was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.
In school , i NEVER ever though , i would be using Ayn Rand , to support a point ,, like is strange :
"Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all ++property rights++: a man’s right to the product of his mind." ~ Ayn Rand.
[[ full quote @ http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html . OK , I am not posting the full quote this time , just a fair use excerpt ,, OK ?? Everybody HAPPY ?? Smile please. :) ]]
----------------------------------
Everybody agrees that "property rights" are MORAL Rights. John Locke [and me too] , hold that "property rights" do extend also into, and stem from , NATURAL RIGHTS.
Remember , you must hold by a " Living singular G-d" (or Pantheism) , to accept NATURAL RIGHTS.
If you are a G-D-less heathen -- some of my best friends and relatives are :) --- than Natural rights CANNOT BE in you lexicon.
And I ASK :: If you are a "poly-theist" can you hold by NATURAL Rights?? Only if your "Poly's" agree on that point. Zeus could be against copyright. Apollo for it. Thus it would not be a Natural Right, as the Poly-s are in dispute.
[ "6 am philosophy" ,, uuuugh ,, "Poly want a cracker ?"]
but then infringed copyrights for no other reason other than the fact he could.
NO. I "fair used " and did not infringe copyrights,, for no other reason other than the fact, THAT I could prove a point in doing so.
Techdirt has no Posting policy posted !
Who is the legal onus on, if a poster brakes the law . repeatedly ,, w/o comment from Moderator Mike -- AS I have posted full articles or extensive excerpts much here , for the last several weeks----
who exactly is Liable in such case.>>>MY POINT !!
It won't come to that. I always respect house rules.
But where is the techdirt posting policy , where this is spelled out?
Academically speaking ,, ONLY : If AP sued me,, I would ask that you be joined as a defendant with me,as I did see not posting policy displayed here at techdirt, and i looked .
( I would not sue you , but claim you are equally liable , IF you and /or I broke some fair use law.)
Again method to madness, pushing the envelope.. i have been hoping to get into this point of conversation -- thus the full article posts.
( I always play fair ,, but shrewdly so .)
Re: Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
no I am pushing the envolpe.
Academic Fair Use or factual journalism ,, is a very different animal that "Artist Rights" and full conrol of un-fair-re-use.
But not that my point is illustrated--- I mean I have been posting articles for weeks ,, why now do you speak up?--
I will just post the relative/needed excerpts.
I still thing we both would have a good case with any AP complaint , and i for one would welcome a chat with their lawyers , on the matter, to seek illumination & compromise , but not conflict .
Re: Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
# The New York Times
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
p.s . I thinks cited us of AP , is fair use here,, even legally , as the law stands,, as techdirt is an educational site ? right?
While you do have ads, I still think in our posts here , fair use citation of complete articles ,, with full links , is ok , under the current law.
Maybe not. Interesting case , either way. I would litigate it. Seriously.
And again, you claimed the constitutional clause had to do with the moral rights of authors specifically.
ANS : sorry you are wrong. You totally mis-understand that Laws stem for moral viewpoints. It is a "Basic accepted Political Theory" , that ALL laws stem for moral viewpoints.
--------------------------------------
Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
MIKE :and THEN you post an ENTIRE copyrighted article on our site -- opening us up to liability for infringement?
ME : Method to madness.. Now I get to ask you ,, Mile ,, would you Mike ,, fight the lawsuit ? On Principle ? You seem to hold it would be ok to post the full article according to your Copyright Dogma ..Mike.
But , yes Sir , this is indeed your house @ techdirt ,, so if you really want ,, I will only post "fair use " excerpts from here on.
"The American rock ’n’ roll story “Memphis” won the Tony Award for best musical on Sunday night"
---------------------
ME : David Bryan Rashbaum (--- Memphis songwriter and Bon Jovi keyboardist and founding bandmember---) ---is my first cousin Bruce's ( our mom are sisters) ---- Bruce is first cousin of David ( their Dads are bothers), we know each other since early childhood
Congrats DAVID !!!
(((( In 1982 ,, I am sitting next to David at our common cousin Bruce's wedding, and we is talking music ,, me my first Green Village gig just started ,, and David is telling me ,,how Tom Petty , is helping "the unsigned" at the time Bon Jovi score a good record deal. I thought "yeah , right , good luck" , and drank some more wine. The next time we saw each other , at my Parents house in 1987 , Bon Jovi ruled planet earth musically. AND ,, Now that David has a Tony:
I can hear my Mom and Aunt already ,, "David has a Tony and a Grammy ,, why don't you ? huh , your just the family Rabbi. ( Mom and Dad are visiting next week to NYC for a family wedding,, uuuuugh.) )))
If you want to closely guard your music, I guess you should keep it to yourself.
I know , i have more that a few original songs ,, never play in public, as i am saving them , for my coffee & ukulele date with a Beatle. ( ,,,the "cute one" -- Ringo.).
Some of my songs, i just do not want out there. Others because they already have had enough public exposure, i do play , cause the copyright is safe and sound,, though if you try to film me playing an original song , w/o my permission,, i will get very angry.
Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:
MIKE "Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:"
ME : I am not sure what "direct quest"
If you mean the Newspaper ad one :
I did here again:
MIKE :"Question, TP: do you think it's illegal or unfair for a car company to buy an ad in a newspaper next to the classified listings for car dealers?."
ME ::: Ask a lawyer who deals with it, MM.
Ask a sitting judge , also. Get back to me.
I follow the lead of my teachers, mentors , spiritual masters.
I do not invent to arguments , i post here.
They are strait out of any Political theory class and/or textbook
But, on your question-- which is irrelevant to copy law ---- my educated guess it is the newspaper's call, and the AMERICAN law is neutral on the point.
But I may be wrong , as I am only answering of the top of my head w/o research. If you have any sources on a good discourse on the topic , i will gladly read it carefully. Then ask some law professors and/or sitting judges, that I know personally, and get back to you.
I do not own a newspaper , so , if the AMERICAN law is neutral , i would not know , how i would view it ethically, without dealing daily with the issue. ( Fair ??)
But I fail to see what you question has to do with my right to control my Art. A right you deny exists. That is where you are wrong. and it is the root & core of or "debate".
You never answers , "MY Springsteen vs John McCain" question.
Do you mike , think Bruce had the , "legal" ? , "moral" , and/ or "natural" RIGHT to tell McCain NOT to use his songs and music?
POINT :>>>That fact is McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song. He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART. Do you Mike ?
There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said, including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog --
Excerpt:
"If people are pirating movies and music, they should be punished. There are laws on the books against that illegal activity."
" I am quite pleased that at the December meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States delegation outlined its support for new fair-use-like exceptions to copyright for the visually impaired that might help them have access to technologies like book readers and more.
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that ++++“The United States is committed to both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” That’s exactly my belief, +++++and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.""
Mike , even Karl , posts better than you, lately.
( I just woke , for natures call here @ 2am, -- i know ,, more than anyone needed to know -- maybe next "call" , I will find the other Reps. speeches on copyrights.
------------------------------------------------------
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.
LAWS CAN CAN ONLY STEM FOR A
MORAL viewpoint.
READ here for academic sources on TJ ans Morals and law:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/bibliog/Authors/K.html
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
was not meant to protect the moral rights of authors as you claimed.
"Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all ++property rights++: a man’s right to the product of his mind." ~ Ayn Rand.
[[ full quote @ http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html . OK , I am not posting the full quote this time , just a fair use excerpt ,, OK ?? Everybody HAPPY ?? Smile please. :) ]]
----------------------------------
Everybody agrees that "property rights" are MORAL Rights. John Locke [and me too] , hold that "property rights" do extend also into, and stem from , NATURAL RIGHTS.
Remember , you must hold by a " Living singular G-d" (or Pantheism) , to accept NATURAL RIGHTS.
If you are a G-D-less heathen -- some of my best friends and relatives are :) --- than Natural rights CANNOT BE in you lexicon.
And I ASK :: If you are a "poly-theist" can you hold by NATURAL Rights?? Only if your "Poly's" agree on that point. Zeus could be against copyright. Apollo for it. Thus it would not be a Natural Right, as the Poly-s are in dispute.
[ "6 am philosophy" ,, uuuugh ,, "Poly want a cracker ?"]
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
In other words, the constitution does not require the government to grant copyrights or patents, only allows it.
Sorry WRONG. BIG TIME.
I write a song. As soon as i play it in public, it is constitutional protected.
A Patent , MUST be applied for and granted. But the GOV't MUST allow that process and protect the granted Patent.
BASIC Constitutional LAW principles there. Civil Liberties 101, for non -majors
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
but then infringed copyrights for no other reason other than the fact he could.
Techdirt has no Posting policy posted !
Who is the legal onus on, if a poster brakes the law . repeatedly ,, w/o comment from Moderator Mike -- AS I have posted full articles or extensive excerpts much here , for the last several weeks----
who exactly is Liable in such case.>>>MY POINT !!
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Bruce vs. McCain.
Was Bruce Right? Legally ? Morally ? Naturally?
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
and most likely ban you from this site.
But where is the techdirt posting policy , where this is spelled out?
Academically speaking ,, ONLY : If AP sued me,, I would ask that you be joined as a defendant with me,as I did see not posting policy displayed here at techdirt, and i looked .
( I would not sue you , but claim you are equally liable , IF you and /or I broke some fair use law.)
Again method to madness, pushing the envelope.. i have been hoping to get into this point of conversation -- thus the full article posts.
( I always play fair ,, but shrewdly so .)
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
Academic Fair Use or factual journalism ,, is a very different animal that "Artist Rights" and full conrol of un-fair-re-use.
But not that my point is illustrated--- I mean I have been posting articles for weeks ,, why now do you speak up?--
I will just post the relative/needed excerpts.
I still thing we both would have a good case with any AP complaint , and i for one would welcome a chat with their lawyers , on the matter, to seek illumination & compromise , but not conflict .
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
Again Interesting case .
I cannot find , your tecdirt posting policy ,, do you have one ,posted here?
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
While you do have ads, I still think in our posts here , fair use citation of complete articles ,, with full links , is ok , under the current law.
Maybe not. Interesting case , either way. I would litigate it. Seriously.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.
But on Artist Copyright -- you Sir are a "Loony Tune".
( if you are ever in NYC , Mike ,,we should meet for a few beers,, let me know.)
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: And again, you claimed the constitutional clause had to do with the moral rights of authors specifically.
Closely related but different. ( look it up ,, or ask a philosophy proof. Wikipedia is not fully correct on this, so not a good source.)
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
And again, you claimed the constitutional clause had to do with the moral rights of authors specifically.
--------------------------------------
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
ME : Method to madness.. Now I get to ask you ,, Mile ,, would you Mike ,, fight the lawsuit ? On Principle ? You seem to hold it would be ok to post the full article according to your Copyright Dogma ..Mike.
But , yes Sir , this is indeed your house @ techdirt ,, so if you really want ,, I will only post "fair use " excerpts from here on.
Is that what you are saying?
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.
My hold a writing Arts minor for a top 50 university.
My resume :
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/search/label/my%20full%20resume
and my music :
http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin
-----------------------------------------------
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Re: Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:
Published: June 13, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/theater/theaterspecial/14tony.html?hp
"The American rock ’n’ roll story “Memphis” won the Tony Award for best musical on Sunday night"
---------------------
ME : David Bryan Rashbaum (--- Memphis songwriter and Bon Jovi keyboardist and founding bandmember---) ---is my first cousin Bruce's ( our mom are sisters) ---- Bruce is first cousin of David ( their Dads are bothers), we know each other since early childhood
Congrats DAVID !!!
(((( In 1982 ,, I am sitting next to David at our common cousin Bruce's wedding, and we is talking music ,, me my first Green Village gig just started ,, and David is telling me ,,how Tom Petty , is helping "the unsigned" at the time Bon Jovi score a good record deal. I thought "yeah , right , good luck" , and drank some more wine. The next time we saw each other , at my Parents house in 1987 , Bon Jovi ruled planet earth musically. AND ,, Now that David has a Tony:
I can hear my Mom and Aunt already ,, "David has a Tony and a Grammy ,, why don't you ? huh , your just the family Rabbi. ( Mom and Dad are visiting next week to NYC for a family wedding,, uuuuugh.) )))
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
If you want to closely guard your music, I guess you should keep it to yourself.
Some of my songs, i just do not want out there. Others because they already have had enough public exposure, i do play , cause the copyright is safe and sound,, though if you try to film me playing an original song , w/o my permission,, i will get very angry.
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question, so let me ask another:
ME : I am not sure what "direct quest"
If you mean the Newspaper ad one :
I did here again:
MIKE :"Question, TP: do you think it's illegal or unfair for a car company to buy an ad in a newspaper next to the classified listings for car dealers?."
ME ::: Ask a lawyer who deals with it, MM.
Ask a sitting judge , also. Get back to me.
I follow the lead of my teachers, mentors , spiritual masters.
I do not invent to arguments , i post here.
They are strait out of any Political theory class and/or textbook
But, on your question-- which is irrelevant to copy law ---- my educated guess it is the newspaper's call, and the AMERICAN law is neutral on the point.
But I may be wrong , as I am only answering of the top of my head w/o research. If you have any sources on a good discourse on the topic , i will gladly read it carefully. Then ask some law professors and/or sitting judges, that I know personally, and get back to you.
I do not own a newspaper , so , if the AMERICAN law is neutral , i would not know , how i would view it ethically, without dealing daily with the issue. ( Fair ??)
But I fail to see what you question has to do with my right to control my Art. A right you deny exists. That is where you are wrong. and it is the root & core of or "debate".
You never answers , "MY Springsteen vs John McCain" question.
Do you mike , think Bruce had the , "legal" ? , "moral" , and/ or "natural" RIGHT to tell McCain NOT to use his songs and music?
POINT :>>>That fact is McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song. He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART. Do you Mike ?
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said, including Rep. Mike Doyle -- who has quoted me in speeches, and told me personally that he learns about the problems of copyright law via this blog --
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml
Excerpt:
"If people are pirating movies and music, they should be punished. There are laws on the books against that illegal activity."
" I am quite pleased that at the December meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United States delegation outlined its support for new fair-use-like exceptions to copyright for the visually impaired that might help them have access to technologies like book readers and more.
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that ++++“The United States is committed to both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” That’s exactly my belief, +++++and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.""
From : January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.shtml
--------------------- ---------------
Mike , even Karl , posts better than you, lately.
( I just woke , for natures call here @ 2am, -- i know ,, more than anyone needed to know -- maybe next "call" , I will find the other Reps. speeches on copyrights.
------------------------------------------------------
Next >>