Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:19:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
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
opinion. I wasn't, really.
One wag has said that asking a bunch of prickly individualists with strong
opinions to come together and agree on how to foment a peaceful revolution
is, to put it mildly, like trying to herd cats.
> > 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.
(let me strengthen that from can to "may" to convey my *approval* of the
notion of IP, rather than merely recognition of the current ability to do so)
> 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
This was a rice discovery wasn't it rather than human? But yes, I'm not sure
I've made up my mind. I haven't myself done a detailed rights based OR
utilitarian based analysis and I haven't read one that made me turn dogmatic
yet, although there are some good ones out there (both ways).
> > 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.
Yes, fine, and I pay taxes. :-) :-) But do you *approve*, or are you just
going along? (by analogy, not trying to start a topic: I don't approve of
paying taxes at the current level, I just go along. I *know* we can have
"enough" government (to suit me) for less taxes and I *hope* we can have
"enough" for none at all, properly structured, but I go along)
> 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.
me too, me too, and I wouldn't be surprised either.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I suppose I approve of the system I work in - I don't profit from it though. (...) This reminds me of an article I was reading the other day. In 1997 USA tax at ~30% of GDP (1999 GDP / cap = $34k) whilst in the UK is was at ~34% (1999 GDP / (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) I have now corrected my spelling. (...) 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 (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
