Re: Music: Rent v Own

In article <jpolaski-677540.03170701092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Polaski <jpolaski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <3w6dnQrF_JTt_YjeUSdV9g@xxxxxxx>,
> Flint <agent1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Travelinman wrote:
> > > In article <T8ydndBbstIiaoneUSdV9g@xxxxxxx>,
> > > Flint <agent1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>TravelinMan wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>What's with this word stealing, you're not taking assets off someone,
> > >>>>you're copying their work without permission. It's breaching the
> > >>>>copyright law.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>So? Ever hear the phrase 'stealing someone's idea'?
> > >>
> > >>Yes, and its a rather poor metaphor, and always has been. Ideas can't
> > >>be stolen as they can occur simulataneously, or independantly. The
> > >>concept of 'parallel development' is a well established principle.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bull***. If someone DOES come up with an idea and you take it, you've
> > > stolen the idea - no matter how many times you deny it.
> >
> > But you have to PROVE someone TOOK a specific idea specifically from
> > *someone else*, and were not working on the idea themselves in a
> > seperate >parallel< developmental track. You conveniently overlook this
> > little fact. You also are straying from copyright law, and are entering
> > into the area of patents again, thus trying to muddy up the waters.
> > You've been spanked before on this, and like a glutton for punishment,
> > keep coming back for more "Mr. Court_certified_expert".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>Every definition of 'steal' I've seen involves taking someone's property
> > >>>without payment. Since intellectual property is a type of property, it
> > >>>fits.
> >
> > Ideas in _general_ aren't "property" by ANY legal definition. Only
> > ideas that are the result of a unique developmental process and are not
> > readily/plainly obvious to just anyone. Even then, such ideas aren't
> > automatically granted a patent, but a 'pending' status which affords
> > certain legal protections, but are NOT absolute because the patent
> > process requires time for processing and determining that no other
> > similar >parallel< patent claims/filings are in progress. This process
> > often takes YEARS to complete because of PARALLEL claims/developmental
> > tracks.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >>"intellectual property" is a legal construct that more effectively
> > >>*inhibits* creativeness, and innovative variations on a theme than it
> > >>does to inspire creativity. The whole purpose of IP laws is to provide
> > >> >exclusionary< legal mechanisms to prevent others from pursuing avenues
> > >>of reasearch & development, and essentially, are a form of special
> > >>protectionism.
> > >>
> > >>IP laws are in dire need of re-examination, period.
> > >
> > >
> > > Intellectual property is no more an artificial construct than physical
> > > property.
> >
> >
> > You really are stupid, aren't you? Show us >one example< of
> > intellectual property in the natural, empirical realm. Of course they
> > are artificial constructs you fool. And you claim to be a court
> > certified *expert*?
> >
> >
> > >>>Attempts to avoid calling it what it really is are just more pitiful
> > >>>attempts to imply that it's OK.
> > >>
> > >>Again, this assumes that IP laws are >moral< in the first place, and
> > >>cannot be perverted. I assure you, they can be and often are.
> > >>
> > >>The fact that you stubbUrnly refuse to admit this clearly indicates the
> > >>vacuum you live in.
> > >
> > >
> > > So far, no one has given any self-consistent reason why intellectual
> > > property like music is any different conceptually than physical property.
> >
> > Oh, now it's "self-consistant" reason? More goal post moving
> > justifications?
> >
> > OK, how about this: legislation providing special protectionism to the
> > products (ideas) of a naturally occuring process (human thinking) to
> > specific individuals/business entities on the basis of "first thought
> > of, first filed for, first granted" is a really dumb (elitist) idea that
> > results in *inhibiting* developmental research tracks because businesses
> > now have to practice "defensive R&D", to the detriment of the public
> > benefit by eliminating competitive efforts because of said elitist
> > special protection.
> >
> > "IP" as applied to music, is a currently flawed concept. Only tangible
> > real world *implementations* of ideas, processes, etc. should receive
> > protection, and even then, it should be limited so as not to define
> > purely artistic works as "property" unless they are specifically
> > distributed on *physical* mediums (ie: a CD, or a paint canvas).
> > Furthermore, works of art licensing should follow the *licensee*, and
> > not the distribution medium alone, and be limited to a *one* license per
> > *individual end user* basis. If I bought an artist's music on 8-Track,
> > then later bought it again on 12" vinyl, and again on cassette, and yet
> > again on CD, (paying FOUR TIMES for the same damn thing) why should I
> > have to pay AGAIN for the same damn thing when there is no cost to the
> > label? Surely, the amount I paid each of those 4 times didn't go
> > *entirely* to the cost of providing me with the physical medium? Some
> > portion of that money was a license to use the intellectual property, no?
> >
> > Another thing: Can intellectual property be damaged? Tell us how...
> > Can it be destroyed? Tell us how... Does it have any intrinsic value in
> > and of itself outside of the empirical realm? If so, please quantify
> > this value for us. Show us *one* tangible thing about IP.... You
> > *can't*. Therefore, legal definitions of it are not only *artificial*
> > constructs, but they are *purely* so. They are also elitist because
> > they're decidely lopsided in favor of business models that seek to limit
> > and inhibit the consumer's fair usage rights through restrictive and
> > exclusive means.
> >
> > Technology marches on, and supplants previous technologies. It also
> > also renders old archaic marketing/distribution models obsolete. It may
> > even render legal constructs as archaic and obsolete.
> >
> > In a free and open information age, IP rights need a serious
> > re-examination, and perhaps even a total rewrite, rather than a
> > hodge-podge band-aid approach within the legal system. I think we need
> > to do this *now*, because if we don't, even international treaty
> > agreements wrt IP are threatened.
> >
> > -Rick
> >
> >
> > -Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > -Rick
>
> Gosh, I could say so much in terms of microanalysis, but You really
> don't have a clear understanding of IP and the laws surrounding it. You
> really ought not to be speaking out on this stuff. You go off on "Ideas"
> yet those can't be copyrighted. What is copyrighted(and this covers
> music, btw) is the *expression* of the idea or what is called the "work"
> in the language of the copyright laws. And that's just for starters.
> Patents are different as are trademarks.
>
> Have you ever filed a copyright on anything? Ever been in a Federal
> Court defending your work? I'd bet not.

I've tried to explain that to him. For some reason, he keeps babbling
about the topic - even after it has become quite clear that he doesn't
know anything about it.
.

Loading