New Policy: Copyrighted material

Board policies and official announcements about Chiff and Fipple and the forums. Please read!
User avatar
Bloomfield
Posts: 8225
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Bloomfield »

jim stone wrote:
Dale wrote:Yikes. I was just thinking maybe we shouldn't oughta re-print an entire copyrighted work here without permission. That's what I was thinking.


You are the ultimate interpreter of what you meant.
If this is what it all comes down to, it seems an insufficient
ground for the prohibition.

Seems to me that thinking we shouldn't kill foeti is a perfectly sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. Why wouldn't thinking that we shouldn't re-print entire copyrighted works without permission be sufficient to prohibit re-printing entire copyrighted works?
/Bloomfield
jim stone
Posts: 17046
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

Bloomfield wrote:
jim stone wrote:
Dale wrote:Yikes. I was just thinking maybe we shouldn't oughta re-print an entire copyrighted work here without permission. That's what I was thinking.


You are the ultimate interpreter of what you meant.
If this is what it all comes down to, it seems an insufficient
ground for the prohibition.

Seems to me that thinking we shouldn't kill foeti is a perfectly sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. Why wouldn't thinking that we shouldn't re-print entire copyrighted works without permission be sufficient to prohibit re-printing entire copyrighted works?


Good ol Bloomie!

Just to be clear, I don't think that thinking maybe we shouldn't
ought to kill fetuses is sufficient ground for prohibiting abortion.
It's too vague, tentative and impressionistic.

Also I don't think that even thinking we shouldn't kill
fetuses is sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. At least
I would be uncomfortable proceeding on that ground.
The thought that we shouldn't kill fetuses needs to
defensible, it needs to stand up to critical scrutiny, it
needs to be well-motivated. The pro=lifer owes us
a principled cogent argument. Even then it wouldn't
follow that abortion should be prohibited--not everything
immoral ought to be illegal. Even if fetuses shouldn't
be killed, maybe prohibition would just make things worse.

Similarly I think that those who wish to prohibit speech have
a burden of providing a solid reason--something
non-vague, non-tentative, non-impressionistic, that stands up
to reasonable consideration. If someone in authority
says this or that sort of
speech is something we shouldn't do, we are entitled to ask Why?
And we should get a good answer. Dale did offer some non-vague
answers earlier, but I don't think they really survived
the discussion.
User avatar
Dale
The Landlord
Posts: 10291
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Chiff & Fipple's LearJet: DaleForce One
Contact:

Post by Dale »

If this thread turns in to an abortion discussion, that would be weird. Let's not, please.
User avatar
Bloomfield
Posts: 8225
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Bloomfield »

jim stone wrote:Good ol Bloomie!

Just to be clear, I don't think that thinking maybe we shouldn't
ought to kill fetuses is sufficient ground for prohibiting abortion.
It's too vague, tentative and impressionistic.

Also I don't think that even thinking we shouldn't kill
fetuses is sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. At least
I would be uncomfortable proceeding on that ground.
The thought that we shouldn't kill fetuses needs to
defensible, it needs to stand up to critical scrutiny, it
needs to be well-motivated. The pro=lifer owes us
a principled cogent argument. Even then it wouldn't
follow that abortion should be prohibited--not everything
immoral ought to be illegal. Even if fetuses shouldn't
be killed, maybe prohibition would just make things worse.

Good for you, Jim. :)

[Notice that there is additional level still: Not everything prohibited should be punishable under penal laws.]

Similarly I think that those who wish to prohibit speech have
a burden of providing a solid reason--something
non-vague, non-tentative, non-impressionistic, that stands up
to reasonable consideration. If someone in authority
says this or that sort of
speech is something we shouldn't do, we are entitled to ask Why?
And we should get a good answer. Dale did offer some non-vague
answers earlier, but I don't think they really survived
the discussion.

If Dale's position were somehow odd or unexpected or extraterrestial, I'd demand a good answer, too. Since this is Dale's living room, I perceive no burden to provide reasons for sensible policies, beyond perhaps describing his motivation. Vague reasons will do perfectly well. "Sensible," by the way, I mean as an objective criterion, so that policies that don't seem sensible to a specific person may yet be perfectly sensible.
/Bloomfield
User avatar
Bloomfield
Posts: 8225
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Bloomfield »

Dale wrote:If this thread turns in to an abortion discussion, that would be weird. Let's not, please.

Oh, we won't. Just some fun and frolic on the way to the point.
/Bloomfield
harpmaker
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:45 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Park Forest IL

Post by harpmaker »

ROTFLMOEO!!!! I read the original post by Dale and a few of the follow up comments but stopped paying attention. It wasn't until just a few minutes ago I realised this was up to 5 pages, so I started reading it again.

As I read it, I'm thinking to myself "Only at C&F...the owner posts a rule and it ends up with 5 pages of going back and forth as to what he meant, whether or not it is morally or legally justified,. Well, at least they haven't brought up the religious aspect yet..."

Then I got to the following post:

Dale wrote:Stand by. I'm working on a theological argument.


It's a conspiracy I say! A conspiracy!!!

(Dale...your house, your rules. I will try to remember to not post copyrighted material)
Discussing politics is like having a conversation with the ex. You know that no matter what the subject....it could be as innocent as what you had to eat for lunch....you know that they are going to somehow work your past sins into the conversation
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 36901
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Post by Nanohedron »

harpmaker wrote:Dale...your house, your rules.


You just HAD to bring that up, didn't you.
"Time is the wisest counselor of all." - Pericles

"I remain not entirely convinced of it." - Nano
harpmaker
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:45 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Park Forest IL

Post by harpmaker »

Nanohedron wrote:
harpmaker wrote:Dale...your house, your rules.


You just HAD to bring that up, didn't you.


It's one of those things my father told me a long time ago:

"If you don't like the house rules, find a different game. Cause sure enough, if you break their rules they'll throw you out on your ass anyway... "
Discussing politics is like having a conversation with the ex. You know that no matter what the subject....it could be as innocent as what you had to eat for lunch....you know that they are going to somehow work your past sins into the conversation
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 36901
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Post by Nanohedron »

harpmaker wrote:
Nanohedron wrote:
harpmaker wrote:Dale...your house, your rules.


You just HAD to bring that up, didn't you.


It's one of those things my father told me a long time ago:

"If you don't like the house rules, find a different game. Cause sure enough, if you break their rules they'll throw you out on your ass anyway... "


Harpmaker, in the past when members would cry "unfair" and invoke "free speech" when things didn't go their own little way, I would go on and on until blue in the face reminding them "Dale's house, Dale's rules: so there", myself. I just couldn't resist the opportunity finally for a little irony, here. Totally on your side, dude. :wink:
"Time is the wisest counselor of all." - Pericles

"I remain not entirely convinced of it." - Nano
harpmaker
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:45 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Park Forest IL

Post by harpmaker »

:lol: :lol: Well, it took awhile for the lesson to sink in...before it did I spent a lot of time yelling about my "rights" as I picked myself up off the street I been tossed into. :wink:

I don't think I've ever been one to yell about my "rights" here, but if I do, ya have my permission to whack me upside the head with the stupid stick.
Discussing politics is like having a conversation with the ex. You know that no matter what the subject....it could be as innocent as what you had to eat for lunch....you know that they are going to somehow work your past sins into the conversation
jim stone
Posts: 17046
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

Bloomfield wrote:
jim stone wrote:Good ol Bloomie!

Just to be clear, I don't think that thinking maybe we shouldn't
ought to kill fetuses is sufficient ground for prohibiting abortion.
It's too vague, tentative and impressionistic.

Also I don't think that even thinking we shouldn't kill
fetuses is sufficient basis for prohibiting abortion. At least
I would be uncomfortable proceeding on that ground.
The thought that we shouldn't kill fetuses needs to
defensible, it needs to stand up to critical scrutiny, it
needs to be well-motivated. The pro=lifer owes us
a principled cogent argument. Even then it wouldn't
follow that abortion should be prohibited--not everything
immoral ought to be illegal. Even if fetuses shouldn't
be killed, maybe prohibition would just make things worse.

Good for you, Jim. :)

[Notice that there is additional level still: Not everything prohibited should be punishable under penal laws.]

Similarly I think that those who wish to prohibit speech have
a burden of providing a solid reason--something
non-vague, non-tentative, non-impressionistic, that stands up
to reasonable consideration. If someone in authority
says this or that sort of
speech is something we shouldn't do, we are entitled to ask Why?
And we should get a good answer. Dale did offer some non-vague
answers earlier, but I don't think they really survived
the discussion.

If Dale's position were somehow odd or unexpected or extraterrestial, I'd demand a good answer, too. Since this is Dale's living room, I perceive no burden to provide reasons for sensible policies, beyond perhaps describing his motivation. Vague reasons will do perfectly well. "Sensible," by the way, I mean as an objective criterion, so that policies that don't seem sensible to a specific person may yet be perfectly sensible.


I agree with you about that additional level. As you say, not
everything prohibited should be punishable--so abortion statutes generally
provide no sanction for the aborting woman.

I also agree that Dale has the authority to create and impose
any policy he wishes for any reason he chooses, or for no
reason, if it comes to that. Of course that isn't how he's been
operating--he wishes to be principled. There have been
cogent reasons given for other policies--e.g. the civility requirement is warranted in virtue
of the fact that discussion will become impossible if people
are uncivil. If this new policy is to be principled too, I believe
it needs to be motivated by a 'solid reason,' as I outlined
that expression above. For me, an 'unprincipled' policy restricting
a sort of speech/communication that has gone on for years
on these boards is a bad idea.

By now I've expressed myself as as clearly and persuasively
as I can. So I will retire from the discussion, being up to my ears in work.
I hope the policy will be rescinded, but of course I will comply with it
if it isn't. Best to all, Jim
User avatar
Caj
Posts: 2165
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Binghamton, New York
Contact:

Post by Caj »

talasiga wrote:Your last post has lost me Caj.
You obviously have not studied the history of intellectual PROPERTY law

You know, it doesn't mean squat that people have started to call copyrights "intellectual property." That's just a phrase, and a legally inaccurate one.

What matters is what the law actually says, not what buzzwords are presently used to describe it. And copyrights have never been like property rights. The US constitution doesn't even allow it.

About that phrase "intellectual property:" some people see it as part of the PR effort by major copyright holders to portray copyrights as property rights. Me, I think there's a more innocent explanation: the phrase is just a convenient if unfortunate catch-all term, just like those awful Internet people call art, music and literature "content."

jim stone wrote:Dale's legal 'impression of risk' was abandoned in his post I quoted above,
' I didn't mean to imply that I'm worried about the legal aspects,'
largely as a consequence of Caj's post (Caj has a doctorate
from Princeton in communications and explains cogently why there is
no legal risk).

Yikes! Rather, my degree is in electrical engineering, focusing on information security. My only real expertise in copyright law comes from taking one course on it, and getting into a lawsuit over one of our papers. (While the course was excellent, the latter was a much more thorough education.)

Caj
jim stone
Posts: 17046
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by jim stone »

ooops. Sorry! Are you teaching electrical engineering?
User avatar
talasiga
Posts: 5199
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:33 am
antispam: No
Location: Eastern Australia

Post by talasiga »

Caj wrote:
talasiga wrote:Your last post has lost me Caj.
You obviously have not studied the history of intellectual PROPERTY law

You know, it doesn't mean squat that people have started to call copyrights "intellectual property." That's just a phrase, and a legally inaccurate one.
...............

Sorry mate, you're wrong. Intellectual property is a pretty traditional umbrella term for the area of law covering copyright and patents, trade marks, design, copyright etc.

Anne Fitzgerald, JSD (Col), LLM (Lond), LLM (Col), LLB Hons (Tas) in her book, Intellectual Property (ISBN O 455 21844 7) at page 4 wrote:Traditionally the term "intellectual property" was used to refer to the rights attaching to literary and artistic creations protected by copyright and "industrial property" was used for patents, designs and trade marks. Now the two terms are used interchangeably with "intellectual property" or "intellectual property rights" (IP or IPRs) [being] the preferred terms covering the entire range of areas listed in the TRIPS Agreement.


BTW, the TRIPS Agreement is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which was finalised at the international trade negotiations at Uruguay in 1993. Came into effect in '95.
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit
User avatar
Caj
Posts: 2165
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Binghamton, New York
Contact:

Post by Caj »

talasiga wrote:
Caj wrote:
talasiga wrote:Your last post has lost me Caj.
You obviously have not studied the history of intellectual PROPERTY law

You know, it doesn't mean squat that people have started to call copyrights "intellectual property." That's just a phrase, and a legally inaccurate one.
...............

Sorry mate, you're wrong. Intellectual property is a pretty traditional umbrella term for the area of law covering copyright and patents, trade marks, design, copyright etc.

But, how is that different from what I said?

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.

The US constitution is very explicit about copyrights only being granted for limited times, and being limited in scope. You only have a temporary right to control copying, which includes certain acts like public performance. You do not have the right to restrict use or possession---your copyright doesn't let you confiscate a copy of your book, or prevent someone from reading it. It doesn't control who can possess or sell your work. It only restricts specific acts of duplication.

Most importantly, they are not ownership rights at all, but temporary monopolies over specific acts. When granted a copyright, that does not legally mean that you "own" the copyrighted material. We use that language informally, but it is legally inaccurate. If you owned the work then why does it transfer to the public domain after a limited time? If anyone "owns" your writing, it is the public.

This is in every way different from a property right. If I buy a basketball, I own it. I don't merely have a limited right to control who can dribble it, but not who can throw it, which expires after so many years---after which it belongs to everyone. Instead my property right is total and in perpetuity. I can give it to someone else, I can will it to next of kin, I can utterly control its use by other people.

Caj
Post Reply