True. Unless it were perhaps a computer language.. Just curious.. does anyone have a copyright on Klingon?
No, sorry. If a government body is telling me what language I can and cannot use as a citizen who has not entered any contract, I feel that is unfair.
The first problem with that logic is that you are calling me a thief for defending alleged theives. By that argument any defense attorney is guilty of the crime the defendant is accused of.
The second problem is that the term "thief" is not well justified when no physical object has been stolen. In this thread I am a defender of alleged thieves.. yet you insist on calling me a thief.
Yes. I had a terrible business plan. You capitalized on my failure. That's what the free market is about. Next book I'm going to sell to a publisher who can compete with you, who gives me a good up-front cut, as well as royalties.
Yes. That's what I'm saying. Of course I know the current law disagrees on that point, but I'm arguing for reform. I don' t think these enforced monopolies are causing all that much good in the world.
?? I'm a thief, because I deny I'm a liar? Yes, that sounds delusional to me.
"Getting the information" means copying the information. Right?
I think the argument you want to make here is that it's ok to copy the information, as long as you don't sell it for profit.
However, as you know by now, I would still disagree.
:) Good luck stopping that. And why would you try?
You don't see a contradiction there?
--
>
> >> >Again, could put the property on exhibit for the court to see?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Certainly. An authorized copy of the author's work with yours
> >> sitting next to it and a statement from a psychiatrist that you know
> >> the difference between right and wrong should be enough to damn you
> >> as a thief.
> >
> >The authorized copy of the author's work was legally obtained. How is
> >that evidence of theft?
>
> ---
> It is to be used as the original work, against which your copy will
> be compared.
> ---
>
> >My copy sitting next to it consists all of
> >materials legally obtained. It is ink, paper, and binding. What has
> >been stolen?
>
> ---
> The author's right to not have his works duplicated.
You're saying I can't put on a performance of Romeo and Juliet? I
can't sing happy birthday? (actually that one is copyrighted) I can't
read out loud to a group of children?
I can't distribute copies of a text to students? I can't make cheaper
copies of Harry Potter to compete with the $40 tomes?
In a free market all those things would be legal. What's her name
might only have a few hundred million instead of x billion.
> ---
>
> >Plagarism, maybe. Theft, no. There's a difference between failing a
> >class or loss of academic reputation and jail time.
>
> ---
> LOL, plagiarism _is_ theft. And fraud as well, since you're
> pretending, by plagiarizing, (not giving credit to the author) that
> the work is yours. So we're back to not only are you a thief, but
> you're a liar as well.
> ---
Sorry, I don't think so. Can you name one legal case of a plagiariser
being sentenced for theft?
Anyway, my apoligies for introducing that term. We were talking about
copying a work and selling it, presumably including the proper author
listing. Fraud is a slightly different story we probably shouldn't get
into here.
>
> >> >Did I violate a contract that I had agreed to?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> In a sense, you did, but try not to be stupid, OK? It's not
> >> primarily a question of a contract, where you get to be a voluntary
> >> participant, It's a question of violating the law.
> >>
> >> Wanna make it OK to steal? Then get it legislated as OK, but in the
> >> meantime if you do the crime I hope you do the time.
> >>
> >
> >If you insist that reading is stealing, or indeed opening your eyes in
> >public (uh oh - copyrighted information entering the system), then yes
> >I am proposing that it be legislated as OK.
>
> ---
> I've never insisted that reading is stealing, and your lie that I
> have proves that you're now at the point where you're grasping at
> straws, trying to win an argument you lost long ago.
>
You insisted that copying certain information is stealing. When I read
(and memorize), that information is copied. You suggest that by
reading a book copied without express permission of the copyright
owner, I am stealing.
However, in no case was any physical property taken from anyone.
Anyway, thanks for your comments and keeping the discussion going -
shevek
The point was that if you're the author of a copyrighted language, then the government's position is that since you are, in essence, the owner of that language, then no one can use that language without your permission. Which you'd have to daft not to issue if you expected to be able to communicate with anyone in that language.
---
--- Defense attorney my ass. When you lie with thieves, and when you posit that the solution to the problems brought about by the thieves who infringe on patents and copyrights is to get rid of patents and copyrights, then it becomes readily apparent that what you're doing is self-defense.
---
--- When you maintain that breaking copyright law and thus depriving an author of his just rewards is acceptable behavior to the point that copyright law should be repealed, then you're not defending thieves, you're condoning theft and asking for the repeal of the 8th Commandment. I don't think that's going to happen.
---
--- You will, for good reason, never find a publisher who will work without a copyright.
---
--- You're insane.
The reason there's such a proliferation of information in the world isn't because of altruism, it's because everyone wants to make a buck. The protection, over time, afforded by patents and copyrights is precisely what makes taking the risk of making the invention or writing the play worthwhile, and those machines and stories are precisely what makes the world a better place in which to live.
What do you think the motivation would be to invent or to write if there weren't some hope of a decent return? Some pie-in-the-sky thank you note from humanity? Forget it.
---
--- No, you're a liar because you deny you're a thief.
Here, let me punctuate it so it's more readily understandable to you:
The _fact_ is that you're an avowed thief, have been presented with ample evidence to prove that you're a thief and, by denying that, you're also a liar. Either that or delusional. Simple.
---
--- No, it means assimilating it.
---
--- The point of my argument is that it's not OK to violate copyright law. Suppose you made a million copies and gave them all away. That would also hurt the author.
---
--- Perhaps, then I should agree with you and have you argue _my_ point?
Nahhh... You'd bungle it as badly as you have your own... ;)
---
--- Not understanding why is what makes you a thief.
---
--- That you can't is what makes you a thief.
---
--- Romeo and Juliet ids in the public domain.
---
--- Yes you may. If it's copyrighted you may not make illegal copies of the song.
---
--- Yes you may. You may not make illegal copies of what you're reading to them.
---
--- You may not not if they've been illegally copied.
---
--- You may not.
---
--- In your marketplace the original textbooks may never have been produced because of the lack of an adequate return to the authors and publishers. In your marketplace "Harry Potter" may never have come to light because of the lack of an adequate return to the author and publishers.
Who is "What's her name" and why shouln't she have X billion?
---
--- Sorry, you don't think so, what???
No. Can you name all the plagiarisers who haven't?
---
--- Methinks the gentleman doth complain too much...
---
--- No, reading the book doesn't violate copyright law, as far as I know. Producing it does. If you've memorized the book and you type it out, verbatim, you've violated copyright law.
Moreover, if you take possession of unlawfully produced material you may be in possession of stolen property.
---
--- Didn't have to be. The act of copying the material is what violated the law.
It's not at all certain that a language can fall under the copyright laws. A number of court decisions point in the other direction, one of which actually deals with an invented language meant for people to speak (Loglan).
Another court decision found that the equivalent of a spreadsheet macro programming language was not subject to copyright.
The copyright for The Klingon Dictionary is owned by Viacom, the parent corporation of Paramount Pictures and Pocket Books. Their lawyers once claimed that anything written in Klingon is a "derivative work" of TKD, but nobody has tested that particular silly claim.
There is definitely a trademark on the word "Klingon", and the *image* of Klingons is solidly in the possession of Paramount Pictures, but use of the language is almost certainly unrestricted.
-- Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist proud member of the Klingon Language Institute since 1995 qo'mey poSmoH Hol language opens worlds
A better trick with copyright law is to make sure that people are able to use the information (in this case the klingon language) without permission. Then, what you are claiming ownership of is more valuable. In other words, you're right that Viacom won't make a penny off their Klingon monopoly rights unless people are talking or writing klingon and therefore have a need for the price-inflated (monopoly) goods (dictionaries, etc.). So they should tacitly encourage some copyright violation. In a similar way, MS tacitly encourages some copyright violation. Without it, they'd have nowhere near the same penetration in the OS sector.
[..]
Are you accusing me of copyright violation? Maybe because I used a word of Klingon? Did I cut and paste from google groups? Please do tell why -I- am a thief personally.
Actually I'm not even aiding and abetting any alleged thieves.
OK, putting your information together we can conclude that Romeo and Juliet will never be published. Nor the bible.
Let's see some of that ample evidence. Name something that I have personally stolen. Or don't, and keep calling me a thief anyway. It doesn't bother me too much.
Would you care to make that distinction rigorous? Assimilated information can be recalled to what level?
That sounds like a likely scenario! Giving away apples also hurts other apple farmers.. should that be illegal too?
I guess I already commented on that.
Like if I tape my family singing it for example? If I sing it on stage and people paid admission?
formatting link
I don't believe it. $2m in royalties? You think that's money well-earned?
The adequate return is there. That can be proven by looking ath the many original texts and works of art that were made without the lure of a government protected monopoly. It can also be proven by thinking about the obvious ways to still make money with a good text even in a free market.
OK, here's an opportunity for me to express doubt in the party line I have been sticking to so far.
As a Harry Potter fan, I believe JK Rowling should be very rich due to the sales of her book. However, without enforced monopoly legislation, I find it hard to believe she would still have a billion dollars. In a free market, many other publishers would very quickly OCR the text and make their own copies, so it's unclear how much a publisher would offer her for a contract on her original text. They'd have a big advantage with pre-orders, but I estimate the price of the book for us would be about a quarter of what it is now. She'd be wealthy and famous still of course, but maybe a factor of as much as 100 poorer. What do you think? Does a world where JK Rowling only gets a few million pounds or so for her next book seem unfair to you?
I don't think there's no difference between plagiarism and theft. Of course I can't name all plagiariasers but I can name a few who were not charged with theft:
Chief Executive William Swanson of Raytheon Kaavya Viswanathan
--
Why is that a trick? AFAIK, copyright law doesn't prohibit the
dissemination or use of information gained by assimilating
copyrighted material unless that dissemination takes the form of
copying a document and distributing it without permission.
In the case of flavoured water with famous name there is no patent protection on the material itself, anybody is allowed to make similar products. Many have done that, think of Pepsi.
But the customer has the right to know what product he is buying. Hence it is not allowed to place the label "Coca Cola" onto your homebrew and sell it. After all, if your customers get intestinal problems from your product, they should sue you, and not Coca cola. That is what we have rules about trade names and brands for.
It also allows companies to achieve a reputation for their products and then claim a higher price, because customers have learned to trust them.
On 29 Apr 2006 10:21:43 -0700, cs snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com Gave us:
No so different at all.
It would still boil down to IP. It took intelligence to create the symbol.
Copyright is copyright, whether it refers to a hard design, a trademark, or even merely an idea.
In systems integration, one doesn't sell the gear in the system, one sells one's capacity to set up a system capable of getting the task done.
When the systems cost millions of dollars each, the gear is a different end of it. They come from several makers. The systems integrator company sells their expertise in assembling an integrated solution for the task required.
That is an idea. So is software that integrates the functions of a computer and its peripherals into performing a task. That too is an idea that has been assembled into a tool for folks to repeat the functions need to perform the task that the idea was meant to solve.
You don't get to steal it.
Pretty soon, all software will be hard keyed. Again.
We won't be thwarting it with any great ease this time either.
Bye bye pirate retard market.
Say hello to better internet access when all the bandwidth is no longer being wasted by these idiots and their ISO image ULs and DLs.
Copyright doe NOT refer to ideas. A trademark is also different from a copyright (though a trade mark CAN be a copyrighted logo).
For example, a rope manufacturer has a trademark: a black line woven in every rope. Is a single black line something that can be copyrighted? Bet not.
A piece of classical music can be a trade mark for something. Is the copyright exhausted on that? Yes. Can the trade mark be valid still? Yes.
Trade marks are about selling. If you do not sell, they do not apply. But they are protected as long as they are in use (while patents and copyrights expire). Trade mark law does not apply when I give someone a DVD.
For the different "IP" types there are diffeent rules - with a reason. And they don't mix.
You get to steal this one often! It might not be advisable, but a sales person selling you the right equipment invests time and knowledge. Can you buy it cheaper next time mail-order? Of course.
Most software will be free. The paid-for software tries to extract more and more of the existing customer base, to meet investor growth demand (which is not sustainable). So the customers will run away.
On 9 May 2006 02:34:10 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com Gave us:
That is where you are being an idiot. Designing a delivery package that has protections built into it has NOTHING to do with copyrighting the product to begin with.
This is where you further the proof of your stupidity.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.