It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 8227
Location: Location: Location:
Caj wrote:

It's just a phrase. Sure everyone uses it, towit organizations like WIPO ("World Intellectual Property Organization.") But it's still just a phrase, and billions of people saying it won't turn copyrights into property rights.

Right on. Intellectual "property rights" are a fiction created in the 1960 to as part of a lobbying effort to alter the balance between the common domain and the "rights" holders in favor of the right's holder. "Traditional" my copyright.

_________________
/Bloomfield


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:33 am
Posts: 5199
Location: Eastern Australia
Bloomfield wrote:
Caj wrote:

It's just a phrase. Sure everyone uses it, towit organizations like WIPO ("World Intellectual Property Organization.") But it's still just a phrase, and billions of people saying it won't turn copyrights into property rights.

Right on. Intellectual "property rights" are a fiction created in the 1960 to as part of a lobbying effort to alter the balance between the common domain and the "rights" holders in favor of the right's holder. "Traditional" my copyright.


:lol:

1960 or 1845?

I am sorry. After all, we all make typos.

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 8227
Location: Location: Location:
talasiga wrote:
Bloomfield wrote:
Caj wrote:

It's just a phrase. Sure everyone uses it, towit organizations like WIPO ("World Intellectual Property Organization.") But it's still just a phrase, and billions of people saying it won't turn copyrights into property rights.

Right on. Intellectual "property rights" are a fiction created in the 1960 to as part of a lobbying effort to alter the balance between the common domain and the "rights" holders in favor of the right's holder. "Traditional" my copyright.


:lol:

1960 or 1845?

I am sorry. After all, we all make typos.

You may be confounding the use of the phrase with the shift in its meaning. That Wikipedia article you link to even mentions that the phrase was typically put in quotation marks before the 1960s. Have a look at this: Mark Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding (2004).

_________________
/Bloomfield


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:33 am
Posts: 5199
Location: Eastern Australia
The American Justice Woodbury did not use quotation marks
and the wikiwookie article cites him as the first to coin the term.
Once again see 1845.

As I said earlier the "traditional meaning" covered copyrights and has recently expanded to cover patents and industrial related design matters.

My usage of the term in the context of a discussion of copyright is not erroneous though contention may attach to it amongst certain scholars.
Similarly, some scholars may find the term "Bill of Rights" contentious on the basis of legalistic pedanticism. That is their prerogative. But we still know what is meant by the term.

Thousands of solicitors and barristers in Australasia, Great Britain and probably Ireland also, would recognise what is meant by the umbrella term "Intellectual Property" and if the US was a signatory to TRIPS agreement, any US lawyer conversant with copyright law would be aware of it too.

I think Dale is corrrect to not allow full quotes of exotic articles without the author's position. I would have taken that for granted. It is not a policy matter for Dale for he has no discretion. He is beholden to not allow it in his forums and to make sure it doesn't happen.

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 2158
Location: Binghamton, New York
talasiga wrote:
1960 or 1845?

I am sorry. After all, we all make typos.

From the article: "However, worldwide use of the term was uncommon until actively promulgated by the World Intellectual Property Organization after WIPO's establishment in 1967."

It really reads as if Bloomfield is right---the phrase was "actively promulgated" in the 1960s by copyright holders. Why does it matter that the term was used sporadically before that?

Again, none of this really matters to matters of law: if WIPO and 30 million other people decided to start calling copyright infringement "murder," it wouldn't change the law either. The buzzwords of WIPO do not carry the force of federal law.

Caj


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 8227
Location: Location: Location:
The reason for promoting the term "intellectual property" over the traditional phrase "exclusive rights" was to be able to call infringement theft and to get the public and the Congress behind the push to subsidise rights-holders. "Infringement" sounds technical. "Theft" sounds wrong and evil.

_________________
/Bloomfield


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:20 pm 
Offline
The Landlord
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 10273
Location: Chiff & Fipple's LearJet: DaleForce One
I'm thinking about establishing another new policy just to stimulate another hefty thread of hunka-hunka smart-people debate!

It's hot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 16423
God, no! Please do let us know what you decide about this
one anyway, whatever else you do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:43 pm 
Offline
Moderatorer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 32272
Location: Minneapolis
Don't listen to Jim, Dale. Your iron hegemony will reign all the better if you keep 'em off balance. If Macchiavelli never said that, he should have.

_________________
"Dreams about the future are always filled with gadgets." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

"An anti-lunacy gadget would be nice..." - Nano


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 8227
Location: Location: Location:
jim stone wrote:
God, no! Please do let us know what you decide about this
one anyway, whatever else you do.

Allow me.

1. Do not post entire copyrighted articles in chiffboard posts. Excerpts, with attribution and link, are fine.

2. Do not discuss this policy every time you abide by it.


(That no. 2 is mine, I confess.)

_________________
/Bloomfield


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 1768
Location: Boston
Bloomfield wrote:
jim stone wrote:
God, no! Please do let us know what you decide about this
one anyway, whatever else you do.

Allow me.

1. Do not post entire copyrighted articles in chiffboard posts. Excerpts, with attribution and link, are fine.

2. Do not discuss this policy every time you abide by it.


(That no. 2 is mine, I confess.)


Sounds like one of those "Man Law" beer commericals.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 2158
Location: Binghamton, New York
I think the only reason one might avoid posting a whole article in a thread is the effect on readability, or the convenience of other readers.

Legally, I wouldn't worry about it. Posting a whole article in an online newsletter is a different matter. Or posting a whole article on a news site. That is much different from posting an article within a discussion.

Especially since under the DMCA, the web site owner is shielded from liability if someone complains, under the safe harbor provisions.

In the end, I typically link to an article if it aids readability, or quote a whole section if it's inconvenient to send people to another website.

Caj


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 16423
Caj wrote:
I think the only reason one might avoid posting a whole article in a thread is the effect on readability, or the convenience of other readers.

Legally, I wouldn't worry about it. Posting a whole article in an online newsletter is a different matter. Or posting a whole article on a news site. That is much different from posting an article within a discussion.

Especially since under the DMCA, the web site owner is shielded from liability if someone complains, under the safe harbor provisions.

In the end, I typically link to an article if it aids readability, or quote a whole section if it's inconvenient to send people to another website.

Caj


I very much hope this policy is going to be rescinded.
In the past when we had somebody posting lots of long
things we handled that by Dale's asking him to
'throttle back.' I do not see a significant moral or
legal issue here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:27 am 
Offline
The Landlord
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 10273
Location: Chiff & Fipple's LearJet: DaleForce One
The policy stands. During the winter holiday, I hope to have some time to develop a legal/moral/theological argument to support it. In the meantime, I'll just have to stick with it seems right to me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:02 pm 
Offline
Moderatorer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 32272
Location: Minneapolis
I can think of an argument from a different angle: simple courtesy to all. Nothing more maddening than to have to wade past an epic where a link and an exerpt would suffice. The courtesy to the source is obvious enough.

_________________
"Dreams about the future are always filled with gadgets." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

"An anti-lunacy gadget would be nice..." - Nano


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.105s | 13 Queries | GZIP : On ]
(dh)