New Policy: Copyrighted material

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:13 am

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.

talasiga · Post by **talasiga** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:14 am

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.

1960 or 1845?

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

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:14 am

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.

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).

talasiga · Post by **talasiga** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:21 am

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.

Caj · Post by **Caj** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:16 am

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

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:29 am

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.

Post by **Dale** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:20 pm

I'm thinking about establishing another new policy just to stimulate another hefty thread of hunka-hunka smart-people debate!

It's hot.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:33 pm

God, no! Please do let us know what you decide about this
one anyway, whatever else you do.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:43 pm

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.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:00 am

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.)

dwinterfield · Post by **dwinterfield** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:26 am

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.

Caj · Post by **Caj** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:52 am

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

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:38 pm

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.

Post by **Dale** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:27 am

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.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:02 pm

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.