The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Bryan (pantagruel):

"this isn't a time when the message about JPII's shortcomings is going to be heard"

no, it isn't a time when ranting sabout his evil will be heard (then again, when was ever the time for the nice cuddly-wuddly popey-wopey), but pointing out inconsistencies just might slip through.

so basically derivative works that are non-profit should not have to pay. Thus a derivative work that has profit potential could be produced, and market tested without profit, then be released wider for profit. An example that comes immediately to mind was a Peanuts Tarot a couple years ago some guy did on his homepage, I would have gladly paid $80 for that, of course Peanuts shut him down. Actually as this was after Schultz's death in my utopian view he there would no longer have been a creator's right involved and the guy could have done whatever he wanted with the work.

I think it should grow up and swallow parody that is for profit, or used to drive profit for something else, so yes Bored of the Rings should have to pay some portion to Tolkien (but obviously not to the Tolkien estate, I believe basically in a lifetime of the creator of content right, I suppose that this right could be transferred but if you transfer maybe it shouldn't be for lifetime anymore - maybe only for 20 years) , when I say drive profit for something else I'm thinking of parody songs in commercials for example.

an exclusive reproduction right for things that are exactly the same, or adjudged to be significantly the same is okay, although the judgement as to what is significantly the same should be a great deal more stringent than it is today. A copy of a U2 song with a half second cut off the end is significantly the same, the negativeland version of where the streets have no name is different and thus distribution should not have been interfered with, although I suppose that it would be proper if negativeland had to give some percentage of their small profits to U2 for rights to make the parody. The same would apply to tshirts of bert and ernie having sex, right to distribute, sesame street should not be able to stop it, monetary percentage reserved for sesame street.

'Grokster users (thieves if you envision IP as property, rights-violators if you envision it as something else).'
actually I'm not sure that I envision them as rights-violators because I'm not sure that money for individual reproductions of an item of IP is an inherent right.

'You know, it would be awfully refreshing to have someone disagree with me on these issues without rushing to impute that I and the people who share my views want to "tear down copyright," or hold "some Stallman-like view that there is absolutely no such thing as creator's rights."'

well Patrick, you seem somewhat thin-skinned to me, but it's your blog and anyway it's a person's right to be thin-skinned, I didn't say anything about you wanting to tear down copyright, that was somebody else. I suppose you are lumping me and the other person together for convenience but that is really a mistake since the other person was a supporter of current copyright, and I am someone who suggests that there may be a right to intellectual property - these are not the same thing.

The imputation of a Stallman-like view was really towards the core idea that Stallman goes back to, that there is no 'right' to intellectual property as such, because copyright was proposed as a way to foster innovation. I dislike this viewpoint because it seems to me to be based on a view that rights are things granted and I like to believe that rights are things inherent. That a rather old document says that copyright is one thing does not invalidate that there may be other rights that, because they are not adequately addressed, copyright has become associated with in the common understanding and that this association has been misused by large companies - hence my statement in my second post "just as obviously no one should try to figure out if there are some sorts of rights and how they should be protected because someone did something asinine some time."


So my argument is basically that I suppose there may be a right to intellectual property although agreeing that the current legal mechanism known as copyright does not support what I would consider to be an just enforcement of such rights, I would have thought that my first comment was reasonably clear on this matter:

"That intellectual property laws were first created to foster innovation does not mean that there is no such thing as a right to control of ones intellectual property. I suppose that there are indeed some sort of rights inherent in ones ideas, this is why we think someone is bad if they take credit for someone elses idea."

although that I am not a supporter of RIAA or other current Copyright misusers is not clearly delineated I'd thought it reasonably clear that I considered a case for what rights should be available was up in the air by the use of the construct 'some sorts of rights' otherwise I would have said something stern like 'and so far the best application of the rights inherent in the creation of intellectual property is that governing the current usages of copyright' or something similar.

Avram: I'm not really understanding this:
'And doesn't "those who argue against the current inequities in copyright"...'
Why am I not understanding it? Well, when I use the phrase current inequities in copyright without scare quote around current inequities then I mean to convey that yes, I consider the current status of copyright to be inequitable. But it seems to me that you have taken it to mean that I think the current status is fine, and could maybe be improved if we did a little more for the content companies. So I'm not sure where you're going with your conservative, not conservative authoritarian thing there, but I think it's actually somewhat in a direction away from the direction I was going in.

'Actually, the proposition on the table is that whereas there's a genuine issue of justice here, the language of "property" has come to distort more than it informs. '

this did not seem to be the proposition on the table. I have often observed that those who argue against the current inequities in copyright have some Stallman-like view that there is absolutely no such thing as creator's rights, using as their basis for these claims some statements in documents from some centuries back. It seems to become a matter of faith.

'Just as obviously, these "rights" are pretty darn contingent; this is why we think someone is being a jerk when they try to shake down Girl Scout troops for singing "Happy Birthday."'

just as obviously no one should try to figure out if there are some sorts of rights and how they should be protected because someone did something asinine some time.

'In the current round of fights, Big Content is bidding for absolute control; appeals to our just sense that creators should be credited are in fact off the point.'

So because bad people 'X' have used appeals to our just sense that creators should be credited all appeals to our just sense that creators should be credited are in fact off the point.


'Sorry, BSD, but that's crap. Congress has no power to create an intellectual property right except what it derives from its power to promote innovation'

or from its power to amend the Constitution.

That intellectual property laws were first created to foster innovation does not mean that there is no such thing as a right to control of ones intellectual property. I suppose that there are indeed some sort of rights inherent in ones ideas, this is why we think someone is bad if they take credit for someone elses idea.

'Thanks for the kind words... it's obviously a friendly place around here for those who march to a slightly different drummer'

Bush is gay!?!

'As long as we get an incoming president in '08. (Well, '09 really.)'

that's optimism!

Rush Limbaugh: And these communists, and friends i don't use that term lightly, they are out there stealing from American Businesses and what really gets me here is, they admit they're communists! They are proud of it! They are proud to associate themselves with one of the greatest enemies this country ever faced, a movement of the left that was based on the murder of millions of people, and if you think i am being somewhat over the top saying that these people are communists well you can go right here to see their logo, and their descriptions of themselves as communists.

I often in the drear of night have ponderoed about this thing, the weblog it is, if should I have one, what things then?! I dare it not, call me chowdered, but I know to do it would enforce the linking of those dastards of radish liberaces, the Nielsen Haytheres. I like you have my mortals, there are some tricks I will not go on with even a pony under me. I am urgent that you reconsider this facts, the world would be of a place much superior if you forget the religion as she is practiced in the a of the u.s today.

well as I have a long history of aliases I'm really confused as what to do now.

you know I never would have thought a nice guy like praktike a mofo would like to be.

MOFOLB?

on the intarweb nobody knows you're faking your innermost desires.

So you folks have been on the intarweb for how long and you're just learning what MILF means now?

hmm, I thought praktike was a female. Also uhm, praktike, is there any meaning to your name? are you scandinavian. although then I guess you'd be missing the e.

Also this 'Jesus' would reign for a thousand years.

Patrick, don't tell me you miss the grace of iron clothing.

'If someone is really good, the degree won't matter.'
yes if the definition of really good is someone who has been responsible for several well recognised advances in their field, if the definition is someone who has all the skills that you would expect someone to have that possessed a degree in the field i gotta ask, is "won't matter" supposed to indicate that it won't matter enough that the person can still make a success of their lives in that field without the degree or is "won't matter" supposed to indicate that it won't matter for every possible circumstance in which we suppose, from obviously mistaken common sense, that it probably would matter?

Also is "won't matter" meant to indicate that it won't matter because of course the hiring practices of the present day have a one-to-one relation with the hiring practices of the time when Patrick was starting out, back when it maybe didn't matter as much.

well as I don't really have any respect for the American Educational system or a number of its legitimate 'successes' I don't really care except where the educational discipline in question is one that traditionally requires a long internship with professionals, this to forestall people asking if i would want to be operated on for disease X by someone with a diploma mill degree.

actually it just struck me as I was writing this that one reason for the existence of diploma mills is that the provisions for life experience credits at most universities are very arbitrary and useless.

Comment statistics for Bryan (pantagruel) on the Electrolite blog

Total: 76 comments. View all these comments on a single page.