Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:47:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2932 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > If you rummage around, you’ll find that there are plenty within the LP who
> > voice descent at everything from your sign-up clause (“I do not believe in
> > or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or
> > social goals.”) right down to what is the meaning of “property” or “force”.
>
> Can you check that for a possible missing word? I read it a few times and
> haven't grokked it yet. Thanks! Maybe it's a UK turn of phrase? "voice
> decent at"??
I have now corrected my spelling.
>
> > As for point 2, you can answer it if you wish.
>
> I'll give it a brief once over later today... you already know what I'm
> going to say.
>
> > However, as I know you have strong
> > views in intellectual property rights, I’d much rather hear your view on this:
> >
> > =+=
> > COPYRIGHTS
> > The attitude expressed by Libertarians is that words cannot be owned. I put
> > the question to a county level Libertarian Party chairman of how authors
> > would be able to publish books if they could not copyright their work. The
> > answer is that the publisher would simply keep the books in reading rooms
> > where people would pay to sit down and read the book. This of course is
> > impractical and their demands would end the modern publishing industry.
> > In addition to ending copyrighted reading material it would also end
> > copyright protection for computer software. Another modern industry that
> > would no longer be able to function.
> > =+=
> >
> > (This was taken from - http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell/bronzage.htm)
> >
> > To be honest, I would not have given the above much credence if he did not
> > mentioned that he had spoken to what he calls “a county level Libertarian
> > Party chairman”.
>
> I gotta dig before a full answer... (wanted you to know you weren't being
> ignored)
>
> But it's not my personal viewpoint. Rather, I feel that "Words" cannot be
> owned any more than the knowledge that 600 angstroms is a particular color,
> but the arrangements of words, the arrangement of colors into patterns, the
> arrangment of buttons and controls in an application, the arrangement of
> brick images into instructions, all these things can be copyrighted as
> particular expressions of ideas, I feel.
Yes. Naturally, just because it can be copyrighted does not make it right to
do so. I think inventions and formulations can be copyrighted/patented to
protect “investment” of time / money – otherwise that investment may never
occurred. I’m not really all the keen of IP rights associated with human
genetic discoveries or with ones such as this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_806000/806665.stm
>
> I've been hung out to dry in this very group by those who feel that there
> cannot be any justifiable IP of ANY sort (copyright, patent, design patent,
> trademark, trade dress, you name it), and they weren't particularly
> Libertarian, far from it, so I dunno.
>
> What do YOU think? Can something be copyrighted, patented, registered as a
> trademark, acknowledged as trade dress?
Notionally, I am in the business of disseminating information (both my own
and others). My employer puts great pressure on me to ensure that I take IP
seriously. So, you could say, I have been indoctrinated into IP culture. So
much so, that I signed a copyright transfer just yesterday.
>
> That's not to say that I oppose copyleft, for those who choose to release
> their property that way. It is a valid choice and I applaud them, if not all
> of their ideals (bringing down the whole property system as applied to
> software may be a bit much to reach for).
>
> I don't see keeping books in reading rooms as a practical scheme, that's for
> sure. Further, I'd ferret out the error in the derivation this County Chair
> (not a hard title to secure, if you live in a small county) came up with, or
> try to, first, before concluding that the LP doesn't support IP. Not that
> you did, but someone did.
I was surprised by the IP text I quoted, I would have thought that a
property focused ideology would recognise IP. I still won’t be surprised if
it transpired to be bunk.
>
> Clearly you've been doing a LOT of homework lately and finding some very
> interesting cites! Thanks!
All stored fuel form a lazy friday lunchtime... it will run out soon.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Changed it, anyway <grin>... I now interpret that as "voice dissent at", and now I get it. Recall the question Maggie asked about libertarian views on abortion? She was surprised at that informal unscientific poll result showing division of (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Can you check that for a possible missing word? I read it a few times and haven't grokked it yet. Thanks! Maybe it's a UK turn of phrase? "voice decent at"?? (...) I'll give it a brief once over later today... you already know what I'm going (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
