his disease. Ignore anything he writes as > you would any other form of snot. Awww softy. I didn't know you cared (; ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:32:05 -0400 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3BC6F0D1.F252E218@erols.com> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> <9l3cst8e2msgobkugtj44ebbk9ngam1ijn@4ax.com> Reply-To: spamkiller@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYkmAFY7nv3gAax7/TsZ7ytQ3urJSc0a5fdMYzBsRL/s5B/SaaaCKNL X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Oct 2001 13:54:30 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:54347 Ashford Wyrd wrote: > > Please forgive him. Asshole Weird does not know whereof he speaks (or > > writes). He rarely does. He is dyslexic. It causes him to use > > meaningless words and phrases. He may sound rational occasionally but > > it is just a side effect of his disease. Ignore anything he writes as > > you would any other form of snot. > > Awww softy. I didn't know you cared (; Congratulations, AW: you now qualify as a Regular. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: p@shadws.DELETE.THIS.PLEASE.co.AND.THIS.uk (P. Ingerson) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:57:41 GMT Organization: [FI-ction] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fi-ction Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3bcc9db1.28679759@news.freeserve.net> References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-222.picasso-trigger.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 1003276731 10483 62.136.219.222 (16 Oct 2001 23:58:51 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2001 23:58:51 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 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!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:55282 On that frabjous day Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:00:16 -0500, Ashford Wyrd said... | What I am saying, is that there are many ways that you can harm someone by | using a part of their artistic work within your own. One of those ways is to | place their words in a context which makes them look foolish. But that still doesn't cause anywhere neat the same amount of harm as physically raping someone. It's a difference of scale. | When you create a bond, whether physical, emotional, psychological, or | intellectual, with another person, you had best have the other persons | consent, or the unwanted bond is a form of rape. Again, I simply don't think this "unwanted bond" is on the same scale as an actual physical rape. | I am saying that to | be forced into an intellectual bond with someone you do not want your ideas | blended with can be just as traumatic, but in a different way. "Just as traumatic"? I find that hard to believe. Is there any evidence to back you up? E.g. have psychologists done any studies to compare the relative trauma levels suffered by victims of rape or plagiarism? ###### From: "Ashford Wyrd" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: OT: Intellectual property (Attn: actual authors) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:17:17 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <6uadz7rsqt.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <25940-3BBD1D8D-44@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <6u669twpss.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <6ud73w4k7s.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3bc515fc.130949827@news.freeserve.net> <3bcc9db1.28679759@news.freeserve.net> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 37 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:55324 "P. Ingerson" wrote in message news:3bcc9db1.28679759@news.freeserve.net... > On that frabjous day Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:00:16 -0500, > Ashford Wyrd said... > > | What I am saying, is that there are many ways that you can harm someone by > | using a part of their artistic work within your own. One of those ways is to > | place their words in a context which makes them look foolish. > > But that still doesn't cause anywhere neat the same amount of harm as > physically raping someone. It's a difference of scale. > > | When you create a bond, whether physical, emotional, psychological, or > | intellectual, with another person, you had best have the other persons > | consent, or the unwanted bond is a form of rape. > > Again, I simply don't think this "unwanted bond" is on the same scale as > an actual physical rape. > > | I am saying that to > | be forced into an intellectual bond with someone you do not want your ideas > | blended with can be just as traumatic, but in a different way. > > "Just as traumatic"? I find that hard to believe. Is there any > evidence to back you up? E.g. have psychologists done any studies to > compare the relative trauma levels suffered by victims of rape or > plagiarism? Physical rape affects people on more levels than the soul rape of plagiarism... I agree that there is a difference of scale. Both are still rape.