"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1111535193k@trad...

I'm trying to understand the benefit of this new name for what we
already have, that doesn't work the way we would like it to. Give me
some examples.

Think about it, the only thing standing in the way of a consolidation of
digital media patent holders creating a total monopoly over all digital
media is the small matter of "content" copyright. Lots of "open source"
media leaves all of us pee-ons who create original new "content" having to
compete with free.

If you want an absolutely bountiful grant from the Silicon Valley crowd, all
you need to do is come up with some cool concepts that undermine individual
copyright owners' negotiating positions. What amazes me is how many people
can't seem to see through this scam.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
generation down a line? Etc.


This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

I once heard a person define a Copyright as the only thing
in the universe that is more valuable the more it is used.

I am sure there are people that will poke holes in that.
noetheless it is a hell of a thing to throw away.

In article ,
"Bob Olhsson" wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
generation down a line? Etc.


This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?


There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator losing
their ability to use the property. Real property cannot be so replicated. I'm
not arguing for the end of copyright and ownership of intellectual property, but
the difference in nature will have to be addressed if we want a viable method of
recompense for our ideas.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:33:30 -0800, Jay Kadis
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Olhsson" wrote:

...

This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?


There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator losing
their ability to use the property.

This (inexpensive) replication thing is a result of the advances in
technology. Replication used to be a job of scribes writing longhand,
then Gutenberg had a bright idea.

Real property cannot be so replicated.

This might well also change (perhaps not in our lifetimes) with the
continued advances of technology.

I'm
not arguing for the end of copyright and ownership of intellectual property, but
the difference in nature will have to be addressed if we want a viable method of
recompense for our ideas.

Copyright laws have historically been good for protecting
intellectual rights, but with copying being SO cheap and easy ($39
CD-RW drives, 20 cent CD-R's, and p2p as a huge source of copyrighted
material), most violations can't even be detected, much less punished.
You still can't steal someone else's song and make a hit out of it
without getting caught, but at the consumer level, copyrights are
currently operating on the honor system.

-Jay

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

In article ,
Ben Bradley wrote:
[snip]


Copyright laws have historically been good for protecting
intellectual rights, but with copying being SO cheap and easy ($39
CD-RW drives, 20 cent CD-R's, and p2p as a huge source of copyrighted
material), most violations can't even be detected, much less punished.
You still can't steal someone else's song and make a hit out of it
without getting caught, but at the consumer level, copyrights are
currently operating on the honor system.


That's the nature of the problem. The cat's already out of the bag, so to
speak. So what possible mechanisms exist for adapting to the current state?

I like the idea of micropayments tied to downloads of copyrighted materials.
The exact mechanism of such a system is not completely obvious, but a system in
which users are free to download anything and are charged a small amount from an
account administered by the ISP is one possibility, monitoring the downloaded
material for a watermark or signature that identifies the owner's account. We
need to develop such a system to address the reality of what's going on already.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:23:14 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:33:30 -0800, Jay Kadis
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Olhsson" wrote:

...

This is precisely where this selective socialism bullsh!t falls apart. Why
should individuals in the creative community give up their property rights
prior to corporate and real estate interests giving up all of THEIRS?


There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator losing
their ability to use the property.

This (inexpensive) replication thing is a result of the advances in
technology. Replication used to be a job of scribes writing longhand,
then Gutenberg had a bright idea.

Not exactly. Before recording technology appeared music could still
be replicated live by other musicians. Stories could be re-told by
other story-tellers, etc etc. Yes, they weren't exact copies but it's
still re-using the property.

Al

hank alrich wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:


Imagine if the works of Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Schubert, all the classical
composers we so revere, were owned by their heirs. Do you think we'd have a
vital symphony community?


Nationally viewed, we already definitely do not have a vital symphony
community, but I don't think it's due to copyright hobbling the public's
interest.

This is an interesting area, in that if we take an attitude toward
intellectual property that is even partially apart from the way we view
other forms of property, we might stir a smelly kettle by asking the
same questions about all kinds of things that represent material wealth
or potential material wealth. What if money could only go one moer
generation down a line? Etc.

--
ha

I thin' that property is fine, until we're called upon
to defend it. Then it gets ugly.

--
Les Cargill

There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
losing
their ability to use the property.

Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

In article writes:

Before recording technology appeared music could still
be replicated live by other musicians.

Yeah, but you can catch then and shake them down for royalties. That's
what ASCAP and BMI do with clubs that have music (only today we call
it licensing).

Stories could be re-told by
other story-tellers, etc etc. Yes, they weren't exact copies but it's
still re-using the property.

We call that "folklore," and besides, all the stories are true.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 26 Mar 2005 08:03:24 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


In article writes:

Before recording technology appeared music could still
be replicated live by other musicians.

Yeah, but you can catch then and shake them down for royalties. That's
what ASCAP and BMI do with clubs that have music (only today we call
it licensing).

Stories could be re-told by
other story-tellers, etc etc. Yes, they weren't exact copies but it's
still re-using the property.

We call that "folklore," and besides, all the stories are true.

One person's folklore is another person's copyright infringement...

AL

"playon" wrote in message
...
One person's folklore is another person's copyright infringement...

Some "folklore" is in the public domain and some isn't.

The fact is that literature has much more stringent copyright protection
than music does.

that's life...

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

In article ,
"Bob Olhsson" wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
losing
their ability to use the property.

Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?


I'm afraid you lost me there...?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:02:34 -0800, Jay Kadis
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Olhsson" wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
losing
their ability to use the property.

Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?


I'm afraid you lost me there...?

I understood him. If you're selling copies of an intellectual work
(to which you have the rights), you're using it to get paid. Someone
else making and giving away copies reduces your market and your
ability to sell your copies.
Thus the part Bob quoted is false: When others replicate it, the
original creator DOES lose their ability to use the property.

-Jay

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

In article ,
Ben Bradley wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:02:34 -0800, Jay Kadis
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Olhsson" wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between intellectual and real
property:
intellectual property can be replicated without the original creator
losing
their ability to use the property.

Excuse me, since when is getting paid for it not USING the property?


I'm afraid you lost me there...?

I understood him. If you're selling copies of an intellectual work
(to which you have the rights), you're using it to get paid. Someone
else making and giving away copies reduces your market and your
ability to sell your copies.
Thus the part Bob quoted is false: When others replicate it, the
original creator DOES lose their ability to use the property.

-Jay

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley


That makes sense. Still it doesn't prevent the originator from using the idea,
only from benefitting monetarily as much as they would have. But I never said
the originator should not be able to exclusively regulate the use of the IP,
only that the heirs of the creator not benefit ad infinitum.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x