Ooh, truffle trifle makes me want to get out the trifle bowl and experiment.
Fade @ 219, they don't do sugar free so they may not be what you're looking for, but http://www.legacychocolates.com/ is a truffle maker in my neck of the woods who do amazing chocolate that has a low glycemic index. We regularly get it for diabetic friends and family because of that. They've been featured in Newsweek a couple of times as one of the best in the business. I couldn't find their statement about it online, but in this thread someone has a post on them that quotes something very similar to the in-store sign Legacy Chocolates have on the topic.
Noen @ 157, add me to those applauding a gracious and sincere apology. I hope I do as well should the need arise. And please do stick around.
Xopher @ 198 (currently), I agree as well. Both 136 and 138 would be better cut.
You're going to scare him off and that would be a shame since he's such a beautiful specimen of sockpuppetus internettus. Rarely do you get such a clear view of the species in it's natural habitat–the ever deepening hole.
It's actually been a bit like some sort of Animal Planet for the internet age till now. I've been watching from the laundry hamper blind with the camera crew as the whole thing unfolded, waiting breathlessly for Teresa in her lioness-of-the-internet-veldt moderator role to come in for the kill.
Greg, I feel that I have to respond to 518.
At 518 you say But folks who don't want any copyright because information wants to be free is a strawman of folks who want reasonable copyright.
Earlier at 283, you said There is a much smaller minority who believe (3) that information wants to be free and copyright should not exist at all.
If 283 is correct, and there is a minority opinion that really does state the position you ascribed to it, how exactly is that a strawman in the context of the discussion thus far? It may be a minority opinion, and one that you yourself don't agree with, but that is not the same thing as a strawman.
In particular I am concerned that by tying the strawman characterization to my comment, you seem to be implying that I was using at as just such a strawman. This would be difficult to support since I've already stated many times in this thread that I'm for reasonable copyright lengths, and in fact for copyright terms that aren't that far away from your stated preference. Further, I specifically noted that I find the "information want to be free" meme annoying in the specific context of individuals who want to avoid having to pay for content.
Therefore, the tactic of calling it a strawman and doing so in the context of my comments would seem to me to be disingenuous at best, and at worst an attempt to misrepresent my position as calling for the position of eternal copyright. Thus I'm back to being quite certain that you and I are speaking such different languages on the topic that there's not really any point in discussion.
Because it wanted out:
A mighty writer was the man
Read the thousands in his van
Though I knew him not at all
I am saddened by his fall
Finding tears when ere I blink
So I cannot help but think
With tales unfinished, words unwritten
Reader's hopes by death smitten
How much worse fans and friends will feel
At this sad turning of time's wheel
Wyrdsmiths
Vale
P J Evans @510, that may be the case for some people who are saying it, and it may have been the original intent, but it's now used to suggest unpaid for at least by some. I've had quite a number of face-to-face discussions with people who believe that you shouldn't have to pay for content, and almost to a one they have quoted "information wants to be free" as part of their reasoning. The person who formulated the quote may not have intended it be used as a club to hit content providers, but I have the bruises that suggest that it's being used that way now. Argument by slogan or sound bite is generally dangerous, and "information wants to be free" is exactly that kind of argument.
Greg @506, there may a problem with your comparison of the economics of the time of 42-56 year copyright onto the now, at least in writing. It comes in that things like payment per word has risen much more slowly than inflation. So, in the short stories market at least, the same amount of work is being done for considerably less inflation-adjusted money than it used to be. I don't know whether that means that a lot of good writers who would otherwise be writing are now doing something else, and I doubt that copyright law really addresses the issue. I do know that the short story markets are dying, though again there's not necessarily any connection and a lot of damn good stories are being published. I just wanted to note that your comparison is an oversimplification and may in fact be comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples fifty years later.
Keir @504, I wasn't actually advancing it, I was responding to Greg's comments about the crown molding argument. I frankly think it's utterly impractical in a market economy to try to map the amount of labor onto the value of something, because that's just not going to happen.
Greg @505, I was talking about my visceral emotional response to "information wants to be free" which statement assumes no production cost in the initial generation of said information. If my novels wanted to be free, they wouldn't be so much work to produce. If you can't see why the "information wants to be free" quote is going to be genuinely offensive to a lot of producers of information...well there's nothing I can do about that except feel very sad. Also, by drawing the parallel to "crown molding wants to be free," I was making a joke, as in ha ha, not as in this is a serious point that needs refuting. Do with that what you will.
Greg @501 if you want to suggest that writers are on the average overpaid under the present terms of copyright in relation to the amount of labor they put into their work I'm going to have to disagree with you rather vigorously. If you want to go for a time span that allows the average book to pay out anything proportional to the amount of work that goes into it, you're going to have copyright that's much longer then life rather than shorter.
Oh, and Demosthenes @497, are you really comparing "take long walks on sunny days" to writing novels as categories of work? Because if you are, I suspect there are a number of people who hang around this site who are going take exception. I know that I would.
Demosthenes @497, absolutely it's gone too far. You'll see me suggesting significantly shorter terms than the current ones pretty frequently if you read upthread through the last 100 or so posts. As for the difficult aspect, I'm on that. I write full time.
Michael @493, I hadn't seen that one before, and it made me laugh out loud. Blockheads of the world unite.
Michael @490, thanks for the clarification and I agree with your formulation.
The main reason I included the caveat was that very few people (the exception being pure communists) ever suggest that carpenters shouldn't be paid for their work. You basically never hear "trim molding wants to be free." But I am constantly encountering "information wants to be free" and "art should be done for love not money" and "anyone who does art for the money isn't really an artist." BTW, I'm really quite certain none of that is your position and I am not ascribing it to you.
I just felt it necessary to make it clear that I find getting paid for and making a living with art to be as natural as getting paid for and making a living building chairs.
Michael @487. Works for me to, though with the one caveat that I find it no more artificial than any other right that allows someone to make a living based on their labor or the fruits thereof.
Greg,
What I disagreed with was the contention that a property model equals forever and that a service model equals temporary. There's no reason one can't believe that one's service is so great that the copyright accrued should last forever or that property couldn't be a twenty minute designation.
Property and service models have only an artificial relationship to time. I will happily acknowledge a dichotomy between temporary and permanent models with everything falling on a spectrum in between. I just don't think that dichotomy maps at all well onto property vs. service.
Permanent vs. temporary is predictive and causal over how long someone accepts as a reasonable term for copyright. Property vs. service is at best correlative to what a person thinks of as a reasonable time for copyright. It looked to me like you were claiming some sort of inherent connection between whether one viewed one's work as property and how long one felt copyright should last and I just don't see it the way you described it.
Greg, I already told you what my time scale measure was. Long enough to provide a potential living for the artist for life and take care of immediate dependents. Shorter for corporate copyright. I mentioned it several times above. That plus a legal acknowledgment of artist ownership of art for whatever that set period is. 40 years or life, whichever is longer before the property becomes public domain, as proposed above @#367 by Christopher Davis would be perfectly acceptable to me because it covers the time requirements I set out over a hundred posts ago.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 56 |
| 2006 | 4 |
Total: 60 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Kelly McCullough:
Show all comments by Kelly McCullough.