Larry Laminger <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
> >
> > Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> > Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> > Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>
> Yet another step towards eliminating our concept of freedom in the US.
>
> * Free Speech
> * Reasonable Priced Speech
> * You Can't Afford to Say That Speech
> * Not Allowed to be Spoken Speech
>
> Not quite the picture painted by the original draft.
Anyone care to tell those of us who are not Web surfers
what the gist of the article says?
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> Digital Millenium Copyright act is all that in spades and more. It
> confers all rights to the copyright holder, nothing to the purchaser of
> anything subject to that act. Ed Foster's Infoworld gripeline is
> replete with examples of this law being applied to squelch innovation
> and the dissemination of information. Examples include the suppression
> of benchmarking results not officially sanctioned by the copyright
> holder and making e-bay yank the sales of Madonna CD's that were
> distributed with some brand of jeans sold by the Gap. Apparently the
> RIAA believes that it holds not only primary but any future rights to
> any item on which it holds a copyright. Another even more egregious
> example was upholding the rights of a printer manufacturer to prevent
> re-manufacturing of its ink cartridges based upon a claim that
> purchasers of the printers had accepted an end-user license agreement
> such that the printer manufacturer was the only entity from which they
> could purchase ink supplies.
Isn't the latter a violation of the shrink-wrap licensing
laws? You can't be held to a contractual item about which
you have no way of knowing at the time of purchase.
Gillette ("give `em the razor, sell `em the blades) could
have a wonderful time today! Copyright the blade design
and suppress any competition for blade sales.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
> Everett M. Greene wrote:
> > Larry Laminger <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Tom Watson wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
> >>>
> >>> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> >>> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> >>> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
> >>
> >> Yet another step towards eliminating our concept of freedom in the
> >> US.
> >>
> >> * Free Speech
> >> * Reasonable Priced Speech
> >> * You Can't Afford to Say That Speech
> >> * Not Allowed to be Spoken Speech
> >>
> >> Not quite the picture painted by the original draft.
> >
> > Anyone care to tell those of us who are not Web surfers
> > what the gist of the article says?
>
> I just sent you a copy of the text from the NYT page.
If the "you" is me, it was never received.
> College students came upon leaked or stolen documents and posted them on a
> web pag. The company they came from sued. Won the court battle but lost the
> publicity battle.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Digital Millenium Copyright act is all that in spades and more. It
> confers all rights to the copyright holder, nothing to the purchaser
> of anything subject to that act. Ed Foster's Infoworld gripeline is
> replete with examples of this law being applied to squelch innovation
> and the dissemination of information. Examples include the
> suppression
> of benchmarking results not officially sanctioned by the copyright
> holder and making e-bay yank the sales of Madonna CD's that were
> distributed with some brand of jeans sold by the Gap. Apparently the
> RIAA believes that it holds not only primary but any future rights to
> any item on which it holds a copyright. Another even more egregious
> example was upholding the rights of a printer manufacturer to prevent
> re-manufacturing of its ink cartridges based upon a claim that
> purchasers of the printers had accepted an end-user license agreement
> such that the printer manufacturer was the only entity from which they
> could purchase ink supplies.
I think I'd like to get to know y'all better.
Reply by email if you wish. <g>
-- Mark
Tom Watson wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Yet another step towards eliminating our concept of freedom in the US.
* Free Speech
* Reasonable Priced Speech
* You Can't Afford to Say That Speech
* Not Allowed to be Spoken Speech
Not quite the picture painted by the original draft.
--
Larry G. Laminger
http://woodworks.laminger.com
In article <[email protected]>, tjwatson1
@hotmail.com says...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>
Since NYT requires registration, care to give a short [fair use]
synopsis?
Everett M. Greene wrote:
> Larry Laminger <[email protected]> writes:
>> Tom Watson wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
>>>
>>> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
>>> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
>>> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>>
>> Yet another step towards eliminating our concept of freedom in the
>> US.
>>
>> * Free Speech
>> * Reasonable Priced Speech
>> * You Can't Afford to Say That Speech
>> * Not Allowed to be Spoken Speech
>>
>> Not quite the picture painted by the original draft.
>
> Anyone care to tell those of us who are not Web surfers
> what the gist of the article says?
I just sent you a copy of the text from the NYT page.
College students came upon leaked or stolen documents and posted them on a
web pag. The company they came from sued. Won the court battle but lost the
publicity battle.
--
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Henry E Schaffer wrote:
> That's the intro, but this article's name "The Tyranny of
> Copyright?" gives a hint. A quote, "is a fear that the United States
> is becoming
> less free and ultimately less creative. While the American copyright
> system was designed to encourage innovation, it is now, they contend,
> being used to squelch it." It then discusses criticisms of the
> current copyright system, efforts to reform it, and alternatives.
Essentially it is an application of the golden rule: "He who has the gold
makes the rules."
-- Mark
While it's true the DMCA is overbearing, the students did the wrong thing
for the right reasons. In this case, they obtained the documents illegally
and then published them illegally; while I agree with their sentiment, at
the least they were foolish in their method. They should have sent copies
to the press and let the press do their dirty work for them.
--
McQualude
In article <[email protected]>,
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>Everett M. Greene wrote:
>> Larry Laminger <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Tom Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
>>>>
>>>> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
>>>> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
>>>> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>>>
>>> Yet another step towards eliminating our concept of freedom in the
>>> US.
>>>
>>> * Free Speech
>>> * Reasonable Priced Speech
>>> * You Can't Afford to Say That Speech
>>> * Not Allowed to be Spoken Speech
>>>
>>> Not quite the picture painted by the original draft.
>>
>> Anyone care to tell those of us who are not Web surfers
>> what the gist of the article says?
>
>I just sent you a copy of the text from the NYT page.
>
>College students came upon leaked or stolen documents and posted them on a
>web pag. The company they came from sued. Won the court battle but lost the
>publicity battle.
That's the intro, but this article's name "The Tyranny of Copyright?"
gives a hint. A quote, "is a fear that the United States is becoming
less free and ultimately less creative. While the American copyright
system was designed to encourage innovation, it is now, they contend,
being used to squelch it." It then discusses criticisms of the current
copyright system, efforts to reform it, and alternatives.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Everett M. Greene wrote:
> >> Larry Laminger <[email protected]> writes:
> >>> Tom Watson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> >>>> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> >>>> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
> >>>
> >>> Yet another step towards eliminating our concept of freedom in the
> >>> US.
> >>>
> >>> * Free Speech
> >>> * Reasonable Priced Speech
> >>> * You Can't Afford to Say That Speech
> >>> * Not Allowed to be Spoken Speech
> >>>
> >>> Not quite the picture painted by the original draft.
> >>
> >> Anyone care to tell those of us who are not Web surfers
> >> what the gist of the article says?
> >
> >I just sent you a copy of the text from the NYT page.
> >
> >College students came upon leaked or stolen documents and posted them on a
> >web pag. The company they came from sued. Won the court battle but lost the
> >publicity battle.
>
> That's the intro, but this article's name "The Tyranny of Copyright?"
> gives a hint. A quote, "is a fear that the United States is becoming
> less free and ultimately less creative. While the American copyright
> system was designed to encourage innovation, it is now, they contend,
> being used to squelch it." It then discusses criticisms of the current
> copyright system, efforts to reform it, and alternatives.
>
Digital Millenium Copyright act is all that in spades and more. It
confers all rights to the copyright holder, nothing to the purchaser of
anything subject to that act. Ed Foster's Infoworld gripeline is
replete with examples of this law being applied to squelch innovation
and the dissemination of information. Examples include the suppression
of benchmarking results not officially sanctioned by the copyright
holder and making e-bay yank the sales of Madonna CD's that were
distributed with some brand of jeans sold by the Gap. Apparently the
RIAA believes that it holds not only primary but any future rights to
any item on which it holds a copyright. Another even more egregious
example was upholding the rights of a printer manufacturer to prevent
re-manufacturing of its ink cartridges based upon a claim that
purchasers of the printers had accepted an end-user license agreement
such that the printer manufacturer was the only entity from which they
could purchase ink supplies.