I have often been accused, presumably correctly, of copyright violation here for use of material in a manner considered perfectly ethical in all academic settings I know of, and presumably legal. I am always amazed that copyright law apparently forbids any use of material with citation. I am sure this is not the case, that the law allows for "fair use", but most people choose not to risk this as fair use is not well defined. As a result, I have no idea what my legal rights are, as the apparently change based on a Byzantine legal code. What is acceptable for an academic paper or a book is not acceptable on the internet? For example, if I wanted to quote Bob Dylan lyrics, I could do so totally freely in any paper or book, providing I cited them as Bob Dylan’s work. This is apparently illegal on the internet.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Read the TOS. Like most of us did.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
What is not acceptable anywhere else is also irrelevant to this particular forum. OSC can dictate any set of rules he likes - that's his privelege of owning this forum. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. But as long as you play in a forum OSC owns, then OSC dictates the rules.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
And what quidscibis said.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.
Yeah, it's in the TOS. Personally I think it's overkill, bull<insert appropriate expletive> and incredibly frustrating. But that's the one of the very few things about Hatrack that I actively hate, so I put up with it.
I mean I can understand the Cards wanting to cover their arses, but seriously... overkill!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:For example, if I wanted to quote Bob Dylan lyrics, I could do so totally freely in any paper or book, providing I cited them as Bob Dylan’s work. This is apparently illegal on the internet.
I don't believe this is correct. "Fair use" actually extends further for educational uses than it does for other purposes, so that explains why you can do things in an academic paper that would not be acceptable elsewhere. Still, even educational fair use standards require that you use an excerpt, not an entire product. With the lyrics to a song, you might possibly be able to get away, in an academic paper, with claiming that they constitute an exerpt of the album; I kind of doubt it, though. Journal articles I have read discussing a poem or even, in some cases, a song's lyrics generally only include exerpts. They include much more than Hatrack's two line policy, but then, they are serving an educational purpose.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'd offer similar comments, but don't want to repeat them just in case any of the people above have pending copyrights on said comments.
And [insert aforementioned artist here]'s off-beat voice doesn't translate well in to the written word anyway.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Hold on. I guess I don't read well enough and this is not really on the same road as what people are typing about...
But if the copyright is mine I can post however much of it I want (edit: on hatrack)?
(asking it that way basically because i thought it applied to all copywritten material, period. regardless of who held the rights or what permissions you were granted.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But if the copyright is mine I can post however much of it I want (edit: on hatrack)?
Yes:
quote:You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Thanks, Dagonee.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
edit: in particular note that most of the educational exemptions are explicitly for use at education institutions, in classrooms, and the like. Merely saying something is academic or believing something is academic does not mean your use qualifies.
Posted by hugh57 (Member # 5527) on :
My guess is that OSC and KAC do not wish to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing, case by case, posts that contain copyrighted material to determine whether or not they are fair use. It may be, as Alcon suggests, overkill, but simply prohibiting (via the TOS) the posting of any copyrighted stuff (other than your own or the forum's) saves them a lot of time. And time, IMO, is just as, if not more valuable than money.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I do pretty much the same on my forum. It's pretty much dead anyway, so I don't have to worry too much about any problems.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I came in here to post what Icarus did about fair use being extended much further for educational purposes than any other, but since he's already posted it, I'll just say, listen to Icarus!
Also, I could be mistaken about this, but I think I remember my bibliography professor describing fair use as a defense for use of a portion of copyrighted material, not a license to do whatever you want with all of it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
But this forum is a place for people to talk, not to make money. I suppose the argument is that if you qoute stuff you are enjoying the thing that was made to make money and not paying for it. BUT, if we take the example that this is a living room, irl we can sing songs to each other and not worry about copyrights (as long as we don't bring along a bootleg copy of a movie or cd of course). What exactly is the difference?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What exactly is the difference?
Well, this is a public place, for one.
For another, the owner of the living room asked us not to.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What about material that the copyright owner has already placed on the internet on a public site?
For example, news articles?
My practice has been to provide a link, then place inside a quote an excerpt the article to provide a bit to show what it's about or maybe highlight the most salient (for me) portion of it.
That goes way beyond 2 lines, of course. So, should I not do that anymore?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The living room comparision is just that -- a comparision. This is not, literally, a living room. We are not talking, our words son't disappear the moment we say them. We are not typing just to the people we know are listening, there could be any number of people reading that we don't know are there. And "not to make money" doesn't make one iota of difference, if you take a copywritten work and give it away for free, you are still violating copywrite.
But, if you won't accept that it's illegal, look at it this way. If you go to a party in someone's livingroom and the hosts ask you not to smoke inside, what are you going to do? Graciously accept that it's their house, and there are PLENTY of other places in the world you can smoke, or sit there and argue with them that second-hand smoke isn't really dangerous, and you don't care if their furniture stinks the next day. Oh, and they're allergic? Gee, that's too bad.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And Pel, how often have you been asked to not post more than 2 lines of a lyric? Your first post makes it sound like you have received this request frequently here. I haven't seen it.
On the other hand, why would a smart guy like you need to be told more than once in the first place?
In which case, I'm just sort of puzzled by the tone of persecution in your first post.
edit: Oh wait, I found one! In the Borat thread. Your response there was particularly juvenile, by the way. And starting this thread in a petulant huff is even more juvenile. I wondered why people just kept telling you to read the TOS.
So...really, Pel, how many times HAVE you had copyright violations pointed out to you. I'm trying to get a sense of what "often" means to you.
[ November 18, 2006, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am not so much interested in the TOS as why they exist. Mr. Card probably wants to avoid any legal troubles, but he has himself (as an owner of a great deal of copyright) expressed annoyance at the paranoia surronding it.
Song lyrics are a great example, becouse the owner of the copyright is not hurt by the use of song lyrics. For example, if I were to write a book about Bob Dylan using his lyrics, I could make money from it. However, he would not loose money, and might make money if my book inspired people to buy his albums. As far as I know, that is legal even without his permision.
"And Pel, how often have you been asked to not post more than 2 lines of a lyric? Your first post makes it sound like you have received this request frequently here."
Of course I havn't heard that specific complaint before, but I have heard many others here and elsewhere.
Wikipedia is the worst example by far, despite being a clearly non-commericial enterprise set up for educational purposes, many editors there allow no fair use material at all. None. Most of the removers of copyrighted material, including fair use material, are literaly robots set up by some editors to keep up with their own paranoia.
Copyright paranoia will destroy the internet as a place for the exchange of information. Or it would if everyone were as paranoid as some people are. For example, T.S. Eliot has been dead for less than 70 years, he still owns the rights to the wasteland. Does this mean that we cannot have websites dedicated to the poem including the words? If so, then there are alot of violators out there among University Professors.
"Fair use" actually extends further for educational uses"
Many internet sites are educational, and not just ones with .edu domains. Isn't Hatrack an educational site, or is someone profiting from all the material on Sci-Fi literature. Yes, it accepts ads. Do the ads make in non-educational?
I am willing to follow the rules of this forum, but the larger sense of paranoia bothers me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Pelegius, how is it paranoia if people are asking you to abide by the law? Whether the law itself is needlessly restrictive or even unenforceable is a different argument. The law is what it is, and it isn't that difficult to understand.
Fair Use allows a small percentage of the work to be used, with attribution. There are some exceptions, as have been noted, for educational use, but even then those exceptions are not absolute. And you can't declare that copyright holders "don't get hurt" because that is not your decision to make. That's the whole point of copyright in the first place: that the creators of a work get to control how that work is distributed.
If you think copyright law should be changed -- and there are many good reasons -- argue that. If you think that widespread dissemination of a work benefits the copyright holder -- and many people have made that case -- argue that. And I would love to see someone work out a system to protect attribution and allow for creator compensation while acknowledging the reality and advantages of today's easy copying and world-wide sharing.
But please do not whine that someone is enforcing an existing law because it inconveniences you.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"That's the whole point of copyright in the first place: that the creators of a work get to control how that work is distributed."
The whole point is that the creator gets the credit and any money.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You apparently did not read the link I posted or my comment thereon. Being educational in the sense that matters for copyright is not a matter of assertion. Being educational in the sense that matters for copyright is a clearly defined status revolving largely around education institutions (meaning schools) and classrooms. Not websites people assert/think/believe/know/assume are educational.
In fact, many postings on .edu domains would not qualify as educational usage under the law. You said you thought your usage was fair use under the law, so I thought you had read the law. Apparently not.
Furthermore, most of your complaints are, as noted by Chris Bridges, complaints about the law. I happen to think many parts of copyright law are silly, myself, but that doesn't mean I criticize others for wanting to follow them or see them followed in places they manage.
And no, writing a book about Bob Dylan and using substantial portions of his lyrics would not be legal, whether you gave it away or sold it (which has little to no bearing on whether or not it is infringement, and more to do with how much you owe in judgements). What makes you think it would be? Those are works under copyright. The copyright act clearly gives the copyright holder rights to control distribution. It has nothing to do with what would result in the most profit for the copyright holder, whether you think it would or even if it were true, it only has to do with rights being reserved to the copyright holder to exercise as they (not you) see fit.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"What makes you think it would be?"
The existence of such books, perhaps?
T.S. Eliot still owns his copyright (even though he is very much dead), but there are dozens of books out therea about his poetry.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
And, yes, I do think copyright law needs to be changed. If it is not plagerism and no one is profiting, it should be legal.
Edited to add:
Much has been said about the rights of the owner, but what about the right to information. Surely humans are not prohibited from sharing information. The number of times I have quoted song lyrics in social settings is huge, my friends all do it. And most of us do not use bootleg cds or dvds. Are we immoral that we take joy in art? Are we immoral that we laugh at comedy? No artist or comedian would say so.
This country is run by Javerts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are several points to copyright. First and foremost (though I feel its been left somewhat by the wayside) is
quote:To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Note that no statements regarding or allusions to credit or money are made there. That's the part of the Constitution that empowers Congress to make copyright (and patent) laws.
The law speaks little to intent, but here's what the copyright statues say copyright means:
quote:Sect. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 120 [17 USCS Sects. 107-120], the owner of copyright under this title [17 USCS Sects. 101 et seq.] has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly.
Note that money does not get mentioned except as an implied part of sale, which is only mentioned in passing as a way of transferring ownership. Money, again, is not the primary purpose of copyright. None of these say "except if the person doing it gives attribution" or anything of the sort.
There is an entry requiring attribution (or removal of attribution) in certain cases, but it is a right regarding visual works, and it does not in any way remove, replace, or reduce the rights listed above.
So no, the point of copyright (especially not the 'whole point') is not what you say it is. You are making things up because of how you want them to be rather than paying attention to reality.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I suspect you will find most of the books about T.S. Eliot's poetry pay a licensing fee to his estate .
edit: or whomever owns the copyright currently, it could be a publishing company
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"You are making things up because of how you want them to be rather than paying attention to reality."
Such is the human condition. Who doth profit when the law suffocates the people?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I suspect you will find most of the books about T.S. Eliot's poetry pay a licensing fee to his estate"
Good, they are making a profit. I have never profited on anything I have ever said. Where then am I intended to get this money to pay estates for my words?
Maybe we should have an artist tax, everyone has to pay more for each copyright issued. After all, the current system does not charge for thoughts.
The internet is a library and a classroom as well as a bazaar.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When you're making assertions about reality, it generally behooves one to pay attention to it. Instead you've spouted an irrelevant platitude in an attempt to downplay your own ignorance.
As for suffocation, I agree to some extent . I'm for significant copyright reform. Your idea of what constitutes good copyright reform, however, is dismal. For instance, your revision would make it legal to copy and redistribute computer programs for free, leading to an incredible disincentive to produce computer programs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Who doth profit when the law suffocates the people?
Apparently, Chad Howes of Burlington, Vermont.
Hey, I'm as suprised as anyone else.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, now your argument has been pointed out as spurious, so you change the subject to apparently assert you should get things for free because you don't have money. I think your logic is wanting.
You wanting to does not mean you should get to. For instance, you wanting a coke does not mean a restaurant should be required to give you a coke free, for all that the cost to them is infinitesimal. Why do you feel this should apply to people's ideas?
Everyone receives instantaneous copyright in all original (not wholly, necessarily) creative (facts aren't copyrightable) works they fix (no copyrights on something only in your head) in some form. You have many, many copyrights. I am not particularly interested in most of your copyrights, so please excuse me if I don't want to pay a fee for them.
I willingly pay many fees for copyrighted works I am interested in, and the system on the whole works fairly well. At least, under this system lots of people are producing works other people are interested in. I see it is your proposal that people should get paid for making works even if no one is interested in them, but I think this is likely to result in a lot of people producing a lot of stuff nobody is interested in so as to receive the fees.
Oh, and I suggest you get money to pay for copyright licenses via a job, the same way most people do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My practice has been to provide a link, then place inside a quote an excerpt the article to provide a bit to show what it's about or maybe highlight the most salient (for me) portion of it.
That goes way beyond 2 lines, of course. So, should I not do that anymore?
I've never seen the two-line limit asserted against anything but lyrics and poems.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Once upon a time, there rarely existed a day in which a "Mafia"murder&lynching game wasn't on the front page of this forum. Then a few incidents occurred in which expressions of distaste for a person's opinions went hyperbolic and personal, sounding very much like real threats of physical harm and death. Rather than saying "Graphic threats of violence are okay in this thread, but not in that thread", and because perhaps the "Mafia" pretend violence were setting a tone that encouraged hyperbolic threats in other types of conversation, the moderators decided that all threat-like activity would be unwelcome here, would not be tolerated whether obviously pretend or possibly real.
Similarly, there existed some "What's your favorite lyrics/poems?" threads which went from people posting favorite parts to people posting the entirety. ie There no longer was any purpose to the threads other than "publishing the full lyrics of songs I like." -- which is an absolutely clear violation of copyright. Unintentional for the most part as far as the posters being aware of the nuances of copyright law. And I suspect that the moderators were unaware that lyrics were being published to the extent that they were. And when they became aware, the moderators imposed the (overly draconian in my opinion) two-line rule. Cuz here's the kicker: Because lyrics and poems are usually very short, they enjoy much greater protection under past legal rulings on copyright. ie It ain't a matter of "grey areas in the law needing further clarification." eg If an author decides to use Stairway to Heaven in a manuscript, his publishers are legally bound to obtain permission from the copyright holder. In the case of extremely popular songs, the fee to get that permission is usually well above what an average author would receive as an advance on royalties. And a copyright holder winning a lawsuit for a violation can easily receive multiples of their standard copyright fee for that particular lyric. A professional writer/editor/publisher is legally expected to be aware of those facts. ie "I didn't know..." won't be accepted as a mitigating factor. So violation of copyright by a professional is considered to be legal malice, an aggravating factor which can bump a lawsuit award up to many multiples of the standard copyright fee for the illegally used lyric.
More later, but off to work for now.
[ November 18, 2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Please note that in my post I mostly pointed out the absurdity of complaining about paranoia in this case. If this becomes a discussion of how copyright law should be changed I'd be much more interested.
Discussing how speed limits are needlessly restrictive and should be adjusted according to different conditions would be a useful discussion and might lead to changes in the law and an overall improvement in society. Whining to the cop that caught you speeding that it's totally unfair, you weren't hurting anybody, and lots of people do it will just get you a bigger ticket and no sympathy from me whatsoever.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I have often been accused, presumably correctly, of copyright violation here for use of material in a manner considered perfectly ethical in all academic settings I know of, and presumably legal.
quote: Of course I havn't heard that specific complaint before, but I have heard many others here and elsewhere.
You seem to be projecting your own paranoia onto Hatrack and the rest of the world.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.
Does owned by this BB mean things posted on this BB, or does it include things written by OSC. For example, an excerpt from one of his books?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Owned by this BB would include FAQs, instructions, other posts, etc. Not OSC's work.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't recommend posting in this thread. The moment Pelegius realizes that he has no "rights" here that violate the TOS, he's just going to delete this thread in a huff.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm still laughing at the word 'presumed'. Clearly, Pelegius is only interested in discussing this issue on exactly his terms and no one else's. Once the 'presumed' part is explicitly demonstrated to be factual, hey presto! I don't want to talk about that, I'm not as interested in that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Does Pelegius have a history of deleting threads?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
*Streaks through thread*
Hey, at least i had my eye patch on.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Does Pelegius have a history of deleting threads?
Heh.
You were kidding, right?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I wasn't, but then I'm just not here as often as I used to be, so I miss stuff. I know that deleting threads has been a topic of conversation lately, but I mostly remember it revolving around General Sax. I'm not doubting you; I just hadn't associated Pelegius with deleted threads particularly. Lord knows so many of his threads turn acrimonious, and when I've looked for particular ones, I've always been able to find them, so it didn't occur to me that he was deleting other ones. How strange, though: it can't be getting into a flamewar that makes him want to delete a thread, or many more of them would be gone. So I wonder what specifically would make him delete a thread he started.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Squick
Ic, he deleted a thread about 10 days ago. It started out being about him whining that people (specifically me, I think) were calling him anti-Semitic (inaccurate). When it evolved into a thread about Ced and puppy-kicking, he deleted it. The most popular theory is that he deleted it when it stopped being about him. He has since admitted to the deletion, and shown no remorse.
I expect this one is likely to disappear as well.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I have deleted one thread for reasons which I have explained, which rivka has characteristically chosen not to mention. Lisa has, invariably, turned this into a personal crusade. Or rather just used her undoubted skills at pontification in her usual pastime of making ad-hominem attacks against me, a pastime which predates my presence at Hatrack, by the way and is rooted entirely in our substantial political disagreements. Most people are capable of tolerating political disagreement enough to function, but those of us who know Lisa and her utter intolerance for anyone who does not share her Messiah-infused Romantic-Nationalism know that this is not in her nature. Her goal is doubtless to make Hatrack so miserable for anyone who does not agree with her that they will leave her in her imperial and sanctimonious solitude, in this she has often come very close
For the benefit of Icarus, lest he should be informed entirely by rivka’s disinformation:
quote: I wish that there were a way to add an explanation of why a thread was deleted, but this is not within my power. In retrospect, I should have created a thread on the subject.
For the record, I deleted the thread for the most obvious reason: I regretted its existence. I regret having written what I wrote then at a moment of intense stress.I did not wish to maintain a thread on the subject any longer.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I have deleted one thread for reasons which I have explained, which rivka has characteristically chosen not to mention.
Well, I considered quoting you, and mentioning that I didn't believe a word of it. But I had decided not to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Her goal is doubtless to make Hatrack so miserable for anyone who does not agree with her that they will leave her in her imperial and sanctimonious solitude, in this she has often come very close
Dude, believe me, the day Lisa drives me off this forum is the day the Earth itself stumbles out of its orbit and into the sun. Which will still be before I agree with her on much. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I have deleted one thread for reasons which I have explained, which rivka has characteristically chosen not to mention. Lisa has, invariably, turned this into a personal crusade. Or rather just used her undoubted skills at pontification in her usual pastime of making ad-hominem attacks against me, a pastime which predates my presence at Hatrack, by the way and is rooted entirely in our substantial political disagreements. Most people are capable of tolerating political disagreement enough to function, but those of us who know Lisa and her utter intolerance for anyone who does not share her Messiah-infused Romantic-Nationalism know that this is not in her nature. Her goal is doubtless to make Hatrack so miserable for anyone who does not agree with her that they will leave her in her imperial and sanctimonious solitude, in this she has often come very close
Pel, you are actually aware that if you leave there will still be other people posting on hatrack, right?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Pel, you are actually aware that if you leave there will still be other people posting on hatrack, right?
But then this forum would be repetitive and boring... Right?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
If I am the only person of this forum who distrusts Lisa's brand of religious Romantic-Nationalism, I am shocked to learn so. I am, perhaps, its most vocal critic.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I have deleted one thread for reasons which I have explained, which rivka has characteristically chosen not to mention.
Pelegius,
If you believe that rivka has a lack of forth-rightness as a personal characteristic, you have far less understanding of her than you think you do.
As for your observations of Lisa, I can't even figure out what Messiah-infused Romantic-Nationalism means, so I can't begin to say whether I agree with your assessment or not.
However, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single person that Lisa has actually run off of Hatrack. I know there are people that will not post in threads that she starts, or will stop posting in a thread once she posts -- usually in threads having to do with the Middle East. But that's a far cry from being run off by her. In most cases, it's just because they know there's no use trying to discuss those topics with her. They all already know pretty much what the other person is going to say and rather than pollute the board with more of it, they simply choose to look elsewhere.
Lisa is perfectly entitled to her opinions and, at least so far, none of the mods have asked her to leave.
In fact, she pretty much has the same rights here as you. Or me. Or anyone else.
And it doesn't matter if her politics are upsetting. As long as she abides by the TOS, nobody is going to get rid of her either.
I'm really curious as to what prompted this whole thread and your whiny attitude in it. I mean, really...one person asked you to limit lyrics quotations to two lines. Papa Janitor came in and politely asked you to change it. You not only gritched about it, but started a whole whiny thread to complain about how picked on you are.
You have the same rights as everyone else. In other words, you aren't special. Get over it. Calm down and relax a little.
[ November 19, 2006, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: If you believe that rivka has a lack of forth-rightness as a personal characteristic, you have far less understanding of her than you think you do.
Thanks, Bob.
quote:However, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single person that Lisa has actually run off of Hatrack.
There's at least one, and I think possibly others.
Mind, I don't understand giving another poster that much power over you. But that's me. *shrug*
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The problem is that Lisa takes her personal problems with me to all threads on which we both post, not just political threads. Indeed, I do not think I have tried to discuss politics with here in some time.
As for rivka, she is very forthight in her views, but, like many of us, disiclined to share information which contradicts those views.
[edited for clarity]
[ November 19, 2006, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Pelegius ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can't even figure out what Messiah-infused Romantic-Nationalism means
It means that Pel thinks she thinks God wants her to idealize and support the nation of Israel.
--------
quote:The problem is that Lisa takes her personal problems with to all threads on which we both post, not just political threads.
"I say, Mr. Pot, who is that striking fellow?" "I honestly can't say, Ms. Ladle. But he doesn't seem like much to me. Rather dark, don't you think?"
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tom.
I could almost parse your explanation. You should hire yourself out as a translator.
rivka,
no prob. It's also true, and therefor easy and a pleasure to say.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Pel,
so if something is, iyo, a characteristic of all humans, you feel comfortable using it to describe individuals as if it somehow sets them apart? That rivka! She's an habitual respirator!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Tom wins.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I can't even figure out what Messiah-infused Romantic-Nationalism means
It means that Pel thinks she thinks God wants her to idealize and support the nation of Israel.
Where's the Orthodox Jewish Messiah come into it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
His firm gets the contract to rebuild the temple. Do try to keep up...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Something has gone awry with the copyright system. It has reached the point where it damages our ability to share/appreciate creative works far more than it encourages the production of creative works. (For instance, I seriously doubt many artists think "I need to write this so my descendants will have extra income 30 years after I am dead" when they are deciding whether or not to produce some new great poem.)
And since we live in a democracy, we are entitled to alter that law when it no longer benefits our nation. The trouble is that there are a bunch of companies with a lot of money riding on the continuation of copyright laws, who would prefer to make copyrights extend as absurdly far as possible. I suspect the source of any "paranoia" begins there. If that is the case then the solution is to get better politicians to represent our interests, who will make better copyright laws - rather than complain about what rules OSC must enforce in order to conform with the law.
Well, either that or vote with your wallet. If you don't like copyright laws, stop paying money to those who won't let you share their works freely over mediums like the internet. In the case of poetry, you could always write your own. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Something has gone awry with the copyright system. It has reached the point where it damages our ability to share/appreciate creative works far more than it encourages the production of creative works. (For instance, I seriously doubt many artists think "I need to write this so my descendants will have extra income 30 years after I am dead" when they are deciding whether or not to produce some new great poem.)
Can you give an example of the ability to share/appreciate creative works being damaged?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
For example, I cannot post the entire text of "Dune" to the thread for the discussion of the series. I'm sure this has seriously discommoded many people's ability to enjoy the work.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Can you give an example of the ability to share/appreciate creative works being damaged?
Well, there are thousands of books, poems, songs, films, and other works of art that we could all have access to right now, at this instant, if copyright laws did not exist.
This is the cost of copyright laws. There is a point up to which the benefits of copyright laws outweigh this cost, because it encourages the production of more works that we will eventually have access to in the future. However, I think we are well beyond that point if the works are still being restricted decades after the creator is dead.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: For example, I cannot post the entire text of "Dune" to the thread for the discussion of the series. I'm sure this has seriously discommoded many people's ability to enjoy the work.
I cry myself to sleep every night over that, KoM.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Whereas I stay awake each night, a cure for my insomnia just out of reach. Damn those copyright laws!!! Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The problem with that argument is that it can be boiled down to "I don't want to pay for this stuff but I still want it." That's certainly the way Disney's lawyers would describe it and it's far too easy to make it sound petty and selfish in the eyes of a court.
A better one might be the impossibility of effectively enforcing copyright laws in this age of near perfect, near instant reproduction and distribution, bringing us to the point where we must recraft copyright laws if they are to remain relevant.
Or the position of Spider Robinson's protagonist in his short story "Melancholy Elephants," i.e. that so many people are creating for the world to enjoy, a larger percentage than ever before, that it is rapidly becoming impossible to come up with anything new that isn't infringing on a previous work. In this story, releasing works into public domain earlier is more like recycling.
What I would like to see are options for changing copyright laws that would still maintain attribution to the creator and some form of compensation that makes it worthwhile to create.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think Chris is "nearly" right. The problem with copyright laws in the context of near perfect, near-instant reproduction is that the old ways for others to make money off an artist's work are disappearing. Sadly, those ways are the most secure ways for artists to also make money off of their own efforts.
We don't have a model in place (the "internet" is not a good enough answer...yet) for artists to make serious money and there is almost no role right now for the middle men who used to guarantee at least a secure pay off.
The best system would be one that guaranteed the creator of a work some income every time that work was accessed, until the copyright expired. That's tough to do if we can all file share -- then we're just on our honor to pay the creative talent. I think there are some who have done a good job of making a buck while giving away the essential creation. They merchandise the heck out of it, but that does seem to work. Cristo sells numbered photos of his works and leaves the works open to the public. Sells the original design documents for big bucks too. Some people make board games of their stuff...Whatever.
I'd rather see a way for people to get the money by making access to the works cost a small amount. Like OSC's online magazine. That's a good model too. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing. You pay a small fee and that unlocks the content.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Chris: luckily, copyright requires there be a line of descent. If you come up with something independently, its not entangled by the copyright of other things no matter how much it resembles them. Of course, given sufficient resemblance it would be difficult to convince people one came up with something independently.
Patents, however, don't require a relation with an earlier work for there to be infringement.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Squick![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)