Re: Attn: Gordon: Your "Electronics for Dummies"

I did not mean for such a large OT convo to run. I just thought you
might want to let the posters ISP be aware of copyright infringement.


I will be honest, if it was your older Bonanza books I would not have
said anything. But it is your new book so I thought I would let you
know. Plus there were A LOT of books that would be useful here like
the OOPIC/PIC programing guides. I have your hard copy of the first 2
Robotics books and still refer back to them. But i think that how some
books are treated is way off base for the copyright law. Like Hero 1
books. the thing was back in 85, Give the manuals away and sell the
parts/kits.


The Hirudinea


On Fri, 05 May 2006 08:55:55 -0400, mlw <mlw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

D. Jay Newman wrote:

mlw wrote:
D. Jay Newman wrote:

And I believe that "educational purposes" are legally for
the purpose of teaching others, not yourself.

Why? People have the right to teach themselves.

US law and precident tends to disagree with you on
this.

I respectfully disagree with you on this.


I have had to study a *lot* of IP crap the last few years. In much of
this discussion, I am playing devil's advocate, but I am *very* concerned
about intellectual property law running crazy.

So am I. However, I do think that the intention of the laws
is to serve the good of society. And as has been pointed out
already in this thread, losing authors because they can't make
money doesn't serve the good of society.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. In the "arts," there are always popular
"stars" and people who can't make a living at it. Edgar Allen Poe died
penniless. Whether or not someone can make a living at their art is of no
consequence to society or quality.

It is a harsh world, and though we may wish for an idealistic solution,
sometimes reality is quite unfair.

Which serves society better? DRM and the regulation of thoughts and ideas by
large corporations and governments, or paying authors with an obsolete
methodology.

Sorry, I believe that removing the old guard of publishers and media
companies and the laws that have been enacted to prop them up, will make
way for artists and creators to better make a living. Publishers and media
companies have only been around for a short time, artists have been around
for about the same amount of time as prostitutes.



Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe this. The only applications on
my computer are legally obtained. I do *not* illegally copy software
(or anything else if possible).

Then I applaud you! I don't know anyone else that doesn't have an
unregistered copy of WinZip or something on their machine.

When I found I needed Winzip, I went to the web site and bought
it. Before that it wasn't on my system.

For now the functions included in Windows XP work for me.

I have no illegal software on any of the computers in my house to my
knowledge. Neither my wife nor I would use such software anyway.

Again, good for you, you lead an honest life. Did you ever see "Dogma?"
Loki won't kill you.

I never said that I lived an honest life. I merely stated I don't do
illegal software. :)

Actually both of these entities have agreed that the decoders are
fine. Only the software that make such images costs money. And
I have paid for such things indirectly by buying commercial
graphics programs.

Assuming, of course, that you don't have devices or programs purchased
before the JPEG patent was announced or were produced without paying
royalties. Have you actually verified that you are in compliance? It is
probably impossible to know for sure.

I have not verified my systems in full. However, all the computers
in my house are built with software after these patents were
announced. Now, I have no idea if some of my home video
equipment includes such things. However, I bought this equipment
(legally) and am assuming that the companies deal with such things.

Ah ha! Pay up! LOL.


> Yes, yes, "illegally," sure, everyone breaks the law every day doing
something: littering, speeding, saying curse words in public, eating
peanuts in church, or thousands of other "important" laws. It is
impossible in the U.S.A. to go 24 hours and NOT break the law in some
way. Some things are more illegal than others. Typically, though not
always, the important measure is "harm" in the choice of enforcement.

Yes, it is fairly difficult to go without breaking some little
laws somewhere. On a long trip maybe I accidentally go over
the speed limit for a bit. I try not to break the laws I know
about, though.

"accidentally" go over the speed limit? Umm, OK. I "believe" that.


That's because of the physical property of matter having to be in only
one place at a time. That is an artifact of an old process of using
chemicals to stain dead trees. Sooner or later, human kind will abandon
such antiquated practices.

True.

Then what? When there is no more physical media to regulate usership. The
IP movement in this country sees this inevitable change as a gold rush!!!
What happens when you have a book and you can't re-read it or loan it or
sell it? What of "fair use" then?

There will be some way of compensating the information creators
and editors. If they can't pay their bills, there will be less
information created in a usable way.

Paying artists or not has never affected the supply of art, it has, of
course, affected art dealers.


For some software, yes. It was accepted practice regardless of the
legality for personal software. Professional software was different.

Why? Why is that allowed? Is it property or not? If it is property, I
should have the right to do with it as I please, if it is not property,
then it is governed by a set of rules that attempt to mimic property, and
in a democracy those rules are subject to the people.

It doesn't matter what form of governemtn you have; the rules are set by
society. And in this case it seems to be of benefit to society that IP
is protected as (or similar to) property. If the copyright owners choose
to give up some of their rights, that is their business.

Actually, society has spoken, it thinks it is OK to download and copy media.
It is government and corporations that are trying to make this "wrong."


And professional software tends to be more expensive so the copyright
owners tend to be more careful.

I believe that this is like lending a book. I believe that legally
(unless the EUL says differently) that the origianl owner must
uninstall his copy before lending to his friend, who must
install it.

Why does a software published have the RIGHT to define, beyond copyright
and "fair use" what I can do with something I purchased?

Actually the EUL usually *gives* you rights above and beyond
what is avialble trhough fair use.

That is clearly not true. Most ELUA documents limit what you can do with the
software, far beyond fair use. They also seek to limit liability. Seek to
degrade your rights to privacy. Seek to eliminate your right of first sale.

Take about and hour and carefully read Microsoft's EULA for Windows XP.


For example, some software allows you to use a copy
for personal use in addition to use at work. Otherwise
it is wrong to use it in both places.

If I use it at work and I use it at home, I am only using one copy, right?
That scenario should be fair use, should it not?


So everybody you knew was probably violating the law? Once clue
is that if you had to use special software to copy an program,
it probably is against the copyright agreement.

Think about "copyright agreement" in the sense of property. If I buy a
book shelf, do I not have the right to first sale? Do I not have the
right to do with it as I please? Can I not lend it to whom ever I want?
Why is media or software treated differently? Why is a bookshelf
different from the book?

Yes, you have the right of first sale, even with software. Copyrighted
software you must destroy your copy when you sell it.

Microsoft, with its EULA, seeks to eliminate right of first sale. If you buy
a computer with XP, but do not wish to use XP, and use Linux, Microsoft
calls selling the XP software illegal.

Furthermore, if you "use" the software, you can not then sell it, no matter
what. At least no legally.


To a degree you have to do with it as you please. However, by buying
the copy your have already agreed to be bound by the copyright
law.

The EULA is not copyright law.

These are serious questions that very large companies are working hard to
answer, and not in yours or my best interest.

Agreed.

You do not, however, have the right to sell GPL software of which you are
not the author because you don't own it.

Sure you do. You can easily sell such software on a website. By using
the GPL, the copyright owner gives up certain rights.

You snipped the argument and addressed none of it, simply restated your
position without logical reason. That's pretty lame, so lets look at the
argument again:

When you sell software, you are assigning or conveying a license to someone
else for compensation. Unless you are the author, you have no right to do
any such thing. GPL software is available to anyone who abides by the GPL
and the GPL states that you are not legally permitted to re-license the
software.

You have every right to sell the CD on which the software is recorded.
You have every right to copyright an aggregation of GPL packages.
You have every right to sell the boxes in which your CD with your
copyrighted aggregation is transferred.



Actually copyright has to do with published works and not ideas. Earl
Stanley Gardener wrote some great lawyer/detective stories; this doesn't
prevent anybody else from using his ideas to write stoires of their
own. They just can't take his words or make a derivative work (say by
writing new Perry Mason stories without the current copyright owner's
permisson).

What is or is not protected by copyright is a crap shoot these days. It
is a dangerous world right now if you are in the "creation" business.

I agree. However, like all such things, the pendulum will swing
again. The laws will eventually catch up with technology.

Assuming of course our government still works. I have deep fears about that
as well.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading