">>>Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention."
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
Re: Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.
Clearly me . On sundays , clean disk , and defrag.
I also still have newbee friend who forward strange emails
I caught to malware this week. I killed them with my cyborg
Windows program,
(( Yes , I am starting to believe SP3 , has acquired collective intelligence. ,,,,,, David Wright , HR. Mets 9-3. over O's. $ HRs for Mets,,,,, I am having a good day.[-- and it mom's birthday too ,, hi mom ] -- !!!! ))
Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.
Excellant again Daryl.
A++++/ A+++
Reading the reply's to the post , it is clear you got them Pirates handcuffed. They cannot rebut/answer within the "Laws of Reason" ,AND the "History of Ethics".
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
been through you cited quote 10x here already , and with mike.
T.J. is lamenting that ideas -- hope , love , freedom, peace, sufferage -- cannot be COPY-Righted.
The fact that CREATIONS can BE Copyrighted is clear , in fact law and history. And the Goal there is to protect the economic interests of the CREATOR of the copyrighted work. ( Law school - political theory of Copyright Law. Take a class.)
Read the Federalist Papers, also to understand why.
"Perhaps it would be possible to set up a music co-op where a group of musicians/bands run the venue, are allowed to play there, and they split the costs of annual PRO fees. Then they are free to play whatever songs they want, whether or not they have written them themselves"
It would be great ,, but most musicians are too stoned to organize this type of thing. ( thank G-D !!)
So we are stuck with bar owners,, who tend to be just a notch below record companies , on our "who we really do not like" lists.
The one exception , is a not so little pub on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village , called the "Red Lion."
The Original Owner is a pretty fair amateur musician, and he , and the current owner ( friends with each other) , have always put musician interests at the core of the bar "philosophy ". It is 100% a for profit , "lets get rich" place.
Musicians actually build much the bar , physically-- alot of musicians do light construction as their "strait job". [ My job was making sure the beer taps work properly. I still test them out a few times a year-- till my $$ runs out. :)]
---------
The Red Lion www.redlionnyc.com
151 Bleecker Street
New York, NY 10012-1403
(212) 260-9797
------------
there are i few other musician owner type bars, My sis knows more who and where than i do
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not happy about the situation , either
Suzanne, you have rapidly become one of my favorite writers, ( as I told in our private emails, I happily envy your writing skills, and reading you helps me to become a better writer).
You have summed up out "copyright" and "public performance" debate here PERFECTLY.
Re: 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?
But, on your question-- which is irrelevant to copy law ---- my educated guess it is the newspaper's call, and the ++AMERICAN Constitution & law is neutral on the point++.
In what respect, exactly, does Canadian trademark law, need a "patch download" and just where, exactly, is the patch required.
ME: Judges are bound by law. Even if they disagree with the law.
In the U.S. is is not uncommon for SCOTUS to uphold a slightly "flawed" law, and to also "recommend" that Congress should re-write the flawed part the law to better fit constitutional intent .
IF SCOTUS overturns the law, it can ONLY be because it is wholly ( or mostly ) unconstitutional.
That fact is McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song. He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART. Do you Mike ?
That fact is THAT : McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song.
He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART.
CORE POINT OF OUR DEBATE :
Do you accept Bruce Springsteen's right to control his music , in this real work actual instance ----Mike ?.
Answer Y or N first -- And then please do explain why clearly. Please also site major philosophers and specific quotes from SCOTUS decisions -- by members of SCOTUS ( living or dead.) to support your answers.
[Pretend it is a final test , on copyright law , in any college level pol-sci class, and that you must pass this requisite course to graduate the college -- as i will be grading it as such. :)]
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a primer publication.
Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will say you time.
Core quote from the debate moderator:
"As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not "do more harm than good," as the debate's motion demands. "
--------------------------
from the same page :
Featured User's Comment
Dear Sir,
Unfortunately 'hope for the future' and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law.
Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET.
Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing 'world' society.
We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries.
The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect.
>>>Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention.
Human rights, Sociology - Henry Fonda - "12 angry men"
Human rights, Sociology - Henry Fonda - "12 angry men"
51:27 - 3 years ago
Free University in Internet. Over 300 political, social, cultural & scientific Clips under “ kam200 ” . Anthropology, Archaeology, Astrophysics, Atheism, Biology, Cosmology, Democracy, Feminism, Freedom, Genetics, Geology, History, Human, rights, Palaeontology, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Sociology, Zoology, And many more …
TP, multiple people have pointed out to you that you seem to be wrong on nearly everything you post.
"TP, multiple people have pointed out to you that you seem to be wrong on nearly everything you post."
None of these "multiple people" have copyright law degrees, nor are members of congress, or sit on SCOTUS.
Those are the only opinions that matter to my points.
And the only people who can say I am wrong.
I "seem to be wrong on nearly everything " I post, only to people who simply have no solid academic background , in law, philosophy of law , nor political thought history.
Those topics was a large part of my academic discipline and professional activist career .
Some high school kid on meth, does not ever dent my arguments, on serious points of law, morals & philosophy , taught in any law school.
------------------------------------------------------
( Either way , my favorite movie is 12 Angry Men. And Henry Fonda my favorite actor, for esp this film. Very big influence, not just on me ,, but very many people. It gives us strength against the Pirate Logic people of the world. All here should watch the film , if you can get a legal copy.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_%281957_film%29#Critical_responses
All my points posted here have been academically tested , and well graded with "A"s.
Leave law to lawyers , judges and SCOTUS.
Techdirt is just mental masturbation on the topic.
All our words here has no real world impact.*
The Constitution will not be changed to gut it of Copyright.
Political Reality.
--------------------------------
* if it get even one person to stop their illegal downloads, because they see the sound moral and logical reasoning of my posts, then that is good. It I get 100 better still,, and so forth.
I am not holding my breadth.
-------------------------------------------
"ASCAP and BMI provide a valuable function to help protect valuable performance rights for songwriters. The fees for basic coverage for a coffee house or other locations are usually very reasonable and small."
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademarks/// The point of trademark was never about giving full property rights to the holder.
">>>Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention."
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/312/CommentKey:289870
---
Not me . i just like the words.
-------------------------------
What DO YOU THINK MIKE ? be clear, and cite sources, please.
It's your job, anyway,
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Point of clarification: I'm not arguing about copyright
Completely
She is writing as a professional music writer and copyright researcher..
And an asute one at that.
But , the more you ask , the more I , and other readers, learn
from the musician perspective from Suzanne -- RE: copyrights.
So , please do keep posting Karl ,
And I hope Suzanne finds time from
her intense schedule to reply.
I love her posts here.
--------------------
Hi Suzanne , hope all is well,
----------------------------
Met won over O's.
good day.
Mike's day off.
---------------------------------------
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
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
read whole sub -thread,
me , mike , & T.J. and IDEAS
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: I caught TWO malware this week. I killed them with my cyborg Windows program,
my full resume :
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-full-resume.html
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
I caught TWO malware this week. I killed them with my cyborg Windows program,
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Until you have a better argument, most other posters are probably ignoring you.
I also still have newbee friend who forward strange emails
I caught to malware this week. I killed them with my cyborg
Windows program,
(( Yes , I am starting to believe SP3 , has acquired collective intelligence. ,,,,,, David Wright , HR. Mets 9-3. over O's. $ HRs for Mets,,,,, I am having a good day.[-- and it mom's birthday too ,, hi mom ] -- !!!! ))
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Ignoring the rights of others is immoral and unethical.
A++++/ A+++
Reading the reply's to the post , it is clear you got them Pirates handcuffed. They cannot rebut/answer within the "Laws of Reason" ,AND the "History of Ethics".
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
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
T.J. is lamenting that ideas -- hope , love , freedom, peace, sufferage -- cannot be COPY-Righted.
The fact that CREATIONS can BE Copyrighted is clear , in fact law and history. And the Goal there is to protect the economic interests of the CREATOR of the copyrighted work. ( Law school - political theory of Copyright Law. Take a class.)
Read the Federalist Papers, also to understand why.
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The economics of live music tends not to work in favor of most musicians. Most are lucky to break even when you factor in time, travel expense, etc."
Both points 100% perfect and true.
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Another option
It would be great ,, but most musicians are too stoned to organize this type of thing. ( thank G-D !!)
So we are stuck with bar owners,, who tend to be just a notch below record companies , on our "who we really do not like" lists.
The one exception , is a not so little pub on Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village , called the "Red Lion."
The Original Owner is a pretty fair amateur musician, and he , and the current owner ( friends with each other) , have always put musician interests at the core of the bar "philosophy ". It is 100% a for profit , "lets get rich" place.
Musicians actually build much the bar , physically-- alot of musicians do light construction as their "strait job". [ My job was making sure the beer taps work properly. I still test them out a few times a year-- till my $$ runs out. :)]
---------
The Red Lion
www.redlionnyc.com
151 Bleecker Street
New York, NY 10012-1403
(212) 260-9797
------------
there are i few other musician owner type bars, My sis knows more who and where than i do
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not happy about the situation , either
You have summed up out "copyright" and "public performance" debate here PERFECTLY.
A +++ / A+++
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
Re: 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?
clearer
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
Re: poppycock. If someone used the word "apple" there would be hell to pay.
-----------------------------------
Apple Corps v Apple Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
In what respect, exactly, does Canadian trademark law, need a "patch download" and just where, exactly, is the patch required.
In the U.S. is is not uncommon for SCOTUS to uphold a slightly "flawed" law, and to also "recommend" that Congress should re-write the flawed part the law to better fit constitutional intent .
IF SCOTUS overturns the law, it can ONLY be because it is wholly ( or mostly ) unconstitutional.
--------------------
Good read on this point :
THE
GEORGE WASHINGTON
LAW REVIEW
"Severability as Judicial Lawmaking"
By David H. Gans
http://groups.law.gwu.edu/LR/Pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=194
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
That fact is McCain stopped using "the Boss's " song. He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART. Do you Mike ?
He did not deny Bruce's right to control his ART.
CORE POINT OF OUR DEBATE :
Do you accept Bruce Springsteen's right to control his music , in this real work actual instance ----Mike ?.
Answer Y or N first -- And then please do explain why clearly. Please also site major philosophers and specific quotes from SCOTUS decisions -- by members of SCOTUS ( living or dead.) to support your answers.
[Pretend it is a final test , on copyright law , in any college level pol-sci class, and that you must pass this requisite course to graduate the college -- as i will be grading it as such. :)]
No answer-- means you fail.
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademarks/// The point of trademark was never about giving full property rights to the holder.
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a primer publication.
Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will say you time.
Core quote from the debate moderator:
"As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not "do more harm than good," as the debate's motion demands. "
--------------------------
from the same page :
Featured User's Comment
Dear Sir,
Unfortunately 'hope for the future' and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law.
Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET.
Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing 'world' society.
We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries.
The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect.
>>>Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention.
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
Human rights, Sociology - Henry Fonda - "12 angry men"
51:27 - 3 years ago
Free University in Internet. Over 300 political, social, cultural & scientific Clips under “ kam200 ” . Anthropology, Archaeology, Astrophysics, Atheism, Biology, Cosmology, Democracy, Feminism, Freedom, Genetics, Geology, History, Human, rights, Palaeontology, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Sociology, Zoology, And many more …
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8879792408487708107#
On the post: Canadian Court Notes That Keyword Advertising On Competitor's Trademarks Is Not Deceptive
TP, multiple people have pointed out to you that you seem to be wrong on nearly everything you post.
None of these "multiple people" have copyright law degrees, nor are members of congress, or sit on SCOTUS.
Those are the only opinions that matter to my points.
And the only people who can say I am wrong.
I "seem to be wrong on nearly everything " I post, only to people who simply have no solid academic background , in law, philosophy of law , nor political thought history.
Those topics was a large part of my academic discipline and professional activist career .
Some high school kid on meth, does not ever dent my arguments, on serious points of law, morals & philosophy , taught in any law school.
------------------------------------------------------
( Either way , my favorite movie is 12 Angry Men. And Henry Fonda my favorite actor, for esp this film. Very big influence, not just on me ,, but very many people. It gives us strength against the Pirate Logic people of the world. All here should watch the film , if you can get a legal copy.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_%281957_film%29#Critical_responses
All my points posted here have been academically tested , and well graded with "A"s.
Leave law to lawyers , judges and SCOTUS.
Techdirt is just mental masturbation on the topic.
All our words here has no real world impact.*
The Constitution will not be changed to gut it of Copyright.
Political Reality.
--------------------------------
* if it get even one person to stop their illegal downloads, because they see the sound moral and logical reasoning of my posts, then that is good. It I get 100 better still,, and so forth.
I am not holding my breadth.
-------------------------------------------
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: ASCAP & BMI are good
100% true. good post.
Mike ,, your turn.
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any comment mike ?
Next >>