Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130.
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.
The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130.
Re: Re: intellectual property Counsel // http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htmMaybe this is more about you sleeping at night than making an honest intellectual argument?
I would sugest you click my profile here ,, read all my recent posts .
I make sound factual points all though out ,, the last 3 weeks of debates here on copyright.
There are two easy ways to obtain permission to photocopy articles by Ayn Rand for classroom use.
Copyright.com
Copyright.com is a website that enables professors to request reprint rights to Ayn Rand’s works for classroom use. There is a small fee to use this service.
* Go to http://www.copyright.com/
* Create an account or log in
* Enter the title of the essay you want to photocopy in the "Get Permission / Find Title" box
* Click “Order”
It’s just that simple!
The Estate of Ayn Rand
You may also obtain permission to photocopy Ayn Rand's works directly from the Estate of Ayn Rand. There is no fee when permission is granted. Please send your request to:
The Estate of Ayn Rand
c/o The Ayn Rand Institute
Rights and Permissions
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
In your request, please supply the following information:
* Your name and title
* University or college name and address
* Title of course
* Title of article for which you are requesting permission
* Approximate number of photocopies needed
* Date or term of course
* Date permission is needed
AP, notoriously aggressive in its draconian interpretation on copyright law might get upset -- and, indeed, weeks later, the AP suddenly demanded money for the use of the photo:
MIKE :AP, notoriously aggressive in its draconian interpretation on copyright law might get upset -- and, indeed, weeks later, the AP suddenly ++++demanded money+++ for the use of the photo"
ME : you have to sue for $$ .
we do not flog people in the USA. [ too bad :) ]
They are suing on principle.
----
It is always $$$ with you Mike .
Re: ap may not specifically lose anything in this case, except for a certain level of control over their entire portfolio. you miss this sort of thing every time. it makes it much easier to understand why you misunderstand the applications of copyright la
"And why can't I profit from an image that no one else is profitting from? Once the photographer took that pic and got paid for it, did he show it in galleries or attempt to profit in any other way? It just seems like the AP is trying to grab some profits they didn't earn."
-----------
ans:
"In a countersuit, the AP has said the uncredited, uncompensated use of one of the news cooperative's pictures violated copyright laws and posed a threat to journalism."
Me: AP is suing on principle. The lawyers are billing for profit. AP will spend more on legal fees than they could ever hope to recover,
MIKE : Wait, what?!? "Aggrieved"? How? Seriously. How has the AP lost anything here.
"In a countersuit, the AP has said the uncredited, uncompensated use of one of the news cooperative's pictures ++violated copyright laws and posed a threat to journalism."++
"That photographer, Mannie Garcia, even talked about how cool it was, and didn't seem upset by the issue at all, saying he hoped he might get a "signed litho" from Fairey. We wondered, at the time, if the AP, notoriously aggressive in its draconian interpretation on copyright law might get upset -- and, indeed, weeks later, the AP suddenly demanded money for the use of the photo: "
ME : this highlights what I have pointed out before , in that Artists rarely go after other good faith-ed ARTISTS on fair use , or copyright. ( Please Paul sue me for my Beatle cover!!)
BUt the big biz corp. copyright holders , most always will once made aware of possible infringment.
MIKE : "For no reason whatsoever, he went out and destroyed evidence in the case and lied to the court about what image he had used. It boggles the mind as to why he would do this.++ He had such a strong case,++ and in lying and destroying evidence he shot a huge hole through his credibility (and opened himself up to criminal liability). "
ME : Maybe he destroyed the evidence , BECAUSE as an Artist , he knew, he violated fair use. Ever think of that ?
While we're still not convinced you can trust the Associated Press's reporting
MIKE :"While we're still not convinced you can trust the Associated Press's reporting ....."
ANS: Techdirt . Copyright. Trust ?
Sorry.
------------------
It might help your trust factor if you ans. my ans, to your reasons for fighting piracy questions.
posted here for your pleasure :
--------------------------
MIKE :
"Again, the whole thing is a worthwhile read, but highlights a key point that we keep trying to make over and over again. So many keep focusing in on the whole "piracy!" aspect, and that's such a huge waste of time. Why focus on trying to stop something you don't like, when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like? Why focus on trying to punish people you don't like, when you have so many opportunities to happily engage with people you do like? "
----
MIKE :"Why focus on trying to stop something you don't
like,?"
ANS : MORAL PRINCIPLE... Mike . Pretty simple. Of you do not see that , well,, then Mike ,, you really are lost on this issue of Copyrights.
----
MIKE : " when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like?"
ANS: The positive situation that I do like want , and will work for , and fight for ,
Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
"Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy."
Ans: the Artist CREATES the ART.
The Artist control any FULL use , 100 %.
Artists have the RIGHT to totally grant ( or not grant) use , AND to control 100 % that use PRIVILEGE -- except for parody and fair use.
That is the Basics of copyright Law.
( "fair use" is a partial excerpt , in most cases ,, academic citation , or for education purposes,, and etc ,, as cited in law.)
The title would have been a catchall, something like "Aspects of Quantum Field Theory" or some such - but I left the document with my parents many years ago -
still unverifiable info.
I can write that Einstein tested me in the womb !!
YOUR Faculty, web page ? with Your name?
Again , any Phd.,, knows the EXACT title of their thesis ,, everyday forever,, your never forget that !!!
AND Again ,, I will take an email w/ 3 references and their email.
I studied Astronomy @ SUNY at OSWEGO 1976-80 ,, but never finished my degree there. Astronomy is my main hobby since childhood. I read much on it
My other academic info , posted on my blog , w/ link to , in my profile here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: With a response like that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nameless one's alt or something. Or maybe angry dude is his alt. I've always suspected he is just trolling these comment threads
again , take a civil liberties course , try that on the final exam
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130.
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.
The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Re: Re: intellectual property Counsel // http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htmMaybe this is more about you sleeping at night than making an honest intellectual argument?
I make sound factual points all though out ,, the last 3 weeks of debates here on copyright.
thru , my profile you can find out all about me,,
On the post: ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important
Ayn Rand
Requesting Reprint Permission for Classroom Use
There are two easy ways to obtain permission to photocopy articles by Ayn Rand for classroom use.
Copyright.com
Copyright.com is a website that enables professors to request reprint rights to Ayn Rand’s works for classroom use. There is a small fee to use this service.
* Go to http://www.copyright.com/
* Create an account or log in
* Enter the title of the essay you want to photocopy in the "Get Permission / Find Title" box
* Click “Order”
It’s just that simple!
The Estate of Ayn Rand
You may also obtain permission to photocopy Ayn Rand's works directly from the Estate of Ayn Rand. There is no fee when permission is granted. Please send your request to:
The Estate of Ayn Rand
c/o The Ayn Rand Institute
Rights and Permissions
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Or by:
Fax: 949-222-6558
Email: rralston@aynrand.org
In your request, please supply the following information:
* Your name and title
* University or college name and address
* Title of course
* Title of article for which you are requesting permission
* Approximate number of photocopies needed
* Date or term of course
* Date permission is needed
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_profresources_reprint_permission _classroom
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Every single time AP even mentions this debacle they have to show an example of Fairey's poster.
I (nor AP probably ) is not saying it is not a great work of art.
Just that it legally infringed.
Remember the court has not ruled yet.
Personally I hope there is no settlement , and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
Please you anti -copy right folks ,,
Start a legal defense fund for the alleged infringer.
Mike & techdirt is a great place to start one.
see ya in court.
(I bring my uke.)
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
AP, notoriously aggressive in its draconian interpretation on copyright law might get upset -- and, indeed, weeks later, the AP suddenly demanded money for the use of the photo:
ME : you have to sue for $$ .
we do not flog people in the USA. [ too bad :) ]
They are suing on principle.
----
It is always $$$ with you Mike .
Get beyond it.
go out and look at the stars.
and count them.
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Basically they are parasites on those instances.
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Re: Re: Re:Not just "tolerated" it, but actively used it themselves time and time again -- including in using photographs of Fairey's own poster.
Interview the AP lawyer in this case.
I am sure he would be glad to.
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Re: Re:Not just "tolerated" it, but actively used it themselves time and time again -- including in using photographs of Fairey's own poster.
Details please. How ? When ? Why ?
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Re:Too late. They've already tolerated it before.
Details please. How ? When ? Why ?
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: ap may not specifically lose anything in this case, except for a certain level of control over their entire portfolio. you miss this sort of thing every time. it makes it much easier to understand why you misunderstand the applications of copyright la
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Techdirt as usual
-----------
ans:
"In a countersuit, the AP has said the uncredited, uncompensated use of one of the news cooperative's pictures violated copyright laws and posed a threat to journalism."
Me: AP is suing on principle. The lawyers are billing for profit. AP will spend more on legal fees than they could ever hope to recover,
quote from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/judge-urges-settlement-in_n_593861.html
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
MIKE : Wait, what?!? "Aggrieved"? How? Seriously. How has the AP lost anything here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/judge-urges-settlement-in_n_593861.html
-------
++violated copyright laws and posed a threat to journalism."++
Me: AP is suing on principle to defend copyright laws and a "posed a threat to journalism".
Moral Principle.
-------------------------
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
ME : this highlights what I have pointed out before , in that Artists rarely go after other good faith-ed ARTISTS on fair use , or copyright. ( Please Paul sue me for my Beatle cover!!)
BUt the big biz corp. copyright holders , most always will once made aware of possible infringment.
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
ME : Maybe he destroyed the evidence , BECAUSE as an Artist , he knew, he violated fair use. Ever think of that ?
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
While we're still not convinced you can trust the Associated Press's reporting
ANS: Techdirt . Copyright. Trust ?
Sorry.
------------------
It might help your trust factor if you ans. my ans, to your reasons for fighting piracy questions.
posted here for your pleasure :
--------------------------
MIKE :
"Again, the whole thing is a worthwhile read, but highlights a key point that we keep trying to make over and over again. So many keep focusing in on the whole "piracy!" aspect, and that's such a huge waste of time. Why focus on trying to stop something you don't like, when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like? Why focus on trying to punish people you don't like, when you have so many opportunities to happily engage with people you do like? "
----
MIKE :"Why focus on trying to stop something you don't
like,?"
ANS : MORAL PRINCIPLE... Mike . Pretty simple. Of you do not see that , well,, then Mike ,, you really are lost on this issue of Copyrights.
----
MIKE : " when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like?"
ANS: The positive situation that I do like want , and will work for , and fight for ,
, and yes,, even die for:
is a world w/o Piracy.
=================
On the post: Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car
Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
Ans: the Artist CREATES the ART.
The Artist control any FULL use , 100 %.
Artists have the RIGHT to totally grant ( or not grant) use , AND to control 100 % that use PRIVILEGE -- except for parody and fair use.
That is the Basics of copyright Law.
( "fair use" is a partial excerpt , in most cases ,, academic citation , or for education purposes,, and etc ,, as cited in law.)
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
The title would have been a catchall, something like "Aspects of Quantum Field Theory" or some such - but I left the document with my parents many years ago -
I can write that Einstein tested me in the womb !!
YOUR Faculty, web page ? with Your name?
Again , any Phd.,, knows the EXACT title of their thesis ,, everyday forever,, your never forget that !!!
AND Again ,, I will take an email w/ 3 references and their email.
I studied Astronomy @ SUNY at OSWEGO 1976-80 ,, but never finished my degree there. Astronomy is my main hobby since childhood. I read much on it
My other academic info , posted on my blog , w/ link to , in my profile here.
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Dude. Look within.///Re: Re: Moral Rights Basics." // http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htm
i teach people how to look within, w/ my Religion and my Art.
On the post: Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: With a response like that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nameless one's alt or something. Or maybe angry dude is his alt. I've always suspected he is just trolling these comment threads
On the post: Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car
Mike: At some point, +++common sense+++ is supposed to kick in and the pedestrian says, "hey, this is not designed for walking."
Me : glad you see "common sense " is a legal principle.
With Piracy vs. copyright law, many folks commenting here miss that point .
Next >>