«

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:43:17 AM UTC, Mayayana wrote:
> | > I honestly can't imagine how anyone might find that
>
> | > offensive. Are you offended by Christianity? By Judaism?
>
> | > By references to religious texts? My reference was not
>
> | > about either Moses or about pigs. It was about the role
>
> | > of gov't in human society. If you didn't understand my
>
> | > point then why not ask me to explain rather than taking
>
> | > offense?
>
> |
>
> | If you can't find that offensive, I feel sorry for those who deal with
>
> you.
>
> |
>
>
>
> Ah, I see. You're Jewish. Sorry. I was
>
> referring to a section in Exodus where
>
> the laws are being worked out:
>
>
>
> "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay
>
> five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep."
>
>
>
> I should have known better than to think it was a pig
>
> in the story, as I'm vaguely familiar with kosher law. But
>
> I'm not Jewish, so I just didn't think of that. It certainly
>
> wasn't meant to be insulting! I did remember the gist
>
> of the story correctly, as I was using it to make a point.
>
> Couldn't you have just corrected my mistake and tried to
>
> understand what point I was making? After all, there's no
>
> reason you should assume anyone else to be well-versed
>
> in your religion.
>
>
>
> | Perhaps you should explain your assertion that lobbying is bribery.
>
>
>
> I did. At some length. See my post to Tony Cooper.
>
> But what of your view?
>
>
>
> | Perhaps you should explain why it's OK to steal from a corporation
>
>
>
> ?? I never said that. Throughout this discussion
>
> I've been making the same basic point, which is that
>
> there's opportunistic dishonesty on both sides of
>
> the issue; and that any resolution will have to
>
> recognize that. You shouldn't assume that criticism
>
> of one side necessarily means agreement with the
>
> other. We're talking morals, law and government --
>
> not sports teams.
>
>
>
>
>
> There's actually been interesting news about this
>
> issue over the past couple of days:
>
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...committee.html
>
>
>
> The piece clarifies the point I was mentioning earlier --
>
> that copyright was never meant to protect business
>
> profit in the first place. It was meant to compensate
>
> creative efforts *only because they are of value to
>
> society*. The original intent has been corrupted by
>
> "lobbying" from the likes of Disney.
>
>
>
> Getting back the the *original* original topic, I've been
>
> looking at wikimedia.org, which sobriquet linked to. There's
>
> a fairly substantial supply of images there that are free to
>
> use. It's quite an impressive effort. I'm tempted to join and
>
> upload some photos. It seems a shame that so many millions
>
> of photos are taken daily, and yet very few are available
>
> for use by people who need them.

A friend as used this site before http://search.creativecommons.org/

another has used flickr by asking the owner of the photo if they could use it as album art for their band.

On 11/21/2012 12:44 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> | > I honestly can't imagine how anyone might find that
> | > offensive. Are you offended by Christianity? By Judaism?
> | > By references to religious texts? My reference was not
> | > about either Moses or about pigs. It was about the role
> | > of gov't in human society. If you didn't understand my
> | > point then why not ask me to explain rather than taking
> | > offense?
> |
> | If you can't find that offensive, I feel sorry for those who deal with
> you.
> |
>
> Ah, I see. You're Jewish. Sorry. I was
> referring to a section in Exodus where
> the laws are being worked out:
>
> "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay
> five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep."
>
> I should have known better than to think it was a pig
> in the story, as I'm vaguely familiar with kosher law. But
> I'm not Jewish, so I just didn't think of that. It certainly
> wasn't meant to be insulting! I did remember the gist
> of the story correctly, as I was using it to make a point.
> Couldn't you have just corrected my mistake and tried to
> understand what point I was making? After all, there's no
> reason you should assume anyone else to be well-versed
> in your religion.

Many Jews, including myself, are not as versed as we could be.
My objection was not to the meaning of the example, but your constant
use of the word "pig."
I'm happy you understand why I found that offensive,


>
> | Perhaps you should explain your assertion that lobbying is bribery.
>
> I did. At some length. See my post to Tony Cooper.
> But what of your view?
>
> | Perhaps you should explain why it's OK to steal from a corporation
>
> ?? I never said that. Throughout this discussion
> I've been making the same basic point, which is that
> there's opportunistic dishonesty on both sides of
> the issue; and that any resolution will have to
> recognize that.

By nature humans are acquisitive and opportunistic.
Yes, there are immoral acts on both sides of the issue. I take issue
with any statement that fails to recognize the point.



> You shouldn't assume that criticism
> of one side necessarily means agreement with the
> other. We're talking morals, law and government --
> not sports teams.

In several posting, you have implied that. e.g If I remember correctly,
the implication was clear that anyway it probably belongs to a corporation.

>
>
> There's actually been interesting news about this
> issue over the past couple of days:
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...committee.html
>
> The piece clarifies the point I was mentioning earlier --
> that copyright was never meant to protect business
> profit in the first place. It was meant to compensate
> creative efforts *only because they are of value to
> society*. The original intent has been corrupted by
> "lobbying" from the likes of Disney.

Slate is about is even handed in its reporting as Fox.

>
> Getting back the the *original* original topic, I've been
> looking at wikimedia.org, which sobriquet linked to. There's
> a fairly substantial supply of images there that are free to
> use. It's quite an impressive effort. I'm tempted to join and
> upload some photos. It seems a shame that so many millions
> of photos are taken daily, and yet very few are available
> for use by people who need them.
>

You certainly are free to agree with the editorial content of Slate. I
do not.
I also think that regardless of your opinion of the validity of the law,
a claim that the law is wrong is not an excuse to violate it. (With some
well known exceptions.) A violation of the IP laws is not among those
exceptions.
If you feel the law is wrong, conduct a campaign to elect those who
agree with your conclusion.


Laws are meant to benefit society as a whole. When a business law is
enacted, typically it has provisions for the appropriate agency to
implement regulations to make the act workable. Except in times of
National emergency, the agency must solicit input from all interested
parties. Typically, the agency will revise the proposed regulation in
response to input. The function of lobbyists is to put forth the
industry POV on proposed regulations. Yes, this is abused. Fortunately
lobbying and campaign financing is not always successful. I'm confident
that Karl Rove now understands that.
That being said, further discussion on this topic is straying too far
from this groups purpose. Let's get back to photography.



--
Peter

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:39:30 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>Many Jews, including myself, are not as versed as we could be.
>My objection was not to the meaning of the example, but your constant
>use of the word "pig."
>I'm happy you understand why I found that offensive,
>
I have to admit, as a person who can honestly claim "some of my best
friends are Jews, and as a person who lived with two Jewish roommates
for three years, that your objection puzzles me. I've never known a
Jew who was bothered by references to pigs. The meat may be treyf,
but the word isn't.

> The function of lobbyists is to put forth the
>industry POV on proposed regulations. Yes, this is abused. Fortunately
>lobbying and campaign financing is not always successful. I'm confident
>that Karl Rove now understands that.

I lean to the lobbying = bribery side. There are two levels to
lobbying. One is the lobbyist who makes the rounds explaining an
organization's view - positive or negative - about an area that is
subject to legislation. Politicians often do not peruse proposed
legislation adequately, and vote along party lines as a matter of
rote. The lobbyist function is a good thing in this area.

However, there's far too much funneling of campaign contributions by
lobbyists and far too many lobbyist-sponsored junkets. I think there
are more abuses of the system than there are benefits to the system.

I make no secret that I feel that the NRA is a pernicious and
unscrupulous lobbying organization. They buy congressional support or
threaten to bury opponents of their aims in a torrent of abuse. The
NRA isn't alone in this.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 11/21/2012 4:29 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:39:30 -0500, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> Many Jews, including myself, are not as versed as we could be.
>> My objection was not to the meaning of the example, but your constant
>> use of the word "pig."
>> I'm happy you understand why I found that offensive,
>>
> I have to admit, as a person who can honestly claim "some of my best
> friends are Jews, and as a person who lived with two Jewish roommates
> for three years, that your objection puzzles me. I've never known a
> Jew who was bothered by references to pigs. The meat may be treyf,
> but the word isn't.


The word "pig" by itself is not offensive. Indeed I freely admit that I
enjoy eating a pulled pork sandwich, and baby back ribs. It is the
continual reference to Moses explaining laws, in the context of
Israelite pig farmers, that is offensive.


>
>> The function of lobbyists is to put forth the
>> industry POV on proposed regulations. Yes, this is abused. Fortunately
>> lobbying and campaign financing is not always successful. I'm confident
>> that Karl Rove now understands that.
>
> I lean to the lobbying = bribery side. There are two levels to
> lobbying. One is the lobbyist who makes the rounds explaining an
> organization's view - positive or negative - about an area that is
> subject to legislation. Politicians often do not peruse proposed
> legislation adequately, and vote along party lines as a matter of
> rote. The lobbyist function is a good thing in this area.
>
> However, there's far too much funneling of campaign contributions by
> lobbyists and far too many lobbyist-sponsored junkets. I think there
> are more abuses of the system than there are benefits to the system.
>
> I make no secret that I feel that the NRA is a pernicious and
> unscrupulous lobbying organization. They buy congressional support or
> threaten to bury opponents of their aims in a torrent of abuse. The
> NRA isn't alone in this.
>

The pharmaceutical industry is far more insidious. Their lobbying
adversely affects the pocketbook of every person covered by Medicare. I
can buy my pharms in Canada for less than my co-pay here. If I went to
India I could get the same meds, and have a few thousand dollars left
over after traveling business class to get them.
The acts you describe are immoral, but only the abuses may be illegal.
Most of those acts constitute influence peddling, but not criminal bribery.

--
Peter

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:34:16 PM UTC, PeterN wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 4:29 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:39:30 -0500, PeterN
>
> > <> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Many Jews, including myself, are not as versed as we could be.
>
> >> My objection was not to the meaning of the example, but your constant
>
> >> use of the word "pig."
>
> >> I'm happy you understand why I found that offensive,
>
> >>
>
> > I have to admit, as a person who can honestly claim "some of my best
>
> > friends are Jews, and as a person who lived with two Jewish roommates
>
> > for three years, that your objection puzzles me. I've never known a
>
> > Jew who was bothered by references to pigs. The meat may be treyf,
>
> > but the word isn't.
>
>
>
>
>
> The word "pig" by itself is not offensive. Indeed I freely admit that I
>
> enjoy eating a pulled pork sandwich, and baby back ribs. It is the
>
> continual reference to Moses explaining laws, in the context of
>
> Israelite pig farmers, that is offensive.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> The function of lobbyists is to put forth the
>
> >> industry POV on proposed regulations. Yes, this is abused. Fortunately
>
> >> lobbying and campaign financing is not always successful. I'm confident
>
> >> that Karl Rove now understands that.
>
> >
>
> > I lean to the lobbying = bribery side. There are two levels to
>
> > lobbying. One is the lobbyist who makes the rounds explaining an
>
> > organization's view - positive or negative - about an area that is
>
> > subject to legislation. Politicians often do not peruse proposed
>
> > legislation adequately, and vote along party lines as a matter of
>
> > rote. The lobbyist function is a good thing in this area.
>
> >
>
> > However, there's far too much funneling of campaign contributions by
>
> > lobbyists and far too many lobbyist-sponsored junkets. I think there
>
> > are more abuses of the system than there are benefits to the system.
>
> >
>
> > I make no secret that I feel that the NRA is a pernicious and
>
> > unscrupulous lobbying organization. They buy congressional support or
>
> > threaten to bury opponents of their aims in a torrent of abuse. The
>
> > NRA isn't alone in this.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The pharmaceutical industry is far more insidious. Their lobbying
>
> adversely affects the pocketbook of every person covered by Medicare. I
>
> can buy my pharms in Canada for less than my co-pay here. If I went to
>
> India I could get the same meds,

Are they the same, I've heard most aren't.



> and have a few thousand dollars left
>
> over after traveling business class to get them.

Well provided you're confident that what's on the packet represents what's in the box/jar I wouldn't .

In the UK we get lots of fake products even cigarettes and alcohol.


>
> The acts you describe are immoral, but only the abuses may be illegal.
>
> Most of those acts constitute influence peddling, but not criminal bribery.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:13:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <> wrote:

>>PeterN <> wrote:

>>> Absent some express provision to the contrary, purchase of a book is a
>>> purchase of a limited right to the contents of that book.

>>Only with ebooks.

> Not so. If you look inside the cover of most books you will find a
> detailed copyright notice limiting your rights as to what you can do
> with it.

The notice is only that: a notice. It's not a contract.
You did not enter into it. You did not agree to it. You did
not sign it.

You purchased the physical thing, and you have the same rights
to the content as if you loaned it from a library or a friend
or if you stole the book.

Therefore: you did NOT purchase "a limited right to the
contents of that book", unless there is a notice that *gives*
you special rights if you *purchased* the book.

> I recently picked at random "David Busch's Nikon D300 Digital SLR
> Photography" the fly leaf of which contains

> "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright
> herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form
> or by any means graphic, electronic or mechanical, including but not
> limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping,
> Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and
> retrieval systems, except as permitted under section 107 or 108 of
> the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior permission
> of the publisher."

> The purchaser clearly has limited rights as to what they can do with
> that book. That is typical.

Sorry, the 1976 United States Copyright Act does in no way
apply to me, since I am neither a citicen of the US nor do I
reside where that act holds power. For all I care, it could
be the copyright statues of lost Atlantis.
If I lived in a place where wholesale copying of foreign
books were allowed --- say in the United States some time ago
(back when they didn't have to protect their own produced
copyrightable works worldwide because they didn't have that
many) --- I could do so, no matter what the notice says.

Note that there is no "if you personally bought this book,
you may copy the pages 110-125 and sell them, if you name the
source" or similar text in the notice, which would give you
limited rights to the contents of that book if you purchased it.

-Wolfgang

PeterN <> wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> PeterN <> wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2012 6:11 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> sobriquet writes:

>>>>> The real freeloaders are the corporate criminals responsible for
>>>>> all that intellectual property nonsense.

>>>> Entirely true, unfortunately. The real entities profiting from ever more
>>>> restrictive copyright legislation are corporate rights holders, such as movie
>>>> studios and record companies. Very little has changed for individual artists.

>>> As an artist I am free to do what I want with my work. If I make a deal
>>> with any corporation, and that company benefits, great. They expect to.
>>> Otherwise they would not have financed my work.
>>> I am also free to give it away, or sell it.

>> A worker is free to work for whomever he chooses, at the price
>> they agree. The company he works for sure wants benefits.

>> A worker is also free to work for free, or set up his own shop.

>> Now explain why unions are needed. Far as you put it,
>> there's no need for them.

> If your basic premise was true, you would be right. Problem is that your
> statements are not always true. Economics plays a very limiting part.

Yep, that was my point.
Now apply that to the artist ... does he not have to eat and
buy tools and materials for his works?

-Wolfgang

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Twinkie anybody?
> The Twinkie is no less an intellectual property than, a book is to a
> publisher, an iPhone to Apple, of CS6 to Adobe.

What intellectual property is in a twinkie? A brand name, sure.
The recipe --- that's a trade secret (right?) and may be
independently rediscovered. So it's not 'property' as much
as 'secret' ... lawyers may disagree however-

CS6 is pure intellectual property.

> The unions didn't take Hostess seriously in the negotiation process. As
> a result they have ended up with 18,500 jobs lost and a 100% cut in pay
> and benefits.

100% cut in pay? Were the workers allowed to work for free
instead of paying to be allowed to work?

Oh, yes, unions aren't a silver bullet, and yes, being humans,
they do make real bad blunders at times ... but I guess it'd
be worse without them.

-Wolfgang

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>>> "Mayayana" <> writes:

>>>> | > ...Do those people really deserve to
>>>> | > make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?
>>>> |
>>>> | They *do* deserve to make millions of dollars, in the only way such a
>>>> | question is meaningful: the path from the audience enjoying the
>>>> | performance, to the money leaving the audience's pocket, is about as
>>>> | short and direct as it ever gets.

>>>> Copyright law is premised on the idea that creative
>>>> output serves society, therefore people who do it need
>>>> to get some compensation. Their compensation will
>>>> depend on the terms and duration of copyright protection.

>>> The duration is not at issue, really, except in a TINY minority of
>>> cases. The income from a work is nearly always largely in the first
>>> decade or so of life. Books remaining in print beyond the life of the
>>> author are *extremely* rare.

>> In which case a duration of a decade or so would be perfectly fine.
>> Make that 1.5 or 2 decades, for the TINY minority few people
>> care about.

>> Actually, from what I hear, books sell in 3 weeks or not at all,
>> at least in most common cases.

> The royalties from your popular work are often an author's retirement
> plan, though. If you're successful enough to have the books stay in
> print that long.

So how many popular works keep in print for 20+ years?
May as well play the lottery as a retirement plan, unless you
already are a very popular author.

>>>> So the artistic value of a work *is* meaningful in deciding
>>>> whether someone deserves to make millions, from society's
>>>> point of view.

>>> Artistic value? Or popularity?

>> Copyright as it is is *pure* popularity, so what's your point?

> That the OP said "artistic value"; which is MUCH harder to determine,
> and is often code for "works I like".

Any step towards more artistic value would be positive, even
if it's tiny.


>>>> | Society would not suffer much without them, I don't think. But society
>>>> | *would* suffer, terribly, if it were structured so people like us got to
>>>> | make that decision *for others*.
>>>> |

>>>> Disney managed to get a big extension of copyright
>>>> duration, simply because they had the money and lobbyists
>>>> to buy the vote. So there are already people making these
>>>> decisions for others.

>>> Extending is far less damaging than contracting.

>> Yep, let's extend to infinity. That's not damaging at all.

> If you say so; I certainly don't agree.

> "Less" is not a synomyn for "not", in case you weren't aware. And
> pushing to limiting cases, well.

True. I'll amend: "Extending to infinity is far less damaging
than contracting by a single minute". That's fully supported
by your claim.

>> But contracting it to what it was when the works were made and
>> published, that's pure evil, because all the creative people back
>> then banked on ever increasing extensions and would retroactively
>> unmake the works if we contract anything.

> Um, pure evil? Your words, again. Not mine.

Well, there must be a reason that chopping off even a minute,
even a second, is so very very damaging compared to extending
for any term of time, including infinity.


>> *YOU* said "The duration is not at issue, really, except in a TINY
>> minority of cases. The income from a work is nearly always largely
>> in the first decade or so of life." So why is contracting from
>> near a century *after death* back to, say 10, 20, even 30 years
>> after release of the work damaging?

> Not to the authors of the old works works, but to authors working now.

Ah --- no. Except for a tiny minority, their works will not
sell that long. Most of the tiny minority will have other
works by then that will sell. So they'll not die in poverty.

Unless you want special laws for tiny minorities, like
"Anyone who has 10 million USD does not need to pay tax" or
"Anyone who has 100 million USD is exempted from manslaughter
and lesser crime laws" ...

> The *majority* of authors actually never make a living at it.

And *their* works sell for a century after their death?

> However, those who do routinely get significant royalties twenty and
> thirty years after a work was written.

That may be, but you'd have to show that proportionately
lower number of works --- and works of the same quality ---
would not get written if the copyright was limited from 70 or
90 years after death to, 10, 20, 30 years after release, and
that the thus lost works are *not* offset by all the works
which are currently unavailable due to the copyright being
longer than that.

After all, copyright is not the goodwill army for authors
(or Disney, or Hollywood --- even if it really looks that way
recently), but a tool to maximise the availability(!) of good
works to the public.

>> And how comes you speak for all public that being excluded from
>> works (of which well over 99% have not been available for decades)
>> is not as damaging as cutting a couple years of protection decades
>> after the creator has died, and probably his children too?

> We're all discussing our opinions on what is the best balance of rules
> for creators and consumers of content. I speak for nobody but myself,
> any more than you do.

So what *is* your basis for your extending less damaging than
contracting claim?

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:35:16 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Mayayana <> wrote:

>>> use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
>>> everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
>>> Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
>>> like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
>>> wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
>>> So I see no justification for the public paying her way.

>>I hope you do have some insurance. Say for your car, should
>>you produce a nasty accident. Now, if you rarely or never are
>>involved in an accident (or are not at fault), you pay a 'tax'
>>for the more careless drivers.

> There is no such thing as 'never have an accident'. If you go on
> driving for long enough you _will_ have an acident.

Buy enough lottery tickets, you'll win the lottery --- have
enough drivers, one will not have an accident.

> When you do have an accident, it does not matter that you were not at
> fault; you have had an acident.

If you're at fault, you need to pay. If not, not.
Insurance can only help you with paying.

The interesting part is the one below:

>>Tell me if that is fair. If so, why are you paying fior
>>something you don't need nor want to happen? If not, tell me
>>why haven't you removed yourself from that insurance?

>>As for copyright: That only helps a limited number of people.
>>Everyone else is *only* hampered by it and needs to pay more.
>>Yet you consider that fair ...

>>>| Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
>>>| information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
>>>| are not a paying member from that library)?

>>> Libraries do not make copies.

>>Have you ever seen a library without a copying machine?

-Wolfgang