On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:39:02 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:

And what do you say about the copyrighting of music? Should everyone
with a good voice or who is a talented instrumentalist be entitled to
record copyrighted stuff and post it on the web for anyone else who
wants to enjoy it to grab?

If it is a question of "ought", then my *personal opinion* hinges simply
on the making of money from others' works, vs casual use. If you're
going to sing a copyrighted work in the shower, then that's OK (despite
what the copyright fundamentalists say). If you're going to sell
recordings of your performance, or tickets to a live event, then no.
The author should have rights to any money, but casual use does not
involve money.

Oddly enough, as a practical matter I agree with this concept. I've
even argued for this position a couple of times in my columns.

The reason is that money leaves a trail where, increasingly, copying
doesn't. The hope is that such non-commerical copying will not cause
enough economic damage to the copyright holder as to render the
copyright effectively valuless.

However this is an argument from practicality -- some would say
desperation -- rather than principle. This kind of not-for-profit
copying still causes economic loss to the copyright holder.

However it is important to note that this is NOT what the law says.
This is my opinion of how copyright should work in the 21st Century,
and to present it as how things work today is at best ignorant and at
worst dishonest.

snip
The point being, image-making per se is not the allegedly
criminal act,

The point being we've already established at great, excruciating,
length that you are utterly and completely wrong.

If this is an expression of personal opinion, fine. That's your
opinion about how things should be. But it is not how things are and
your repeated attempts to

it is arbitrary actions that when carefully defined lack
any consistent moral foundation.

Wrong again. The principle which underlies both copyright and the
exceptions is clear, simple and has been repeatedly enunciated
everywhere from court decisions to handbooks on copyright.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong.

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:40:15 -0500, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

Richard J Kinch wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:



If it is a question of "ought", then my *personal opinion* hinges simply
on the making of money from others' works, vs casual use. If you're
going to sing a copyrighted work in the shower, then that's OK (despite
what the copyright fundamentalists say). If you're going to sell
recordings of your performance, or tickets to a live event, then no.
The author should have rights to any money, but casual use does not
involve money.


I guess that puts me among the fundamentalists, though I don't think
even I would have a problem with singing in the shower, depending of
course on who was in there with me doing the singing.

It's the part about the author having rights to money that bothers me. I
look at it from a credit/debit perspective, and when a person
photocopies copyrighted material because they want to read it, whether
for casual or for business use, they are potentially depriving the
author of a sale.

The copyright thief's oft expressed argument is, "Well I never would
have bought a copy, it isn't worth what they're asking, so the author
didn't lose a sale."

Assuming for the sake of argument that the thief is correct, that
still doesn't account for the sales lost from copies of the copies.
There is economic damage here, no matter how loudly the theives
protest.

Now, that said, you can make a strong economic argument for making
some of your work as an author freely available. If you go to the Baen
Books web site, you can view or download the text of my first novel
"Wizard's Bane" for free. Do it with my blessing. Likewise, I hold
compilation copyright on the collection of aphorisms that appear at
the head of the chapters of my books. That collection, or parts of it,
are widely available on the Web, again with my blessing. As far as I'm
concerned, the people who repeat those sayings are helping to build an
audience for my books.

Further, the position of the record and movie companies in
'intellectual property' strikes me as absurd and unworkable.
Going after a fan who has written a piece of fiction about popular
characters is, in my opinion, both pointless and counter-productive.

In other words, I think some large companies are trying to push the
whole business of copyright much too far.

However that is utterly different from the kind of 'copy at will'
nonsense that some people are putting forward. The record companies'
position is damaging, but what these idiots propose would be even more
damaging.

--RC




"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:30:25 -0500, "Pat Ford" wrote:


"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:



If it is a question of "ought", then my *personal opinion* hinges simply
on the making of money from others' works, vs casual use. If you're
going to sing a copyrighted work in the shower, then that's OK (despite
what the copyright fundamentalists say). If you're going to sell
recordings of your performance, or tickets to a live event, then no.
The author should have rights to any money, but casual use does not
involve money.


I guess that puts me among the fundamentalists, though I don't think
even I would have a problem with singing in the shower, depending of
course on who was in there with me doing the singing.

It's the part about the author having rights to money that bothers me. I
look at it from a credit/debit perspective, and when a person
photocopies copyrighted material because they want to read it, whether
for casual or for business use, they are potentially depriving the
author of a sale.

The copyright thief's oft expressed argument is, "Well I never would
have bought a copy, it isn't worth what they're asking, so the author
didn't lose a sale." That really yanks my chain, and I've gotten SWMBO
ticked at me more than once for telling people who are stupid enough to
say that in public what I think of them, the same way I usually put down
people who brag about their cheating the IRS at cocktail parties with,
"So I'm supposed to feel good about your being a crook, which means that
I'll have to pay more than my fair share in taxes?"

Jeff (Who didn't come here to be liked...)

--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

I was trying to stay out of this BUT... If you own a "legal" copy of a
copyrighted item, in Canada you are allowed to make a backup copy. Under
"fair use" you can either make use of the original, or the copy but not both
at the same time. So if I owned the book, paid copyrightand put it on the
shelf and downloaded the ebook and used that isn't the end effect the same?
I would have a working copy and the original.

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long as only
1 copy is ever used at the same time.
Pat

Copyright law is entirely a creature of statute, so it varies from
country to country. Canada's position on copyright is generally a lot
saner than here in the US -- in part because you don't have big,
greedy record and movie companies lobbying the legislature for idiot
laws to protect their 'intellectual property'.

--RC(who still can't say 'intellectual property' with a straight
face.)

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:08:36 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:30:25 -0500, "Pat Ford" wrote:

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long as only
1 copy is ever used at the same time.

Copyright law is entirely a creature of statute, so it varies from
country to country. Canada's position on copyright is generally a lot
saner than here in the US -- in part because you don't have big,
greedy record and movie companies lobbying the legislature for idiot
laws to protect their 'intellectual property'.

Are you claiming that his use of mp3s of media he owns is somehow
against the law in the US? Can you back that up with anything at
all aside from insults of the people who do in fact deserve insults,
but maybe not for this particular case?

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:25:48 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Pat Ford writes:

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy
who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long
as only 1 copy is ever used at the same time.

I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are
arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows?

Someone who had studied the law would know. The law is significantly
different in Canada than in the United States. What Pat was told is
probably correct -- in Canada.

I suspect RIAA would
say you need to pay for an MP3 re-encoding even if you own the PCM CD, you
didn't buy a license for re-encoding, and those rights belong to the
author, too.

The RIAA would like to say that in Canada, just as you like to claim
that you're right. Neither of you are correct because both of you are
not in accordance with the law. In the RIAA's case, Canadian law, and
in your case, US law.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:16:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Jeff Wisnia writes:

It's the part about the author having rights to money that bothers me.
I look at it from a credit/debit perspective, and when a person
photocopies copyrighted material because they want to read it, whether
for casual or for business use, they are potentially depriving the
author of a sale.

The "depriving someone of an opportunity" argument is simply begging the
question. Granted, the opportunity is lost when a casual copy is made,
but that doesn't address the question of whether that opportunity was
literally the property (as the copyright fundamentalists put it, the
chimera of "intellectual property") of the author.

That question is addressed in the law of copyright. In the United
States it is quite clear that the author (or his/her successor) does
indeed own that opportunity. That's been settled for about as long as
the United States has existed.

idiot argument snipped
The mere opportunity to make a hypothetical sale is not anyone's right.

Wrong again. As a matter of law authors and other do have such rights.

The copyright doctrine generally excludes works that are "utilitarian".

There is no such exception in copyright law. There is a requirement
for some measure of creativity as well as originality, but that can be
met by a utilitarian work. See the Supreme Court's decision in _Feist_

The author of a literary work gets a copyright, but the author of a
gourmet dish or a brick wall does not.

Wrong. Both can be copyrighted and at least gourmet dishes have been
copyrighted. Presumably one could get a copyright on the design of a
brick wall if it was sufficently unique.

You can copy the meal or the wall but not the book.
Nope.

Neither "original authorship" nor "sweat of the
brow" will in themselves yield a coprightable work.

For once you're correct, at least in the US. The test, as enunciated
by the Supreme Court, includes the element of creativity. Read the
_Feist_ deicsion, which you cited in an earlier thread.

(And the rest of you, for amusement, might want to look up the "Abie's
Irish Rose" case. It was an early example of the limits of 'original
authorship.')

Copyrights are arbitrary creations of government fiat for economic expedience,

That's twice you've been right in one message. That may be a record.

not legal protections enforcing a moral property right.

They are most certainly legal protections. And enforcing a moral
property right? I'd argue that they do in fact enforce a moral
property right.

.. the same way I usually put down
people who brag about their cheating the IRS at cocktail parties with,
"So I'm supposed to feel good about your being a crook, which means
that I'll have to pay more than my fair share in taxes?"

"Cheating the IRS" is an apt comparison in at least one regard.

The dollar amount of your taxes due is an arbitrary figure without any
moral basis.

There is certainly a well-defined legal basis. You seem to have a lot
of trouble with the distinction between 'moral' and 'legal. Here's a
hint: You can't be put in jail for violating a moral precept. You can
be jailed for violating the law.

Perhaps you have heard how 10 differenet IRS agents will
come up with 10 different figures when calculating the taxes due on a
typical return. And the government changes the numbers from year to
year. For example, the death tax will disappear in a few years, yet
today it is as high as about 50 percent.

My God! Three times correct in the same message. The conclusions you
draw from the fact are, however, lacking.

So the concept of a "fair share" is absurd;

The concept of paying the taxes you owe under some legal calculation
is not at all absurd however. You still fail to distinguish between
legal, moral and (by extension) your own wishes.

there is no such thing, the numbers are just made up

Wrong. I sincerely hope you don't do your own taxes on that basis.

based on politics, and even then they are noisy. The "fair share" is
fallacious both as a reification and a quantification.

But the idea of paying the amount of legally owe is not. Neither is
the idea that cheating on your taxes is illegal and can, at best, cost
you a good deal of money.

And I can't imagine that you're popular at parties preaching about it.

People who can distinguish between what is morally and legally right
and those who cannot frequently are.

Now Jesus and Paul taught us to pay our taxes, to keep The
Man from hassling you. There's no moral duty to pay 2 drachmas, per
se.

Most would say there is a _general_ moral duty to obey the law.
(Mitigated by the possibility of laws which are immoral in
themselves.)

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are
arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows?

Someone who had studied the law would know.

*Groan*

The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

The author of a literary work gets a copyright, but the author of a
gourmet dish or a brick wall does not.

Wrong. Both can be copyrighted and at least gourmet dishes have been
copyrighted. Presumably one could get a copyright on the design of a
brick wall if it was sufficently unique.

I don't want to get into chapter and verse on this detail, but my study of
the law (which you seem to hold in contempt, while holding your own
background as far above mine) finds an entirely different conclusion than
yours. If you'd care to cite a single instance of copyright for a recipe
or a bricklaying pattern, that is, that prevents anyone from making copies
by making that dish or building that wall, then I'd be thoroughly
impressed.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:43:31 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are
arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows?

Someone who had studied the law would know.

*Groan*

The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

Wrong again. In any event the Supreme Court has the final say and they
have made it pretty clear.

Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it isn't a law.

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On 5 Jan 2005 22:11:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:08:36 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:30:25 -0500, "Pat Ford" wrote:

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy who does
only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the
cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long as only
1 copy is ever used at the same time.

Copyright law is entirely a creature of statute, so it varies from
country to country. Canada's position on copyright is generally a lot
saner than here in the US -- in part because you don't have big,
greedy record and movie companies lobbying the legislature for idiot
laws to protect their 'intellectual property'.

Are you claiming that his use of mp3s of media he owns is somehow
against the law in the US?

I'm stating general principles. Copyright law is different from
country to country. (Fact) Copyright law is generally saner in Canada
(opinion.) As to whether possessing an MP3 copy of a song for which
you own a copy of the media is a violation of copyright law -- Darned
if I know. I've never encountered a case on that point.

Can you back that up with anything at
all aside from insults of the people who do in fact deserve insults,
but maybe not for this particular case?

I gave up citing the facts in this case when it became obvious was
obvious he was ignoring them in favor of the products of his own
imagination.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:02:44 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

The author of a literary work gets a copyright, but the author of a
gourmet dish or a brick wall does not.

Wrong. Both can be copyrighted and at least gourmet dishes have been
copyrighted. Presumably one could get a copyright on the design of a
brick wall if it was sufficently unique.

I don't want to get into chapter and verse on this detail, but my study of
the law (which you seem to hold in contempt, while holding your own
background as far above mine) finds an entirely different conclusion than
yours.

Very well. Cite your sources. Give us the court decisions and the
applicable laws. Heck, let's even see some law review articles.

One of your problems is that you basically haven't cited _any_
sources, except for "Fiest" which you pretty clearly didn't
understand. Your only source seems to be some half-digested concepts
and your own imagination.

If you'd care to cite a single instance of copyright for a recipe
or a bricklaying pattern, that is, that prevents anyone from making copies
by making that dish or building that wall, then I'd be thoroughly
impressed.

Be prepared to be impressed.

For architectural copyrights:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/commo...3/00-7279a.txt

" Architectural designs unquestionably fall within the "sub-
ject matter" of copyright. Indeed, the Copyright Act ex-
pressly mentions "architectural works." See 17 U.S.C.
s 102(a)(8). "

See especially Section III of the decision.

Note that this decision, while narrowly overturning a summary
judgement by a lower court, also discusses the elements of
architectural copyright in general. (Unfortunately the end notes are
missing from the on line copy.) Also note that design elements can
clearly be copyrighted.

For a broader (and more comprehensible) discussion, see:
http://kitchen-bath-design.com/BUSIN...s_article2.asp

Architectural copyrights can even slop over into documentary making.
See: http://www.performink.com/Archives/l...2/7-19Law.html
"Even buildings usually thought of as being in the public domain may
contain some copyrighted architectural detail or copyrighted
sculpture. . ."

This wasn't particularly hard to find. It took me less than five
minutes to turn this up and there's a lot more where that came from.

Now, where are _your_ citations?

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 07:04:43 GMT, wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 22:11:18 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Are you claiming that his use of mp3s of media he owns is somehow
against the law in the US?

I'm stating general principles. Copyright law is different from
country to country. (Fact)

Yes.

Copyright law is generally saner in Canada
(opinion.) As to whether possessing an MP3 copy of a song for which
you own a copy of the media is a violation of copyright law -- Darned
if I know. I've never encountered a case on that point.

Falls under "fair use" even by RIAA's interpretation. It's even on
a FAQ on their site. I can cite it if you'd like, but I'd have to go
find it.

Can you back that up with anything at
all aside from insults of the people who do in fact deserve insults,
but maybe not for this particular case?

I gave up citing the facts in this case when it became obvious was
obvious he was ignoring them in favor of the products of his own
imagination.

Fair enough. But when RIAA themselves acknowledge that having mp3s
of something you own is fine, they should at least be given _some_
....well, 'credit' is to kind of a term, but let's keep the bashing
to actual problems rather than imagined, provably wrong statements.
Dilution of point and all that.

The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

Wrong again. In any event the Supreme Court has the final say and they
have made it pretty clear.

Bunk.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:17:47 -0600, Richard J Kinch wrote:
The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

Wrong again. In any event the Supreme Court has the final say and they
have made it pretty clear.

Bunk.

Maybe whoever you're quoting (which for some reason, you deleted) can
provide a cite? If so, I'd love to read it.

Note that this decision, while narrowly overturning a summary
judgement by a lower court, also discusses the elements of
architectural copyright in general. (Unfortunately the end notes are
missing from the on line copy.) Also note that design elements can
clearly be copyrighted.

Thank you, Professor Cook.

I suggested a recipe or bricklaying pattern as an obvious example of
something utilitarian that would be copyrighted to death if it were
possible. You cite instead a case involving a architect's designs for
phallic symbols decorating a building. I await your citation of something
utilitarian that is copyrighted.

Dave Hinz writes:

The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

Wrong again. In any event the Supreme Court has the final say and they
have made it pretty clear.

Bunk.

Maybe whoever you're quoting (which for some reason, you deleted) can
provide a cite? If so, I'd love to read it.

This didn't involve a specific citation, but my general opinion that recent
case law on copyright is a mountainous mess of ad-hoc'ery. As opposed to
the naive view that copyright case law (especially at SCOTUS) is a neat,
tidy, rational body of work based on something other than vacuity.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:48:12 -0600, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

Wrong again. In any event the Supreme Court has the final say and they
have made it pretty clear.

Bunk.

Maybe whoever you're quoting (which for some reason, you deleted) can
provide a cite? If so, I'd love to read it.

This didn't involve a specific citation, but my general opinion that recent
case law on copyright is a mountainous mess of ad-hoc'ery. As opposed to
the naive view that copyright case law (especially at SCOTUS) is a neat,
tidy, rational body of work based on something other than vacuity.

Wow, that's an awful lot of words to not say anything with.

Dave Hinz writes:

Wow, that's an awful lot of words to not say anything with.

Which is to say, it's Usenet.

Hello all,
Just got my Broadband connection up and running.
Wow what a difference.
Could someone please put the .zip file up somewhere where I can
download it.
It's no longer on the spanburgh site.
Regards
GeoffH
Norfolk - UK not VA

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:08:34 +0000 (UTC), GeoffH wrote:
Hello all,
Just got my Broadband connection up and running.
Wow what a difference.
Could someone please put the .zip file up somewhere where I can
download it.

Isn't that a copyrighted work?

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:08:34 +0000 (UTC), GeoffH wrote:

Hello all,
Just got my Broadband connection up and running.
Wow what a difference.
Could someone please put the .zip file up somewhere where I can
download it.


Isn't that a copyrighted work?



He probably knows the answer...

It's like a sick bird* 'ya know....

Jeff


* "That bird is sick," Tom said illegally.


--
Jeffry Wisnia

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

search the binary e-book news groups as one was posted in December - January

"GeoffH" wrote in message
...
Hello all,
Just got my Broadband connection up and running.
Wow what a difference.
Could someone please put the .zip file up somewhere where I can
download it.
It's no longer on the spanburgh site.
Regards
GeoffH
Norfolk - UK not VA