Re: Re: You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
"not the morals rights of authors as per your earlier assertion."
ANS : Law come for how society views Moral rights at the time the law is written.
Out views change,, but Moral rights , have always grown wider and deeper, not more shallow and narrower.
Slavery , Dueling , wife beating , where all once legal.
No more. Our morals have grown, ( unless you like dueling w/ pistols)
-----------------------
Drug laws will change soon to, Esp pot.
Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins:
ME Great piece in the Sunday NY Times.,,,very much related to out "political theory debate" on copyright. Worth reading the whole piece 3x ,,, here are selected excepts , related to our debate on "Copyright Law Now & in the Future"
"Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins: when, that is, the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and what owes its existence to an other. "
"Americans struck with the state institutions supporting modern life is that they would be politically acceptable only to the degree to which they remained invisible, and that for all intents and purposes each citizen could continue to believe that she was sovereign over her life; she would, of course, pay taxes, use the roads and schools, receive Medicare and Social Security, but only so long as these could be perceived not as radical dependencies, but simply as the conditions for leading an autonomous and self-sufficient life. Recent events have left that bargain in tatters."
"Tea Party anger is, at bottom, metaphysical, not political: what has been undone by the economic crisis is the belief that each individual is metaphysically self-sufficient, that one’s very standing and being as a rational agent owes nothing to other individuals or institutions. The opposing metaphysical claim, the one I take to be true, is that the very idea of the autonomous subject is an institution, an artifact created by the practices of modern life: the intimate family, the market economy, the liberal state. Each of these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not have without them."
"Rather than participating in arranged marriages, as modern subjects we follow our hearts, choose our beloved, decide for ourselves who may or may not have access to our bodies, and freely take vows promising fidelity and loyalty until death (or divorce) do us part. There are lots of ways property can be held and distributed — as hysterical Tea Party incriminations of creeping socialism and communism remind us; we moderns have opted for a system of private ownership in which we can acquire, use and dispose of property as we see fit, and even workers are presumed to be self-owning, selling their labor time and labor power to whom they wish (when they can). And as modern citizens we presume the government is answerable to us, governs only with our consent, our dependence on it a matter of detached, reflective endorsement; and further, that we intrinsically possess a battery of moral rights that say we can be bound to no institution unless we possess the rights of “voice and exit.”
The great and inspiring metaphysical fantasy of independence and freedom is simply a fantasy of destruction.
If stated in enough detail, all these institutions and practices should be seen as together manufacturing, and even inventing, the idea of a sovereign individual who becomes, through them and by virtue of them, the ultimate source of authority. The American version of these practices has, from the earliest days of the republic, made individuality autochthonous while suppressing to the point of disappearance the manifold ways that individuality is beholden to a complex and uniquely modern form of life.
Of course, if you are a libertarian or even a certain kind of liberal, you will object that these practices do not manufacture anything; they simply give individuality its due. The issue here is a central one in modern philosophy: is individual autonomy an irreducible metaphysical given or a social creation? Descartes famously argued that self or subject, the “I think,” was metaphysically basic, while Hegel argued that we only become self-determining agents through being recognized as such by others who we recognize in turn. It is by recognizing one another as autonomous subjects through the institutions of family, civil society and the state that we become such subjects; those practices are how we recognize and so bestow on one another the title and powers of being free individuals.
All the heavy lifting in Hegel’s account turns on revealing how human subjectivity only emerges through intersubjective relations, and hence how practices of independence, of freedom and autonomy, are held in place and made possible by complementary structures of dependence. At one point in his “Philosophy of Right,” Hegel suggests love or friendship as models of freedom through recognition. In love I regard you as of such value and importance that I spontaneously set aside my egoistic desires and interests and align them with yours: your ends are my desires, I desire that you flourish, and when you flourish I do, too. In love, I experience you not as a limit or restriction on my freedom, but as what makes it possible: I can only be truly free and so truly independent in being harmoniously joined with you; we each recognize the other as endowing our life with meaning and value, with living freedom. Hegel’s phrase for this felicitous state is “to be with oneself in the other.”
Hegel’s thesis is that all social life is structurally akin to the conditions of love and friendship; we are all bound to one another as firmly as lovers are, with the terrible reminder that the ways of love are harsh, unpredictable and changeable. And here is the source of the great anger: because you are the source of my being, when our love goes bad I am suddenly, absolutely dependent on someone for whom I no longer count and who I no longer know how to count; I am exposed, vulnerable, needy, unanchored and without resource. In fury, I lash out, I deny that you are my end and my satisfaction, in rage I claim that I can manage without you, that I can be a full person, free and self-moving, without you. I am everything and you are nothing. "
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
MIKE : I would say most of Congress doesn't think about copyright law very much.
ME : Not a very factual sentence , but the Commerce committee thinks , holds hearings often,
It is their job to form the legislation,,
AND on copyright -- and most issues ---,, the congress as a majority whole --usually follows any. committees lead.
When they do not ,, that's when CNN does special reports, and c-span a hot watch.
---------------------------------------
MIKE : Those who do are split. There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said,
ME ; "many" , "seem" ," basics ",, pretty weak terms for a pro-writer.
MIKE : 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 -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Rick Boucher.
So, no, not 100% of Congress agree with you.
ME : ok 3 out of 435 in the house plus 100 in the senate.
Truly a major political force [sic]. And I hear Texas wants to succeed form the union, t'ain't gonna happen,,neither will Mikes vision of Copyright.
( again Patents you got a chance , within the Constitutional framework , of the Copyright clause,)
MIKE :But, really, that doesn't mean anything either way.
ME : True from m your "crazy kill copyright prospective",, but not the "pro-copyright side",
Having congress on out side is what will make the ASCAP BORs ,,law !!!
MIKE :
There are lots of things I disagree with Congress about,
ME : ME TOO !!! ( Drug policy , I like a flat tax, . and I think Pelosci , is a nice women & great speaker , but a lousy dresser, not real style)
MIKE : but it doesn't make me any less right.
Me : Democracy is about majority rule. If your are holding a "3" ( weaken copyright) vs. "530" ( modernize and Better copyright) in congress , good chance you are not swimming in the mainstream, where policy is made,
MIKE :I do not understand your false appeal to authority.
Me : because you are an ANARCHIST MIKE !
MIKE : Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question,
ME : the newspaper ad , stuff ,, sure did ,, and i hold by it .
If not that one ,, restate,, i never dodge a question
MIKE : so let me ask another:
ME : shoot .
MIKE :Let's say 100% of Congress agreed that slavery was good for society. But some people felt otherwise. And they worked hard to explain their reasons. Would you argue that their reasons made no sense because 100% of Congress disagreed with them?
ME: As my political science proff always said , when some floated a premise like that :: " Let's say my Aunt Mary had balls, she would be my uncle Peter."
In other words your example is too far fetched from the real world to have meaning,
Surely you could make your point better, Maybe not.
( Slavery was ALWAYS a controversial subject , with the north free , and the south slave,, before the war , the States themselves decided, with Congressional oversight on slavery. )
==========
Yawn, too easy Mike,, no challenge in answering. High School stuff.
You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
YOU ::::: "You [meaning "me" ] conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all. "
Me : I never conveniently ignore any. fact . [ except the mets bullpen, best in baseball :) ].
You miss the fact the whole Constitution is about POWER and Rights. Artists and inventors are given special protections as creators of tangible & sell-able things.
You cannot copyright a new way to spin pizza dough, throw a baseball, or on a new guitar chord -- as you cannot copy right chords, only melody and lyrics. You cannot sell then either. I can watch that wonder "knuckle princess" and lean how to through a knuckle ball better. She has no copyright.
So the Copy Right Clause IS ABOUT granting special rights of creation to Artists and Inventors,
that is basic , civil liberties and political theory ,, taught in and "100" college class on the topic.. Take one .
----------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CHICO, Calif. — Eri Yoshida added another first to her resume, but the 18-year-old "Knuckle Princess" from Japan is still looking for a win.
Yoshida, the first female to play professionally in the United States since 2000, pitched four strong innings and recorded her first strikeout of the season but left with a no-decision in the Chico Outlaws' 8-4 win over the Yuma Scorpions on Saturday night.
The right-hander gave up two runs and allowed the leadoff batter to reach base in every inning she worked, needing 79 pitches in her second start of the year.
"I wanted to throw one more inning, but the manager has the ideas, he has the strategy, so I respect that," Yoshida said through an interpreter. "I just want to improve more and more. I prepared to pitch like usual, so I could relax more than last time."
Yoshida has created quite a stir in this college town since signing with the Outlaws earlier this year. Long lines of fans snaked through the stadium parking lot 30 minutes before the game, with the first 1,000 receiving an autographed picture of Yoshida. Team officials delayed the start briefly to allow people to get inside.
The 5-foot right-hander, who already has a spot reserved in Cooperstown, was much more relaxed than in her debut May 29 despite hitting Yuma leadoff hitter Eric Scriven with her second pitch.
Yoshida's knuckleball, which she learned from watching tapes of Boston Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield, dipped and danced nicely at times and prevented the Scorpions from doing much offensively.
She struck out Timothy Rodriguez on three pitches in the third inning, drawing a roar from the Chico fans, and got a double play in the fourth before allowing an unearned run on an error by Chico shortstop Alex Prieto. The strikeout was Yoshida's first of the year.
"She's really getting confident, and when she's confident and throwing all of her pitches across the plate, she's tough," Chico catcher Robby Alcombrack said. "When she really lets the knuckler go and she's not trying to aim it, she's good. It's a knuckleball and you really never know how it's going to be, but tonight it was heavy and it was late."
Yoshida left with a 5-2 lead after getting Yuma pitcher Gilbert De La Vara to ground out to shortstop.
During pregame introductions, Yoshida received the loudest cheers as she jogged from Chico's dugout to the mound for her second start in front of the Outlaws crowd.
It's already been a whirlwind month for Yoshida. She became the first woman to play pro baseball in the United States since Ila Borders in 2000 when she pitched three innings against Tijuana. That prompted the Baseball Hall of Fame to ask for the jersey and bat Yoshida used in the game.
Yoshida is also gaining a following in the majors. She has met and spoken to Wakefield multiple times, and this week Hideki Matsui of the Los Angeles Angels acknowledged he is a fan of the teen sensation.
"I saw that on the Internet and I am very glad that a major leaguer, like I want to be, is thinking of me like that," Yoshida said. "That makes me happy."
The bubbly teen struggled early against Yuma, hitting Scriven. After getting a pair of infield popouts, Yoshida engaged in a lengthy duel with Santos Deleon before Deleon blooped an RBI single to left to give the Scorpions a 1-0 lead.
Yoshida rebounded nicely and pitched a scoreless second inning before running into a jam in the third after giving up a leadoff walk and a one-out double. Yoshida stayed calm, though, and struck out Rodriguez. Deleon flew out to center to end the threat.
Johny Celis walked leading off the fourth but was erased when Yoshida got Ruben Sanchez to ground into a 6-4-3 double play. Masjid Khairy followed with a single to left, stole second, then scored when Prieto failed to catch Bubba Garcia's popup and was charged with an error.
Yoshida, who singled in her only at-bat during her debut two weeks ago, struck out looking in the second.
YOU :So... Is Technopolitical The Anti-Mike's new screen
name?
Me : No. If Mike is right on something ,, i say so ( electronic voting , paywall,, even "patents" to a small certain degree, as long as the Constitution is untouched).
I am me. I post only by me , from my thought and knowledge,
Why run for office when the weaknesses are so obvious and easy to attack.
YOU:Why run for office when the weaknesses are so obvious and easy to attack.
Me : that is a patently ( pun) ridiculous statement. If you are so right , you should win easy,
but you are wrong , So you will only get fringe votes , and be a laughing stock politically, if you run for any office AGAINST copyright LAW, and working or weaken and /or abolish it .
On a Patent reform platform , you might have a chance -- as patent law ( but not is constitutional root ) needs serious reform----., but the gravity of the big $$ interests would crush all reasonable debate into the black holes of "crazy congressional committees"
=========================
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question
TJ :"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not"
ME :This IS MY main point clearly we read it differently .
TJ :
"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, "
ME : TJ on "for the benefit of society" , you get an A +++,
but on "exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right". Well TJ, my read of John Locke is that he says it is a Natural Right. I thing Tommy J. you would agree it is a moral right ,, or why else would you put into the Constitution -- right T.J.?
TJ : I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not"
ME : hey you know best. I love apartments with dumbwaiters.
---------------------------------
by Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 2:35pm:
"A patent is not granted for the base idea but the execution of it, and even here "T.J." is saying that is not a moral right either."
Me : "NATURAL rights" are quite different from "MORAL Rights".
Look it up.
cyber-talk to you soon
====================================
Mike claims the ASCAP Bill of rights is out of tune with reality.
I sat it is.
SL, some factual prospective , if you wish, and find the time. I think it could really help clarify some issues discussed here on Musicians and Copyrights and ASCAP / BMI stuff
Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.
At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.
We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
"In 1964, Ivan surprised everyone when his song, “A Letter to the Beatles” was recorded by the Four Preps, and listed on the Billboard Hot 100. Encouraged by this, he began writing pop music. In 1970 he made an album of his own work, “Ivan the Ice Cream Man.” Ivan collaborated with well known musicians { ed . note :Jackson Browne , Lowell George ]and several of his songs were recorded by major artists. However, Ivan’s successes in adult music remained marginal."
Ivan moved to Greenwich Village, NYC in 1980, leaving behind a music scene that no longer appealed to him. Folk music was out of fashion and many of his friends had drifted away or died from drug abuse.
Looking for work in New York City, Ivan decided to play a hunch and applied for a job in a nursery school. He didn’t have a degree, but early experience in his parents' nursery school spoke for itself. Ivan began working as an assistant teacher and quickly realized that his real expertise was in making music with children. Word got around and soon Ivan was a “music specialist,” playing and singing at a number of Village schools each week.
Ivan’s reputation as a children’s songwriter, performer, educator, and purveyor of classic children’s songs continues to grow. He made his first CD for children, “Songs from the Old School,” in 1999. It contains new performances of songs that Ivan heard in his parent’s school, many of which have been forgotten for more than a generation. The featured track on the CD is Ivan’s own “Fire Truck!”. Also released as a book/CD by Scholastic, this tune is already a classic in its own right – hailed as a "preschool anthem" by The New York Times.
These days you’ll find Ivan performing in schools and concerts on both coasts, private parties, public parks, and the occasional NYC performance art club. A second CD for children, with newly written original tunes and more rediscovered 'songs from the old school', is in the works.
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: http://www.ascap.com/rights/
ASCAP's words NOT mine. {I agree though}
On the post: The Rise And Fall Of The RIAA
Re: Re: Re: Re: whole thread and post : So What?
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.
ANS : Law come for how society views Moral rights at the time the law is written.
Out views change,, but Moral rights , have always grown wider and deeper, not more shallow and narrower.
Slavery , Dueling , wife beating , where all once legal.
No more. Our morals have grown, ( unless you like dueling w/ pistols)
-----------------------
Drug laws will change soon to, Esp pot.
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins:
- - - - - - - - - -
The Very Angry Tea Party
By J.M. BERNSTEIN
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion
"Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins: when, that is, the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and what owes its existence to an other. "
"Americans struck with the state institutions supporting modern life is that they would be politically acceptable only to the degree to which they remained invisible, and that for all intents and purposes each citizen could continue to believe that she was sovereign over her life; she would, of course, pay taxes, use the roads and schools, receive Medicare and Social Security, but only so long as these could be perceived not as radical dependencies, but simply as the conditions for leading an autonomous and self-sufficient life. Recent events have left that bargain in tatters."
"Tea Party anger is, at bottom, metaphysical, not political: what has been undone by the economic crisis is the belief that each individual is metaphysically self-sufficient, that one’s very standing and being as a rational agent owes nothing to other individuals or institutions. The opposing metaphysical claim, the one I take to be true, is that the very idea of the autonomous subject is an institution, an artifact created by the practices of modern life: the intimate family, the market economy, the liberal state. Each of these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not have without them."
"Rather than participating in arranged marriages, as modern subjects we follow our hearts, choose our beloved, decide for ourselves who may or may not have access to our bodies, and freely take vows promising fidelity and loyalty until death (or divorce) do us part. There are lots of ways property can be held and distributed — as hysterical Tea Party incriminations of creeping socialism and communism remind us; we moderns have opted for a system of private ownership in which we can acquire, use and dispose of property as we see fit, and even workers are presumed to be self-owning, selling their labor time and labor power to whom they wish (when they can). And as modern citizens we presume the government is answerable to us, governs only with our consent, our dependence on it a matter of detached, reflective endorsement; and further, that we intrinsically possess a battery of moral rights that say we can be bound to no institution unless we possess the rights of “voice and exit.”
The great and inspiring metaphysical fantasy of independence and freedom is simply a fantasy of destruction.
If stated in enough detail, all these institutions and practices should be seen as together manufacturing, and even inventing, the idea of a sovereign individual who becomes, through them and by virtue of them, the ultimate source of authority. The American version of these practices has, from the earliest days of the republic, made individuality autochthonous while suppressing to the point of disappearance the manifold ways that individuality is beholden to a complex and uniquely modern form of life.
Of course, if you are a libertarian or even a certain kind of liberal, you will object that these practices do not manufacture anything; they simply give individuality its due. The issue here is a central one in modern philosophy: is individual autonomy an irreducible metaphysical given or a social creation? Descartes famously argued that self or subject, the “I think,” was metaphysically basic, while Hegel argued that we only become self-determining agents through being recognized as such by others who we recognize in turn. It is by recognizing one another as autonomous subjects through the institutions of family, civil society and the state that we become such subjects; those practices are how we recognize and so bestow on one another the title and powers of being free individuals.
All the heavy lifting in Hegel’s account turns on revealing how human subjectivity only emerges through intersubjective relations, and hence how practices of independence, of freedom and autonomy, are held in place and made possible by complementary structures of dependence. At one point in his “Philosophy of Right,” Hegel suggests love or friendship as models of freedom through recognition. In love I regard you as of such value and importance that I spontaneously set aside my egoistic desires and interests and align them with yours: your ends are my desires, I desire that you flourish, and when you flourish I do, too. In love, I experience you not as a limit or restriction on my freedom, but as what makes it possible: I can only be truly free and so truly independent in being harmoniously joined with you; we each recognize the other as endowing our life with meaning and value, with living freedom. Hegel’s phrase for this felicitous state is “to be with oneself in the other.”
Hegel’s thesis is that all social life is structurally akin to the conditions of love and friendship; we are all bound to one another as firmly as lovers are, with the terrible reminder that the ways of love are harsh, unpredictable and changeable. And here is the source of the great anger: because you are the source of my being, when our love goes bad I am suddenly, absolutely dependent on someone for whom I no longer count and who I no longer know how to count; I am exposed, vulnerable, needy, unanchored and without resource. In fury, I lash out, I deny that you are my end and my satisfaction, in rage I claim that I can manage without you, that I can be a full person, free and self-moving, without you. I am everything and you are nothing. "
--- the whole piece again @
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?ref=opinion
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
ME : Not a very factual sentence , but the Commerce committee thinks , holds hearings often,
It is their job to form the legislation,,
AND on copyright -- and most issues ---,, the congress as a majority whole --usually follows any. committees lead.
When they do not ,, that's when CNN does special reports, and c-span a hot watch.
---------------------------------------
MIKE : Those who do are split. There are many who do seem to agree with the basics of what I have said,
ME ; "many" , "seem" ," basics ",, pretty weak terms for a pro-writer.
MIKE : 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 -- Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Rick Boucher.
So, no, not 100% of Congress agree with you.
ME : ok 3 out of 435 in the house plus 100 in the senate.
Truly a major political force [sic]. And I hear Texas wants to succeed form the union, t'ain't gonna happen,,neither will Mikes vision of Copyright.
( again Patents you got a chance , within the Constitutional framework , of the Copyright clause,)
MIKE :But, really, that doesn't mean anything either way.
ME : True from m your "crazy kill copyright prospective",, but not the "pro-copyright side",
Having congress on out side is what will make the ASCAP BORs ,,law !!!
MIKE :
There are lots of things I disagree with Congress about,
ME : ME TOO !!! ( Drug policy , I like a flat tax, . and I think Pelosci , is a nice women & great speaker , but a lousy dresser, not real style)
MIKE : but it doesn't make me any less right.
Me : Democracy is about majority rule. If your are holding a "3" ( weaken copyright) vs. "530" ( modernize and Better copyright) in congress , good chance you are not swimming in the mainstream, where policy is made,
MIKE :I do not understand your false appeal to authority.
Me : because you are an ANARCHIST MIKE !
MIKE : Amusingly, of course, you did not respond to my direct question,
ME : the newspaper ad , stuff ,, sure did ,, and i hold by it .
If not that one ,, restate,, i never dodge a question
MIKE : so let me ask another:
ME : shoot .
MIKE :Let's say 100% of Congress agreed that slavery was good for society. But some people felt otherwise. And they worked hard to explain their reasons. Would you argue that their reasons made no sense because 100% of Congress disagreed with them?
ME: As my political science proff always said , when some floated a premise like that :: " Let's say my Aunt Mary had balls, she would be my uncle Peter."
In other words your example is too far fetched from the real world to have meaning,
Surely you could make your point better, Maybe not.
( Slavery was ALWAYS a controversial subject , with the north free , and the south slave,, before the war , the States themselves decided, with Congressional oversight on slavery. )
==========
Yawn, too easy Mike,, no challenge in answering. High School stuff.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: intellectual property system does need to be corrected and has many many problems.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Beatles: Let It Be part 2 // One after nine oh nine interview
worth watching the whole movie too ,if you got the time.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
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?
You conveniently ignore the fact that section of the constitution did not deal with citizen's rights at all.
Me : I never conveniently ignore any. fact . [ except the mets bullpen, best in baseball :) ].
You miss the fact the whole Constitution is about POWER and Rights. Artists and inventors are given special protections as creators of tangible & sell-able things.
You cannot copyright a new way to spin pizza dough, throw a baseball, or on a new guitar chord -- as you cannot copy right chords, only melody and lyrics. You cannot sell then either. I can watch that wonder "knuckle princess" and lean how to through a knuckle ball better. She has no copyright.
So the Copy Right Clause IS ABOUT granting special rights of creation to Artists and Inventors,
that is basic , civil liberties and political theory ,, taught in and "100" college class on the topic.. Take one .
----------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeq M5gDFd3HWYeLVwL3E8VNUta9nK90nQD9GAEKUO0
Yoshida gets first K, but no win in 2nd start
(AP) – 10 hours ago
CHICO, Calif. — Eri Yoshida added another first to her resume, but the 18-year-old "Knuckle Princess" from Japan is still looking for a win.
Yoshida, the first female to play professionally in the United States since 2000, pitched four strong innings and recorded her first strikeout of the season but left with a no-decision in the Chico Outlaws' 8-4 win over the Yuma Scorpions on Saturday night.
The right-hander gave up two runs and allowed the leadoff batter to reach base in every inning she worked, needing 79 pitches in her second start of the year.
"I wanted to throw one more inning, but the manager has the ideas, he has the strategy, so I respect that," Yoshida said through an interpreter. "I just want to improve more and more. I prepared to pitch like usual, so I could relax more than last time."
Yoshida has created quite a stir in this college town since signing with the Outlaws earlier this year. Long lines of fans snaked through the stadium parking lot 30 minutes before the game, with the first 1,000 receiving an autographed picture of Yoshida. Team officials delayed the start briefly to allow people to get inside.
The 5-foot right-hander, who already has a spot reserved in Cooperstown, was much more relaxed than in her debut May 29 despite hitting Yuma leadoff hitter Eric Scriven with her second pitch.
Yoshida's knuckleball, which she learned from watching tapes of Boston Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield, dipped and danced nicely at times and prevented the Scorpions from doing much offensively.
She struck out Timothy Rodriguez on three pitches in the third inning, drawing a roar from the Chico fans, and got a double play in the fourth before allowing an unearned run on an error by Chico shortstop Alex Prieto. The strikeout was Yoshida's first of the year.
"She's really getting confident, and when she's confident and throwing all of her pitches across the plate, she's tough," Chico catcher Robby Alcombrack said. "When she really lets the knuckler go and she's not trying to aim it, she's good. It's a knuckleball and you really never know how it's going to be, but tonight it was heavy and it was late."
Yoshida left with a 5-2 lead after getting Yuma pitcher Gilbert De La Vara to ground out to shortstop.
During pregame introductions, Yoshida received the loudest cheers as she jogged from Chico's dugout to the mound for her second start in front of the Outlaws crowd.
It's already been a whirlwind month for Yoshida. She became the first woman to play pro baseball in the United States since Ila Borders in 2000 when she pitched three innings against Tijuana. That prompted the Baseball Hall of Fame to ask for the jersey and bat Yoshida used in the game.
Yoshida is also gaining a following in the majors. She has met and spoken to Wakefield multiple times, and this week Hideki Matsui of the Los Angeles Angels acknowledged he is a fan of the teen sensation.
"I saw that on the Internet and I am very glad that a major leaguer, like I want to be, is thinking of me like that," Yoshida said. "That makes me happy."
The bubbly teen struggled early against Yuma, hitting Scriven. After getting a pair of infield popouts, Yoshida engaged in a lengthy duel with Santos Deleon before Deleon blooped an RBI single to left to give the Scorpions a 1-0 lead.
Yoshida rebounded nicely and pitched a scoreless second inning before running into a jam in the third after giving up a leadoff walk and a one-out double. Yoshida stayed calm, though, and struck out Rodriguez. Deleon flew out to center to end the threat.
Johny Celis walked leading off the fourth but was erased when Yoshida got Ruben Sanchez to ground into a 6-4-3 double play. Masjid Khairy followed with a single to left, stole second, then scored when Prieto failed to catch Bubba Garcia's popup and was charged with an error.
Yoshida, who singled in her only at-bat during her debut two weeks ago, struck out looking in the second.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
===============
you cannot copyright the "IDEA" of women's "Right to play pro baseball" either . Nor Jackie Robinson's.
--------------------------------------------
On the post: The Rise And Fall Of The RIAA
Re: Re: whole thread and post : So What?
It is all a dream, reality is fleeting, and our lives "just wisps" of "warps in space-time".
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
you're really cuckoo
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Re: Remember The Anti-Mike
name?
Me : No. If Mike is right on something ,, i say so ( electronic voting , paywall,, even "patents" to a small certain degree, as long as the Constitution is untouched).
I am me. I post only by me , from my thought and knowledge,
chips fall where they may
On the post: The Rise And Fall Of The RIAA
Why run for office when the weaknesses are so obvious and easy to attack.
Me : that is a patently ( pun) ridiculous statement. If you are so right , you should win easy,
but you are wrong , So you will only get fringe votes , and be a laughing stock politically, if you run for any office AGAINST copyright LAW, and working or weaken and /or abolish it .
On a Patent reform platform , you might have a chance -- as patent law ( but not is constitutional root ) needs serious reform----., but the gravity of the big $$ interests would crush all reasonable debate into the black holes of "crazy congressional committees"
=========================
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
intellectual property system does need to be corrected and has many many problems.
Me : Patents ,, big YES !!!
Copyright ,, need to get better , and stronger , and will. Congress is there 100%
--------------
YOU : "after reading many of his posts I am beginning to think he is sincere in what he says. "
Me : Thank you !
------------------------------------------
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question
ME :This IS MY main point clearly we read it differently .
TJ :
"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, "
ME : TJ on "for the benefit of society" , you get an A +++,
but on "exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right". Well TJ, my read of John Locke is that he says it is a Natural Right. I thing Tommy J. you would agree it is a moral right ,, or why else would you put into the Constitution -- right T.J.?
TJ : I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not"
ME : hey you know best. I love apartments with dumbwaiters.
---------------------------------
by Anonymous Coward, Jun 13th, 2010 @ 2:35pm:
"A patent is not granted for the base idea but the execution of it, and even here "T.J." is saying that is not a moral right either."
Me : "NATURAL rights" are quite different from "MORAL Rights".
Look it up.
cyber-talk to you soon
====================================
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
But the vast majority of performing musicians are not musicians by trade.
Me : yes and no.
Most any musician would quit their strait job , if the right music deal came along.
I know many full-timers who do well less than $30,000 a year , even much lower, they even get medicaid and etc.,, if eligible .
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: http://www.ascap.com/rights/ I saY it is.
spell check won't help sometimes
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: http://www.ascap.com/rights/
I sat it is.
SL, some factual prospective , if you wish, and find the time. I think it could really help clarify some issues discussed here on Musicians and Copyrights and ASCAP / BMI stuff
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.
At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.
We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
Make Your Voice Heard!
Add YOUR name to the Bill of Rights now!
Add the Bill of Rights to your website.
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Ask Mr. Ivan Ulz , he will tell you !!
ME :
just ask my good friend for almost 30 years now --- oh my !!
http://www.ivanulz.com/about/index.html
Ladies and gentlemen: Mr. Ivan Ulz
"In 1964, Ivan surprised everyone when his song, “A Letter to the Beatles” was recorded by the Four Preps, and listed on the Billboard Hot 100. Encouraged by this, he began writing pop music. In 1970 he made an album of his own work, “Ivan the Ice Cream Man.” Ivan collaborated with well known musicians { ed . note :Jackson Browne , Lowell George ]and several of his songs were recorded by major artists. However, Ivan’s successes in adult music remained marginal."
Ivan moved to Greenwich Village, NYC in 1980, leaving behind a music scene that no longer appealed to him. Folk music was out of fashion and many of his friends had drifted away or died from drug abuse.
Looking for work in New York City, Ivan decided to play a hunch and applied for a job in a nursery school. He didn’t have a degree, but early experience in his parents' nursery school spoke for itself. Ivan began working as an assistant teacher and quickly realized that his real expertise was in making music with children. Word got around and soon Ivan was a “music specialist,” playing and singing at a number of Village schools each week.
Ivan’s reputation as a children’s songwriter, performer, educator, and purveyor of classic children’s songs continues to grow. He made his first CD for children, “Songs from the Old School,” in 1999. It contains new performances of songs that Ivan heard in his parent’s school, many of which have been forgotten for more than a generation. The featured track on the CD is Ivan’s own “Fire Truck!”. Also released as a book/CD by Scholastic, this tune is already a classic in its own right – hailed as a "preschool anthem" by The New York Times.
These days you’ll find Ivan performing in schools and concerts on both coasts, private parties, public parks, and the occasional NYC performance art club. A second CD for children, with newly written original tunes and more rediscovered 'songs from the old school', is in the works.
http://www.ivanulz.com/about/index.html
Next >>