In <95127.034431U58563@uicvm.uic.edu>
Of course it isn't; that's why the court held that it wasn't.
>About just why it is that radio stations are allowed to broadcast music to
The radio stations pay royalties on the music they play, or they have
>you think it would be fair to have the stormtroopers shut down the radio
Haven't you been following the fight against the CDA? It's NOT in fact
>the odd little irregularity that a library can send you a photocopy of a
>the volumes of Biological Abstracts is now FORBIDDEN to allow random incomers
...except that you were paid for thinking up those ideas on behalf of
> And if copyrights are bad, you should see patents! People patenting genes
...except that the patents usually pertain to the often unique and difficult
> "Intellectual property" was originally created as a form of this, to reward
Bzzzt. Intellectual property was originally created as a way of saying,
>both tax and disbursement, for the "public good". Because, after all, it is
[1] Ideas are intellectual property.
From this you conclude
[5] Everybody uses everyone else's ideas
which is ludicrous in itself. You can't copy somebody's book word for word
> But if it is an excuse for shutting down the Net, for throttling research
Well, see, the thing is, copyrights and patents encourage idea holders
> Even more so, we should consider the -infinite- inefficiency of allowing
What mechanism, pray tell?
>The current state-imposed "capitalism", in a field where it does NOT reflect
My ideology says "thou shalt not kill."
>P.S. Since the U.S. population gleefully condones forcible rape in prisons,
Find the fallacy!
[1] All U.S. Citizens condone "forcible rape" (as opposed to consensual
Let's see. I guess it's valid, but it sure as hell ain't sound.
Would you rather the AIDS-infected rapists were let out to live in your town?
You should, perhaps, take an introductory logic or philosophy course.
>whether having a picture of a trash can on a "desktop" is a criminal
>infringement to be -outlawed- to the inconvenience of millions of PC users.
>millions of listeners in Chicago, but for Netters it is illegal... and whether
dispensation from the music owners to play it anyway. If 'netters wanted to
pay the appropriate royalties, I' sure it could be arranged.
>stations someday. About whether the computer that carries a newsgroup should
>be held liable for copying the message that happens to violate "copyright" ---
>and if not, why a completely open FTP site should be any more liable! About
currently illegal. Perhaps you need to read up on the U.S. Code.
Try
>scientific paper under "fair use", but the same service on-line is not to be
>tolerated! Or how it is that a library that once offered open access to all
>to access the same thing on-line --- they MUST require some identification crap
>to make sure you're a student. If you work for a technical company and try to
>start another you may find that EVEN WHAT IS IN YOUR OWN HEAD is "owned" by
>somebody else! "intellectual property"? Intellectual SLAVERY!
someone else. The concepts you develop while on company time, in the
course of doing your job, are definitely within the company's interest.
>in YOUR body, patenting whole classes of enzymes from entire KINGDOMS of life,
>patenting the RIGHT to make genetically improved cotton or soybeans... while
>at the same time, developing countries are entitled to -nothing- for the
>information in the natural organisms or traditional agricultural strains from
>which genes will later be patented.
methods of extraction, purification, and replication. Developing countries
have every right to refuse to let researchers in, or develop their own
genetics labs.
>the inventor with profits he can take from the users by royalties. Hence it is
"The inventor deserves some credit." It means that you can't come along
ad duplicate someone else's idea and take the credit, and the profit, for
it. It's quite fair. The person who thinks of an idea first, gets the
right to the profits from it -for a limited time-.
>-ludicrous- to think that people who talk in English about well-worn topics
>are not in some way, vaguely, copying someone else's work --- "intellectual
>property" is a fallacy, a fantasy, except in terms of this very specific form
>of taxation.
[2] Intellectual property is restricted by law, such that only the original
thinker may use it without dispensation.
[3] Everybody has ideas.
[4] Some people's ideas refer to the ideas of other people, or duplicate the
ideas of others.
[6] Everybody breaks the law
and sell it. You can't copy somebody's book and claim you wrote it.
You -can- copy parts of someone else's work, attribute it, and comment upon
it, critique it, or use it as part of a teaching exercise, and you don't
need permission to do so, and you don't need to pay anyone to do it. It's
called "Fair Use," and it's a very clear part of the Copyright Law.
>efforts in wide areas, for lawyer frenzies at the expense of everyone else,
>then the original proposition --- that it is for the public good --- is
>refuted.
to publicize their work, because it means the work can't legally be
plagarized. I have yet to see anyone suggest shutting down the net
or throttle research efforts. You're engaging in hyperbole.
>only a tenth of a percent of people to use some piece of information when ALL
>could use it, if the inventor gained his income by some other mechanism.
>reality, is even more inefficient and potentially more intrusive (if enforced)
>than state-imposed "communism". It is an effort to impose IDEOLOGY upon what
>SHOULD be a free society where everyone would make his own choice.
In a free society, everyone can make their own choices.
In your idea of a free society, it should be okay to commit murder,
because the concept of "murder" is only an intrusive imposition of mass
ideology by the state upon society.
There is a reason for laws, which appears to elude you.
>and a high proportion of the prison population has AIDS, and there is a 1/3
>chance of an inmate being raped in a given year... the effect of one of these
>legislator's-paw sentence terms is not dissimilar from stoning.
rape, I suppose) in prisons.
[2] Most prisoners have AIDS.
[3] 1 in 3 prisoners will be raped in any year.
[4] (Implicit) most prisoners will get AIDs if they don't already have it
[5] (Implicit) Most people who have AIDS die
[6] Conclusion: All U.S. citizens are immoral murderers because they condone
sending people to jail where they will probably die of AIDS.
I strongly doubt that [1] is true at all, and I dare you to prove that it is.
[2] is debatable. I'll stipulate [3] for now. Since [1] isn't true,
you can't blame U.S. citizens for AIDS deaths in prisons. For that
matter, you can hardly blame society for the fact that some people rape.
--
--Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]