Discussion:
What TV shows would you like to see get a deluxe DVD release?
(too old to reply)
David Johnston
2010-09-01 05:07:19 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:50:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:50:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:31:51 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Your "Which is different...how?" is a question. I answered that
question by indicating exactly how the two are different. One is a
means; the other is an ends; and the two should not be conflated.
They weren't.
They were, by the person asking "which is different...how?". That
person implied, in the very asking of that question, a belief that the
two things to which his question referred *weren't* different;
No, I implied no such thing.
There is clearly no reasoning with you.
If you didn't believe that particular means ("ensure profits for
authors") and the end ("promote the progress of the arts") were
essentially the same thing,
Those were not the two things my question referred to.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 05:08:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual copyright-
term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting aspersions about one
of your opponents's mental health and otherwise engaging in ad hominem
tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
Saying "I'm honestly not sure why John Carter is fair game and
Tarzan's not" implies nothing except that he doesn't know why John
Carter is fair game and Tarzan is not.
In the context of a thread titled "Justifying copyright length" it's
fairly obviously implying that copyright
No it isn't. It saying he doesn't know why John Carter is fair game.
And the answer is, because he hasn't taken the trademark issue into
account.
Wingnut
2010-09-01 05:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual copyright-
term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting aspersions about
one of your opponents's mental health and otherwise engaging in ad
hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
Post by David Johnston
Saying "I'm honestly not sure why John Carter is fair game and
Tarzan's not" implies nothing except that he doesn't know why John
Carter is fair game and Tarzan is not.
In the context of a thread titled "Justifying copyright length" it's
fairly obviously implying that copyright
No it isn't.
Well, "obviously" is relative to intellect I suppose. The implication
might conceivably escape someone if he happened to be a *complete fucking
moron*.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 06:12:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual copyright-
term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting aspersions about
one of your opponents's mental health and otherwise engaging in ad
hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
No, I didn't.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual
copyright- term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting
aspersions about one of your opponents's mental health and otherwise
engaging in ad hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. You're even still quoting where you did it!
David Johnston
2010-09-02 04:49:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual
copyright- term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting
aspersions about one of your opponents's mental health and otherwise
engaging in ad hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. You're even still quoting where you did it!
No, I'm not. There are any number of things that exist only in
people's minds without them being mentally ill. Unjustified
suspicions, mistaken interpretations, aesthetic judgements, religious
faith, and hypotheses.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual
copyright- term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting
aspersions about one of your opponents's mental health and otherwise
engaging in ad hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. You're even still quoting where you did it!
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things. That was a
lie. Admit it.

And quit stalking me! Have you nothing better to do than sit by your
computer all day waiting for me to start posting to this thread, so you
can respond within minutes with a bunch of tiresome nonsense I'll have to
spend another hour debunking?
David Johnston
2010-09-02 06:24:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:38:04 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual
copyright- term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting
aspersions about one of your opponents's mental health and otherwise
engaging in ad hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. You're even still quoting where you did it!
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Wingnut
2010-09-03 06:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:38:04 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:43:26 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
that exist only in your mind
How disappointing. Instead of continuing to debate the actual
copyright- term issue you've apparently chosen to start casting
aspersions about one of your opponents's mental health and
otherwise engaging in ad hominem tactics.
I said nothing about your mental health.
You point-blank accused me publicly of being delusional, liar.
No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. You're even still quoting where you did it!
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier allegation
was untrue.

Good, good ...

Moving on then.
David Johnston
2010-09-03 06:22:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier allegation
was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier allegation
was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier postings
and b) calling me a liar.

I think this branch of the debate can no longer be productive,
particularly since it's become pure ad hominem with no discussion
whatsoever of the actual copyright-related bones of contention anymore.
David Johnston
2010-09-04 05:54:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier allegation
was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier postings
and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
Wingnut
2010-09-05 03:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier
allegation was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier postings
and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
I never started claiming you said something you never said.

Are you trying to deny having slung a childish "exists only in your mind"
type barb at me a few days ago in a fit of pique?

I hope not, because I know how to use Google and post links, as I'm
fairly sure I've already demonstrated the last time or two you called me
a liar in this thread.
David Johnston
2010-09-05 03:53:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier
allegation was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier postings
and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
I never started claiming you said something you never said.
Are you trying to deny having slung a childish "exists only in your mind"
type barb at me a few days ago in a fit of pique?
I deny that constitutes an aspersion on your sanity.
Wingnut
2010-09-05 04:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier
allegation was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier
postings and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
I never started claiming you said something you never said.
Are you trying to deny having slung a childish "exists only in your
mind" type barb at me a few days ago in a fit of pique?
I deny that
Keep digging yourself in deeper, David...

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/4a82a2014f839159
David Johnston
2010-09-05 04:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:09:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier
allegation was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier
postings and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
I never started claiming you said something you never said.
Are you trying to deny having slung a childish "exists only in your
mind" type barb at me a few days ago in a fit of pique?
I deny that
Keep digging yourself in deeper, David...
My response was not "I deny that".
Wingnut
2010-09-06 03:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:09:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier
allegation was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier
postings and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
I never started claiming you said something you never said.
Are you trying to deny having slung a childish "exists only in your
mind" type barb at me a few days ago in a fit of pique?
I deny that
Keep digging yourself in deeper, David...
My response was not
silence. That was a mistake.
David Johnston
2010-09-06 03:57:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:36:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:09:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:44:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Yes, you are. You said, basically, that I was seeing things.
I assume that you experienced no hallucinations.
Ah, so now you've come around and admitted that your earlier
allegation was untrue.
I never alleged that you were experience hallucinations.
And now you're simply back to a) contradicting your own earlier
postings and b) calling me a liar.
Well, you could stop claiming that I said something I never said.
I never started claiming you said something you never said.
Are you trying to deny having slung a childish "exists only in your
mind" type barb at me a few days ago in a fit of pique?
I deny that
Keep digging yourself in deeper, David...
My response was not "I deny that."
Wingnut
2010-09-06 04:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:36:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:09:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Keep digging yourself in deeper, David...
My response was not
silence. But then you're a troll so obviously it wouldn't be; silence is
the single most ineffective trolling tactic since no-one can reply to it.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 05:09:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:54:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:00:02 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:33:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:02:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
The whole purpose of copyright is not to provide an income
for anyone, which you put as your first clause. It is to
benefit society by promoting progress in science and art.
If those goals are not being promoted by the law as it
stands, then arguably, the law is unconstitutional.
Flowerly-sounding language in law and constitutions
typically is not mandatory language.
LOL! I'd love to see your legal citation for that principle
of statutory construction.
Huh? Can you provide us with any example of an
unconstitutional statute in which the ruling was based on
failure to achieve stated goal?
I thought we were talking about the legally void nature of
"flowerly-sounding language".
Why don't you read what I actually wrote?
I didn't say it was "legally void", which it is not. But it's
not a mandate, either. There is a legal term for such language,
but it escapes me.
Well, after earning a law degree and practicing for years, I've
never heard of it. It would be amusing in the extreme to watch a
court try and come up with a workable and legally binding
definition for "flowerly-sounding language".
They wouldn't have to. He was talking about legally meaningless
stuff like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State". The amendment would legally mean the
same thing even if those words were deleted from it.
And so a court has ruled. But that was in deciding whether such
language could circumscribe a *freedom*.
In the copyright case, the Progress Clause "intent" language would
arguably be circumscribing a *restriction*.
Doesn't matter. It's meaningless either way.
Well, that's a fine attitude. If that's your heartfelt belief, kindly
get the fuck out of this debate and leave it to those of us who have
more constructive beliefs to hash things out. After all, per your
stated beliefs your participation in this debate is just a waste of
your time anyway, right?
Wow. You ain't real good at the reading comprehension.
And now your arguments have devolved all the way to pure personal
attacks.
Did you think "get the fuck out" wasn't a personal attack?
Indeed; it is, rather, an offering of advice (tinged with more than a
little bit of frustration because you kept me up almost until midnight
playing "wack-a-mole" with your posts for some silly reason).
It's well-meant advice: if you really think all of this debate is
meaningless,
If you think I said that all of this debate is meaningless, then you
have a reading comprehension problem.
Wingnut
2010-09-01 05:54:17 UTC
Permalink
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?

I mean, why do you sit by your computer all day waiting for me to post to
this thread so you can jump on it within minutes, only for your
devastating counterargument in favor of long copyright terms to consist
solely of a weak-ass ad hominem that wouldn't convince even a grade-
school kid to favor lengthening copyright terms over shortening them?

Are you such a sad wreck of a human being that you haven't got anything
better to do?

OK, I guess I'm getting dangerously close to ad hominem territory myself
now, asking questions like that. Then again, since you didn't say
anything of substance about copyright in your post, there really isn't
anything in there for me to hang anything of substance about copyright on
in my reply.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 06:16:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?
I don't know why. You just do. I said that the statement of purpose
for copyrights was legally meaningless. You chose to misinterpret
that to mean that the whole discussion was meaningless. Why did you
just pick a single word out of my sentence and then make up something
else for it to refer to? I don't know. Maybe it's because your brain
is fatigued. Maybe you were just too angry to read the whole sentence
before writing your response. Maybe you were just being dishonest.
Perhaps we shall never know the answer.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?
I don't know why. You just do.
I mean, why do you sit by your computer all day waiting for me to post to
this thread so you can jump on it within minutes, only for your
devastating counterargument in favor of long copyright terms to consist
solely of a weak-ass ad hominem that wouldn't convince even a grade-
school kid to favor lengthening copyright terms over shortening them?

Are you such a sad wreck of a human being that you haven't got anything
better to do?

OK, I guess I'm getting dangerously close to ad hominem territory myself
now, asking questions like that. Then again, since you didn't say
anything of substance about copyright in your post, there really isn't
anything in there for me to hang anything of substance about copyright on
in my reply.
Post by David Johnston
Maybe you were just too angry to read the whole sentence
before writing your response.
This seems like a likely explanation for some of your recent posts to
this thread, particularly the ones laden heavily with personal attacks.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 04:51:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:30:23 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?
I don't know why. You just do.
I mean,
I don't care what you mean. You falsified what I was saying.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a man
who doesn't care what anything means -- not his debate opponent, not the
law, not the Constitution.

Why do you sit by your computer all day waiting for me to post to
this thread so you can jump on it within minutes, only for your
devastating counterargument in favor of long copyright terms to consist
solely of a weak-ass ad hominem that wouldn't convince even a grade-
school kid to favor lengthening copyright terms over shortening them?

Are you such a sad wreck of a human being that you haven't got anything
better to do?

OK, I guess I'm getting dangerously close to ad hominem territory myself
now, asking questions like that. Then again, since you didn't say
anything of substance about copyright in your post, there really isn't
anything in there for me to hang anything of substance about copyright on
in my reply.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 06:24:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a man
who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Wingnut
2010-09-03 05:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a man
who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what X
means, and you don't care what Y means, and you don't care what the
Constitution means, and you don't care what I mean?

These days it seems like every other post out of your mouth adds one more
item to a growing enumerated list of things with the property that you
don't care what they mean.

It's an easy and obvious induction to go from that to a conclusion that
you don't care what anything means.
David Johnston
2010-09-03 06:22:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:55:39 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a man
who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what X
means,
I don't.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:55:39 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a man
who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what X
means,
I don't.
Sure you do. When confronted with the exact wording of the Progress
Clause you dismissed it out of hand as "meaningless"; then said you don't
care what I mean by anything I say. You've established a clear pattern of
not caring what things mean. And it makes it *damned* hard to have a
rational debate with you.
David Johnston
2010-09-04 04:43:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:03:30 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:55:39 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a man
who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what X
means,
I don't.
Sure you do. When confronted with the exact wording of the Progress
Clause you dismissed it out of hand as "meaningless";
This is true. And it is.

then said you don't
Post by Wingnut
care what I mean by anything I say.
Well, I did at first. But then you kept rewriting what I said into
something else, so then I only cared about that.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:03:30 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:55:39 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a
man who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what X
means,
I don't.
Sure you do. When confronted with the exact wording of the Progress
Clause you dismissed it out of hand as "meaningless";
This is true. And it is.
The lawyer Thanatos disagrees with you. Are you claiming to understand
the law better than he?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
then said you don't care what I mean by anything I say.
Well, I did at first.
And apparently you still do. (If you didn't, you wouldn't feel such a
burning need to reply to everything I post!)
David Johnston
2010-09-04 05:57:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:54:13 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:03:30 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:55:39 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a
man who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what X
means,
I don't.
Sure you do. When confronted with the exact wording of the Progress
Clause you dismissed it out of hand as "meaningless";
This is true. And it is.
The lawyer Thanatos disagrees with you. Are you claiming to understand
the law better than he?
Argument by authority is one of those logical fallacies. Now if he
were to use his knowledge of the law to point a case where the Supreme
Court decided a case based on that part of the provision, instead of
just ignoring it, then that would be compelling.
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
then said you don't care what I mean by anything I say.
Well, I did at first.
And apparently you still do.
See?
Wingnut
2010-09-05 04:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:54:13 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:03:30 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:55:39 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I don't care what you mean.
See? Here's the problem. You can't have a reasonable debate with a
man who doesn't care what anything means -
Your claim that I don't care what anything means is incorrect.
Oh, really? Then why is it that you keep saying you don't care what
X means,
I don't.
Sure you do. When confronted with the exact wording of the Progress
Clause you dismissed it out of hand as "meaningless";
This is true. And it is.
The lawyer Thanatos disagrees with you. Are you claiming to understand
the law better than he?
Argument by authority is one of those logical fallacies. Now if he were
to use his knowledge of the law to point a case where the Supreme Court
decided a case based on that part of the provision, instead of just
ignoring it, then that would be compelling.
No, what's important is that the Supreme Court has NOT argued a case
where it has explicitly declared that part of the provision to carry no
legal weight -- as Thanatos pointed out to you some time ago. Until and
unless the Supreme Court says it's legally meaningless, it's
(potentially) legally meaningful and should be treated as such.

And really, do you think guys like the Founding Fathers pen stuff like
that into documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the
Declaration of Independence just to exercise their pinky fingers, rather
than to influence future policymaking?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
then said you don't care what I mean by anything I say.
Well, I did at first.
And apparently you still do.
See?
So, your great defense against the claim that you find everything
meaningless is to admit that some of your earlier claims to have found
things meaningless were lies?

Let's see -- that makes FOUR lies from you in as many days now.

1. You claimed there was only one GAO report on copyright issues that did
not side with industry, when there are (at least) three. I posted links
to the additional two.
2. You claimed not to have indicated that you didn't recognize a
difference between promoting progress and giving authors an income; I
threatened to post a link to your now-infamous "which different...how?"
post.
3. In one of your ad hominem arguments you attempted to give our audience
the impression that I was mentally ill by suggesting that something
was all in my head. Subsequently you denied having done so; I
threatened to post a link to your post using the phrase "that exist
only in your mind".
4. And now, after previously averring that you don't care what I mean,
you demonstrate and then admit that you do care.

The wonder of it is that EVEN AFTER I WARNED YOU YOU WERE DIGGING
YOURSELF INTO A HOLE, you keep arguing and digging yourself even deeper.
At that time you'd been caught in 2 lies; less than 24 hours after not
heeding my warning I now have you ensnared in four. If you keep
obsessively posting on this topic while continuing to play as fast and
loose with the facts as you have been, then by this time tomorrow that
number will have grown to six, by Sunday eight, and by October, almost
seventy. Your credibility then will be somewhere south of Dubya's, I
expect, and your fervent denials of ever having said "which different,
how?" will rank up there with the claims of WMDs in Iraq as among the
world's most all-time notorious lies.

Is that the future you want for yourself, David? Really? Better decide
quickly, before you hit "send" on the obsessive response I'm sure you're
already crafting to one of my earlier posts of the night.
David Johnston
2010-09-05 04:38:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:05:43 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
The lawyer Thanatos disagrees with you. Are you claiming to understand
the law better than he?
Argument by authority is one of those logical fallacies. Now if he were
to use his knowledge of the law to point a case where the Supreme Court
decided a case based on that part of the provision, instead of just
ignoring it, then that would be compelling.
No, what's important is that the Supreme Court has NOT argued a case
where it has explicitly declared that part of the provision to carry no
legal weight -- as Thanatos pointed out to you some time ago. Until and
unless the Supreme Court says it's legally meaningless, it's
(potentially) legally meaningful and should be treated as such.
What would be the penalty for not treating it that way? You see to
me, that's the difference between a meaningful and a meaningless law.
When it's a meaningful law, something happens when people go against
it. You think Congress went against it by the retroactive extensions.
You might be right. So did the lawyers arguing against them just
forget to make that arguement? Or did the courts just ignore it?
Yeah. The Supreme Court could decide to get activist on Mickey
Mouse's ass and reverse themselves on the question of copyright
extension. But right now, that part of the constitution is
influencing neither legislation nor jurisprudence.
Post by Wingnut
And really, do you think guys like the Founding Fathers pen stuff like
that into documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the
Declaration of Independence just to exercise their pinky fingers, rather
than to influence future policymaking?
Oh they may very well have hoped to influence future policymaking.
Anyone can hope. But future policy makers will make their policies
based on their own concerns and the limits of feasibility, not on the
basis of the _suggestions_ of long dead men. Besides, it's anyone's
guess just what the really right copyright term would be to further
"progress in the useful arts". Protecting the Mouse's business and
that of other such media conglomerates, might in fact further
"progress in the useful arts" more than letting everyone who wants to
go online with their rule 34rd Mickey Mouse doujinshi.
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
then said you don't care what I mean by anything I say.
Well, I did at first.
And apparently you still do.
See?
So, your great defense against the claim that you find everything
meaningless is to admit that some of your earlier claims to have found
things meaningless were lies?
I see that you don't see.
Post by Wingnut
Let's see -- that makes FOUR lies from you in as many days now.
1. You claimed there was only one GAO report on copyright issues that did
not side with industry, when there are (at least) three. I posted links
to the additional two.
No that wasn't what I was claiming, although admittedly I didn't
bother to explain what I was claiming because you kept changing what I
was saying in your responses. What I was claiming was that the GAO
reports weren't relevant to the question of whether the courts were
keeping an eye on whether the intent of the law was being fulfilled.
Post by Wingnut
2. You claimed not to have indicated that you didn't recognize a
difference between promoting progress and giving authors an income; I
threatened to post a link to your now-infamous "which different...how?"
post.
No, that's not what I claimed. What I claimed was not to see a
difference between between giving authors an income in order to
promote progress, and promoting progress by giving authors an income.
They seem to me to mean the exact same thing.
Post by Wingnut
3. In one of your ad hominem arguments you attempted to give our audience
the impression that I was mentally ill by suggesting that something
was all in my head. Subsequently you denied having done so; I
threatened to post a link to your post using the phrase "that exist
only in your mind".
No, that's not the impression I attempted to give. The precise phrase
I used was "that exist only in your imagination". However the
possession of an imagination is in no way evidence of mental illness.
We all imagine things.
Post by Wingnut
4. And now, after previously averring that you don't care what I mean,
you demonstrate and then admit that you do care.
Actually in that statement I said that at that moment, the only thing
I cared about was your habit of claiming I'd said things I never said.
Wingnut
2010-09-06 04:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:05:43 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
The lawyer Thanatos disagrees with you. Are you claiming to understand
the law better than he?
Argument by authority is one of those logical fallacies. Now if he
were to use his knowledge of the law to point a case where the Supreme
Court decided a case based on that part of the provision, instead of
just ignoring it, then that would be compelling.
No, what's important is that the Supreme Court has NOT argued a case
where it has explicitly declared that part of the provision to carry no
legal weight -- as Thanatos pointed out to you some time ago. Until and
unless the Supreme Court says it's legally meaningless, it's
(potentially) legally meaningful and should be treated as such.
What would be the penalty for not treating it that way? You see to me,
that's the difference between a meaningful and a meaningless law.
How fortunate then that you aren't in law school. Because if you were,
you'd flunk.

According to that criterion, pretty much the whole Bill of Rights is also
"meaningless". Because nobody gets arrested and tried and sent to jail
for violating it. Instead, it influences how the courts interpret *other*
laws and can result in laws being repealed rather than having a more
direct effect; it results in police avoiding some tactics and the results
of some searches being thrown out as evidence by judges rather than,
typically, in monetary awards and jailtime.
Post by David Johnston
But right now, that part of the constitution is influencing neither
legislation nor jurisprudence.
The funny thing is, someone has to explicitly use that part of the
Constitution in a legal argument before it can do so. That doesn't make
it meaningless any more than a nuke sitting unfired in its silo is
meaningless as a deterrent just because nobody's actually let the thing
loose. It may just be biding its time, waiting for someone to pick it up
and wield it.

The closest we've come in recent times was Eldred v. Ashcroft, and that
didn't bring out some of the potential legal arguments that have been
discussed in this thread, and that you have been pooh-poohing
(inexplicably, since that appears to be undermining the side *you claim
to be on*!) ...
Post by David Johnston
Oh they may very well have hoped to influence future policymaking.
Anyone can hope. But future policy makers will make their policies
based on their own concerns and the limits of feasibility, not on the
basis of the _suggestions_ of long dead men.
How fortunate that you are not in any serious position of legal or
political power, then, if you take such a dim view of the Constitution
and believe it to be a mouldering old document whose relevance has passed
and that we may as well ignore going forward. I for one certainly
wouldn't want you making any important legislative or jurisprudential
decisions, not with *that* attitude informing you.

In fact I find your disrespect for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
and the Founding Fathers appalling. You should be ashamed to call
yourself an American.
Post by David Johnston
Besides, it's anyone's guess just what the really right copyright term
would be to further "progress in the useful arts".
It sure as hell isn't longer than about 2 years, for the reasons already
mentioned; particularly, that most works have recouped in 2 years 95% or
more of the revenue they'd eventually recoup given 200 years of exclusive
rights, and the rest were generally so wildly profitable that 2 *days*
might have been long enough for them to be profitable. (Say, Avatar's
opening weekend.)
Post by David Johnston
Protecting the Mouse's business and that of other such media
conglomerates, might in fact further "progress in the useful arts"
That is *highly* unlikely, given how un-innovative large corporations in
general tend to be. Competition and churn and turn-over promote progress;
a few huge, stagnant monopolies that last centuries do not. This is a
basic law of economics that you seem to have overlooked in whatever
research you may have done to try to support your dubious position.
Which, by the way, does indeed seem to be in favor of long rather than
short terms, despite what you said earlier in another part of this thread.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
then said you don't care what I mean by anything I say.
Well, I did at first.
And apparently you still do.
See?
So, your great defense against the claim that you find everything
meaningless is to admit that some of your earlier claims to have found
things meaningless were lies?
I see
I spy, with my little eye, an unrepentant liar with an inconsistent
position in this debate. Claims one thing and then goes back on it the
next. One minute can't tell means from ends; next claims he fully
understands the distinction between "giving authors an income" and
"progress of the arts"; and after that is right back to not apparently
grasping the difference. In one post says he's in favor of shorter
copyright terms; less than 24 hours later thinks giving Disney perpetual
control of Mickey Mouse is the key to progress of the arts.

I think we've all been had. David Johnston is not arguing either for or
against longer or shorter copyright terms; rather, he is trolling the
people that are genuinely on either side of the debate, riling both sides
up and playing them against the middle, slinging ad hominems about
liberally to make the battles more personal and less rational, and just
generally being a shit-disturber.

And the eventual outcome was to drive away everyone interested in
genuinely debating the issue until only I was left, stalwart and rational
to the end. Because *someone* has to counter the elaborate works of legal
fiction he's irresponsibly pouring forth onto Usenet and everybody else
quit doing so.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Let's see -- that makes FOUR lies from you in as many days now.
1. You claimed there was only one GAO report on copyright issues that did
not side with industry, when there are (at least) three. I posted
links to the additional two.
No that wasn't what I was claiming
This tired old denial again?

Here, let me quote the relevant news post again.

The post in question, <***@4ax.com>, is at

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/17fd79fbae988061
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
The "No there aren't" clearly is a rebuttal of "there are, I am sure,
other instances", which I wrote. In turn, the "other instances" there can
only refer to what is in the paragraph at the top of the quote, saying
"this is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters". Further,
"such matters" is, in the message's thread-context, clearly in reference
to copyright.

So what you denied was *clearly* that there existed more than one GAO
report on copyright. Not that the courts were investigating anything.
That the GAO had investigated any more.

I found two more GAO reports on copyright. That makes three instances.
That means there are at least two more instances than the one. That makes
my statement correct and your mindless, knee-jerk "no there aren't"
response INcorrect.

The more you wriggle and squirm instead of either conceding this point or
simply shutting up, the worse it looks for you. Why can't you see that?
Post by David Johnston
What I was claiming was that the GAO reports weren't relevant to the
question of whether the courts were keeping an eye on whether the
intent of the law was being fulfilled.
No, there's nothing about courts in your "no, there aren't" post. It only
mentions GAO reports. Whether the GAO reports are relevant or not to some
question only you are interested in has no bearing whatsoever on a) what
you actually said in the specific post at issue or b) what we were
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
You may claim that, but I see no reason to accept your claim. How
would it be determined that the goal is not being achieved?
Evidence and reason. Scientifically-conducted polls and surveys.
Whatever.
Which of these methods is actually being used to check whether the goal
is being achieved by the American government?
That was you questioning how one ought to measure whether copyright was
meeting its goals. You were at the time appearing to advocate faith-based
policy-making as superior to trying to ground it in empiricism (but were
really just trolling, it has now transpired).

In response I said the obvious, and you then asked which methods the
American government is actually using. I then pointed to a single report
by the GAO, an arm of the American government, where it scientifically
analyzed (and debunked) an industry-created "study" about copyright. You
then scoffed at this as anything but a fluke and flatly asserted that
surely there weren't any more instances like this; I promptly produced
links to two more, at which point you decided to take refuge in quote-
editing and name-calling rather than concede that you had simply been
wrong.

Of course it is now clear why you behaved thus: conceding that you had
been wrong, while the manly and the intellectually honest thing to do in
a debate, would not have been as effective as a trolling tactic as
resorting to ad hominem attacks and outrageous denials of evidence as you
actually did.

The number of additional posts in that part of the thread, and their
flaminess, is a testament to the effectiveness of your choice of trolling
tactic; one could almost admire you for its efficacy, if, that is, one
could switch off one's disgust temporarily like Data could his fear in
Star Trek: First Contact.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
2. You claimed not to have indicated that you didn't recognize a
difference between promoting progress and giving authors an income; I
threatened to post a link to your now-infamous "which
different...how?" post.
No, that's not what I claimed.
And now you double back A FOURTH TIME on that particular issue.

If I still thought you were attempting to engage in honest debate of
copyright term lengths I'd be pulling out my hair about now in
frustration with you. But since I know you're just trolling, I knew to
expect this sort of thing precisely because it is what would produce hair-
pulling in anyone that hadn't yet seen through you.

So I think I'll just ignore it instead.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
3. In one of your ad hominem arguments you attempted to give our
audience the impression that I was mentally ill by suggesting that
something was all in my head. Subsequently you denied having done
so; I threatened to post a link to your post using the phrase "that
exist only in your mind".
No
Sure you did.

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/4a82a2014f839159

Your accusation that I'm seeing/imagining things, which you've since
denied making.

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/1e34a061222f4cfc

One of your denials of having posted that accusation.


I won't bother to say any more because I know you're just a troll and not
really trying to have an honest argument. (If you are, you're clearly
insane.) I'll just let the evidence speak for itself: you said it, you
denied saying it, and now you've denied denying you said it.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
4. And now, after previously averring that you don't care what I mean,
you demonstrate and then admit that you do care.
Actually in that statement I said that at that moment, the only thing I
cared about was your habit of claiming I'd said things I never said.
Actually, what you just wrote is a convoluted trollish statement designed
to intentionally confuse and provoke.

No doubt you've been busy making obsessive, trollish responses to my
previous three posts since I started tonights usenet catch-up. I'll deal
with those soon enough, and your inevitable response to this post denying
being a troll while pouring still more confusing reversals, double-
reversals, triple-reversals, and more onto the bonfire, laced no doubt
with the odd ad hominem and a generous heaping of pure unadulterated
nonsense, and betraying your lack of any consistent position on copyright
term lengths.

Of course, any posts you actually make that fit the above prediction will
only serve to further prove to everyone who's read this that you're a
troll exactly as described. Nonetheless you'll make them, for no other
behavior will generate the responses you crave as a troll. Thus are you
trapped, unable to avoid either starving yourself or proving your
trollisness before the entire world. And I already know which one you
will choose.

You only have the illusion of free will. And I have just demonstrated
that to you in a way that you cannot possibly ignore, nor I expect can
you accept it. It will eat at you like a worm in an apple, perhaps until
your dying day (and certainly for as long as this interminable thrice-
damned thread continues!), and you shall know many sleepless nights until
you repent of your trollish ways.
David Johnston
2010-09-06 04:31:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 04:19:42 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
What would be the penalty for not treating it that way? You see to me,
that's the difference between a meaningful and a meaningless law.
How fortunate then that you aren't in law school. Because if you were,
you'd flunk.
According to that criterion, pretty much the whole Bill of Rights is also
"meaningless". Because nobody gets arrested and tried and sent to jail
for violating it. Instead, it influences how the courts interpret *other*
laws and can result in laws being repealed
Yeah. That's the penality.
Wingnut
2010-09-06 04:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 04:19:42 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
What would be the penalty for not treating it that way? You see to
me, that's the difference between a meaningful and a meaningless law.
How fortunate then that you aren't in law school. Because if you were,
you'd flunk.
According to that criterion, pretty much the whole Bill of Rights is
also "meaningless". Because nobody gets arrested and tried and sent to
jail for violating it. Instead, it influences how the courts interpret
*other* laws and can result in laws being repealed
Yeah. That's the penality.
Forget law school. It's doubtful you'd pass third-grade English.

Anyway, this debate is over. You've been exposed as a troll (but I must
admit Dragonlady called it sooner than I did) and it's obvious this will
go nowhere productive no matter how logical my reply.

But I can't quite resist: the courts can easily still decide to interpret
the Progress Clause in the ways discussed in this thread. Just because
they haven't done so *yet* doesn't mean they *won't*. They have yet to
decide any part of the Progress Clause is non-influencing as they did the
"well-regulated militia" bit of the Second Amendment.
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 12:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:30:23 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?
I don't know why. You just do.
I mean,
I don't care what you mean. You falsified what I was saying.
As if you didn't?
David Johnston
2010-09-03 16:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:30:23 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?
I don't know why. You just do.
I mean,
I don't care what you mean. You falsified what I was saying.
As if you didn't?
It's a weakness of mine to respond in kind.
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 16:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:30:23 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
you have a reading comprehension problem.
Why?
I don't know why. You just do.
I mean,
I don't care what you mean. You falsified what I was saying.
As if you didn't?
It's a weakness of mine to respond in kind.
You do realize he's trolling you, don't you? He may not be a full time
troll, but he's certainly been acting like one.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
It's a weakness of mine to respond in kind.
You do realize he's trolling you, don't you? He may not be a full time
troll, but he's certainly been acting like one.
I have not. I'm not the one who, when pressed, denies that anything has
any meaning as an out, or else resorts to ad hominem responses along the
lines of "you must be seeing things", or else just plain seesaws back and
forth incoherently as with the "the goal of copyright is to provide an
income to authors" vs. "the goal of copyright is to promote progress"
branch of the debate where he first confused the two, then admitted they
were separate, then *went back to confusing the two* ... somehow.

Both of us may have acted a bit childishly at some points, but I nowhere
near as much as he.

And even that is a silly argument to be having. Can't we discuss the
actual topic instead of one side attempting to label the other a troll as
a way to dismiss his entire viewpoint from consideration without really
rebutting it? That's just another dodge like "it's all meaningless" and
"you must be seeing things".

Keep in mind that Thanatos is more in agreement with me than not. Are you
going to label him a troll, too?

And Extravagan, too.

Oh, wait ... :-)
David Johnston
2010-09-04 04:46:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:02:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
It's a weakness of mine to respond in kind.
You do realize he's trolling you, don't you? He may not be a full time
troll, but he's certainly been acting like one.
I have not. I'm not the one who, when pressed, denies that anything has
any meaning as an out,
Many things have a meaning.

or else resorts to ad hominem responses along the
Post by Wingnut
lines of "you must be seeing things", or else just plain seesaws back and
forth incoherently as with the "the goal of copyright is to provide an
income to authors" vs. "the goal of copyright is to promote progress"
branch of the debate where he first confused the two, then admitted they
were separate,
I really wish you'd stop fabricating what I said.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:53:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 04:46:51 +0000, David Johnston wrote:

Ah. I see you're back to your old net.stalking habits again, lurking
online and waiting to pounce instantly as soon as I post.

Such a sad, miserable excuse for a human being are you, that you have
naught better to do on a Friday night than sit at a computer with a
sniper scope aimed at a usenet newsgroup waiting for a target to move
into the crosshairs to pull the trigger on your pathetic excuse for a
flamethrower.

You really, really need to get laid.
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:02:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
It's a weakness of mine to respond in kind.
You do realize he's trolling you, don't you? He may not be a full
time troll, but he's certainly been acting like one.
I have not. I'm not the one who, when pressed, denies that anything has
any meaning as an out,
Many things have a meaning.
Such as? Every *specific* thing that comes up in this thread you dismiss
as meaningless.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
branch of the debate where he first confused the two, then admitted they
were separate,
I really wish you'd stop fabricating what I said.
I really wish you'd stop lying by calling me a liar, despite the
existence of massive evidence that I'm not (and therefore you are when
you call me one).

We had the case of the two additional GAO reports, and now I can easily
dredge up the Google Groups URLs of a) a post where you admitted that
copyright's means of providing authors a revenue stream via exclusive
rights and its ends of promoting progress were distinct and b) the post
where, when someone else mentioned those two things, you asked,
ungrammatically, "which different ... how?".
Wingnut
2010-09-01 05:12:54 UTC
Permalink
In article
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the
United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the
law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific
length for copyright protection.
But it does discuss the underlying reason/purpose that copyright
is provided for in the constitution and the length of copy right
now days would seem to directly violate that goal.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
No, it's explicitly and solely "to promote the progress of science and
useful arts". That's it.
And how does it do that?
The *means* is irrelevant to a dispute over a statement that begins
"the goal of copyright is...".
Providing an income is not an end in itself.
That is (one of your) error(s).
Pardon me for interjecting, but I fear that here you have fallen off a
rhetorical cliff.
No, sir, I have not.
I understand the distinction you're making between means and ends -
which I believe most everybody reading this thread understands.
At least two people do (or at least, earlier, did) not understand the
distinction.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
At least with respect to U.S. copyright this is simply flat out wrong:
the goal of U.S. copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the
useful arts". Income-providing is a means to that end. Stating that
income-providing is "the goal" is indeed a confusion of the means for the
end on Horace's part.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
<laughng> No, the goal is to "To promote the progress of science and
useful arts".
Which different...how?
The very question betrays the same confusion of means and ends as Horace
had just demonstrated two posts earlier.

Horace has not continued to argue this particular point, suggesting that
possibly he no longer does confuse the means and the ends, perhaps thanks
to the ensuing discussion.

David, however, has continued to argue this point. Oddly, his subsequent
posts bounced back and forth between continuing to conflate "giving
authors an income" and "promoting the progress" and acknowledging the
distinction before he suddenly took a third option: claim (unbelievably)
that his "which different...how?" meant something else entirely and hurl
personal attacks at me. :-P

My interpretation of this: either he realized he'd been wrong but is very
loath to admit it or he's just plain certifiable.

So we may still have someone confusing the means and ends. And we
definitely did have at least two only about 24 hours ago.
But, alas, your argument is erroneously constructed and has mostly
served to confuse. I'm not seeing people conflating means and ends.
My argument is perfectly soundly constructed and you are obviously not
reading half the posts to this thread, particularly not
<hwlabadiejr-***@news.isp.giganews.com> (in which
Horace conflates means and ends) and
(Though some people are in favor of the income producing end in its own
right, irrespective of constitutional objectives.)
Idiots, and in some cases, greedy assholes.
But you have appeared to conflate the notion of "copyright" with that of
"constitution".
I have done nothing of the sort; merely noted that the only thing
preventing *any* kind of copyright restrictions *at all* from violating
the First Amendment is the Progress Clause, which may thus be interpreted
as circumscribing the situations in which copyright-like laws can be
immune from First Amendment unconstitutionality.
Let's return to the sentence that prompted this thread. (uncut)
"The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works, thereby encouraging people to create original works
of their own."
That's an accurate and pretty effective summation of how copyright is
expected to work
It's not accurate because it claims that the *goal* of copyright is to
provide an income for authors. It is not. That's a means it may use to
achieve its goal, which is to promote the progress of science and the
useful arts.

It now looks like there is a third person here who has conflated the
means and the ends, and that that person is still doing so -- you.
Your response that, "No, the goal is..." goes awry.
If by "goes awry" you mean "proves One Bit Shy wrong, thereby causing his
dastardly scheme to go awry" then perhaps you're right, though you should
not have abbreviated it so.
It accurately describes the goal of the constitutional clause, but
copyright is an independent concept that the Constitution merely draws
upon in pursuit of its own objectives.
That's nonsense and it puts the cart before the horse. The Constitutional
clause clearly states what the purpose of any copyright-like law must be,
and therefore what the purpose of actual (U.S.) copyright law actually
is. The Constitution does not draw upon copyright; copyright draws upon
the Constitution.
The goal of copyright itself remains unchanged - to generate income for
the author.
You're still confused, I see.
In any case, I think the constitutional argument has limits anyway.
People (and Congress) want copyright law for more reasons than the
stated constitutional objectives.
Regardless, the stated Constutitional objectives are the only ones that
provide any Constitutional validity to any such laws. Anything that goes
beyond that clearly falls afoul of the First Amendment without gaining
any countervailing Constitutional approval from the Progress Clause. It
may fall afoul of other Amendments as well, particularly those that are
involved in reserving powers to the States and the People that are not
expressly granted to government by other clauses (such as the Progress
Clause).
And, while the constitution does state a reason for allowing copyright,
it doesn't preclude other reasons.
The Progress Clause does not. One might argue that the First, Tenth, and
other Amendments do, however.
One Bit Shy
2010-09-01 23:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
In article
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in the
United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court upheld the
law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific
length for copyright protection.
But it does discuss the underlying reason/purpose that copyright
is provided for in the constitution and the length of copy right
now days would seem to directly violate that goal.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
No, it's explicitly and solely "to promote the progress of science and
useful arts". That's it.
And how does it do that?
The *means* is irrelevant to a dispute over a statement that begins
"the goal of copyright is...".
Providing an income is not an end in itself.
That is (one of your) error(s).
Pardon me for interjecting, but I fear that here you have fallen off a
rhetorical cliff.
No, sir, I have not.
And then you proceed to skip my very first point illustrating said cliff.
Let me return your attention to that little detail.

It refers to your statement that, "The *means* is irrelevant to a dispute
over a statement that begins 'the goal of copyright is...'."

I noted that, "Copyright IS the means. You're effectively saying that
copyright is irrelevant to a dispute over copyright. Which, obviously is
absurd."

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not disputing your broader position. While
I'm sure that I'm not precisely in agreement with it, I'm certainly far
closer to that than most debating you. I believe copyright is seriously
screwed up right now - for many reasons, including a ridiculously long term
of protection. I'd probably focus debate more on concepts of "property"
because, don't kid yourself, no matter what the Constitution may say, the
primary reason people want copyright is to preserve their (perceived?)
property rights. But length of term is certainly a valid concern, as is the
law's relationship to constitutional mandate.

My complaint here is with your chosen debate tactic of demanding rhetorical
precision. Aside from being annoying and unnecessary in an off the cuff
discussion such as this, it's leading you to run off rhetorical cliffs such
as effectively asserting that copyright is irrelevant to copyright. The net
effect is error and confusion, people getting pissed off at you, and
generally running away from your position. You're not winning the debate
when people sympathetic to your position find themselves arguing against
you.

But since you seem so determined to pick at the rhetoric, let me try again
to explain your error. This time I'll spell it out.

A) The Constitution doesn't refer to "copyright" of course. Instead it
speaks of securing exclusive rights to author writings. In the progress
clause, promoting progress is the intended end, and securing exclusive
rights is the means. But copyright is the familiar name for securing
exclusive rights (pre-dating the Constitution), so common convention here
and elsewhere is to speak of the clause as authorizing copyright. Hence,
"copyright" is recognized as the means to achieving the progress goal.

B) But one shouldn't forget that this means is a mechanical function of
securing exclusive rights. Among those secured rights is the revenue stream
generated from any writing. (And control and recognition and so on. But
lets keep it simple and stick to income.)

C) Securing the income might be somebody's end objective, but it's not the
stated objective of the Constitution. That's fine. That's why, as you have
made such a point of insisting, that one shouldn't conflate ends and means.
Copyright is intended to be a mechanism for achieving the greater goal, but
is not the end in itself. Rather, it is hoped that the secured income will
serve as a motivation to create, thereby achieving the desired progress.
Elegant in concept, if not necessarily quite so elegant in execution.

D) Here is where your argument stumbles off the cliff. You can't argue
against conflating means and ends, and then in the next breath assert that
the means is the embodiment of the end. Copyright is a mechanism - a
means - that in itself knows nothing of goals like promoting progress. It
is only concerned with securing exclusive rights. The Constitution seeks to
use that mechanism towards its end. But somebody else might want to use
copyright as an attempt to block progress. Either way, copyright itself
sticks to the narrower function of securing exclusive rights. That's its
"goal". When you insist that it's goal must be the larger objective of the
constitutional clause, then it's you that is conflating ends and means.

The remark that triggered your rhetorical death leap (about the goal of
copyright being to provide income to authors) is actually a very reasonable
description of the constitutional concept - especially when the full
sentence is included, which goes on to connect the copyright means to the
progress goal. But I'll come back to that further down, because you make
another related error regarding that.
Post by Wingnut
I understand the distinction you're making between means and ends -
which I believe most everybody reading this thread understands.
At least two people do (or at least, earlier, did) not understand the
distinction.
There are some who don't believe the distinction is worth making or even
meaningful in this instance because the elements are so integrated and must
be seen as a whole to make any sense. A debatable point, but largely a
sideshow I believe. My interest is in nudging you away from the dead end
you've driven yourself into. In any case, I'm really not seeing much lack
of understanding of the distinction. They just don't want to follow you
into that dead end.
Post by Wingnut
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
the goal of U.S. copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the
useful arts". Income-providing is a means to that end. Stating that
income-providing is "the goal" is indeed a confusion of the means for the
end on Horace's part.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
<laughng> No, the goal is to "To promote the progress of science and
useful arts".
Which different...how?
The very question betrays the same confusion of means and ends as Horace
had just demonstrated two posts earlier.
<laughing> No, it betrays your ability to change sentence meaning by
selective editing.

I see you attempting to defend the cut elsewhere in this discussion, but so
sorry, you're wildly off base this time. So much so that I suspect you
never understood the sentence to begin with.

That sentence originally continued with, "thereby encouraging people to
create original works of their own."

What that last part does is connect the first part to the stated objective
in the Constitution. "Encouraging people to create" is meant to be
equivalent to promoting progress. In summation, the sentence simply says
that copyright secures income which promotes progress.

What's especially amusing about this instance is the mechanical error you
make this time. It's as if you're loudly warning everybody about the
dangerous cliff edge, and just to prove it, step off that edge yourself.

What you've done by cutting off the end of that sentence is transform the
first part from a description of means to its own end, and then blasting the
created result. But the whole sentence is really quite clear. Securing
income is the means to encouraging creation. I think you're just too
distracted by the relative proximity to the word "goal". But the combined
whole is the "goal" that is being spoken to, not just that first part.

The sentence might be able to prompt discussion among grammarians over a
preferred "best" construction, but such perfection is rare in off the cuff
discussion, and I think any decent grammarian would still say that you've
wildly misconstrued the meaning of the sentence as written.
Post by Wingnut
Horace has not continued to argue this particular point, suggesting that
possibly he no longer does confuse the means and the ends, perhaps thanks
to the ensuing discussion.
David, however, has continued to argue this point. Oddly, his subsequent
posts bounced back and forth between continuing to conflate "giving
authors an income" and "promoting the progress" and acknowledging the
distinction before he suddenly took a third option: claim (unbelievably)
that his "which different...how?" meant something else entirely and hurl
personal attacks at me. :-P
It's only natural that confusion would continue since you changed the
meaning by cutting the sentence, which ought to explain how he came up with
a third option. When last I looked at that part of the thread, he was
right, and you were - well - confused. I'm reminded of another argument
about whether the promoting progress part of the constitutional clause has
any legal meaning. Don't be so quick to cut out portions of sentences.
They usually do have meaning - and meaning that directly relates to the
first part. In this case, it's what connects the sentence to the goal of
promoting progress. Hence the very natural question of, "Which
different...how?". To him, encouraging people to create is equivalent to
promoting progress. But that kind of gets lost when you cut out the
encouraging people to create part.
Post by Wingnut
My interpretation of this: either he realized he'd been wrong but is very
loath to admit it or he's just plain certifiable.
Or you're wrong for reasons you don't yet comprehend. Everybody is wrong
this way sometimes - actually I think frequently. If you don't include
being wrong yourself as one of the core possibilities in a conflict, you'll
just keep finding yourself stuck out on limbs that won't support you.
Post by Wingnut
So we may still have someone confusing the means and ends. And we
definitely did have at least two only about 24 hours ago.
But, alas, your argument is erroneously constructed and has mostly
served to confuse. I'm not seeing people conflating means and ends.
My argument is perfectly soundly constructed and you are obviously not
reading half the posts to this thread,
I believe I've read all of it. I won't pretend, however, to remember all of
it. I confess I'm doing this in part to kill some time. Though I do have
some interest in the subject.
Post by Wingnut
particularly not
Horace conflates means and ends) and
(Though some people are in favor of the income producing end in its own
right, irrespective of constitutional objectives.)
Idiots, and in some cases, greedy assholes.
For better or worse, we live in a capitalistic society with the deliberate
intention of motivating people through profit. Wanting copyright for the
sake of income generation is simply ordinary behavior in such a society.
Post by Wingnut
But you have appeared to conflate the notion of "copyright" with that of
"constitution".
I have done nothing of the sort; merely noted that the only thing
preventing *any* kind of copyright restrictions *at all* from violating
the First Amendment is the Progress Clause, which may thus be interpreted
as circumscribing the situations in which copyright-like laws can be
immune from First Amendment unconstitutionality.
That's an interesting proposition. I don't think I agree with you - not in
whole anyway. Not so globally. I think the commerce clause would probably
be adequate to pick up just about all of copyright and more. And you really
need to address the meaning of property rights in this case before leaping
so quickly to whose rights are being violated. There's still a lot of
potentially interesting stuff in your starting assertion.

However, it's rather far afield of this particular discussion and what I
meant by my statement. I was suggesting that promoting progress is an
objective of the Constitution - or more specifically of this constitutional
clause. Copyright is just shorthand for securing exclusive rights (the
terminology in the constitution) - the means, not the ends.

It's not wrong to assign the progress goal to copyright. Indeed, it's quite
natural, with it's own rhetorical flow. But if done that way it needs to
incorporate objectives like income generation as well, for that's simply
what copyright is. One way or the other, copyright still has to be about
securing exclusive rights, or it loses all meaning. So, if you really want
to separate ends and means, then you have to go all the way and pull the
progress goal back from copyright itself and associate it with the higher
constitutional objective instead, thereby leaving the means - copyright - as
its own independent entity that speaks to stuff like income generation.
There is no proper rhetorical construction that prevents access to what
copyright actually is.
Post by Wingnut
Let's return to the sentence that prompted this thread. (uncut)
"The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works, thereby encouraging people to create original works
of their own."
That's an accurate and pretty effective summation of how copyright is
expected to work
It's not accurate because it claims that the *goal* of copyright is to
provide an income for authors. It is not. That's a means it may use to
achieve its goal, which is to promote the progress of science and the
useful arts.
It now looks like there is a third person here who has conflated the
means and the ends, and that that person is still doing so -- you.
Copyright is the surrogate word for the part of the progress clause that
allows for securing exclusive rights. Part of securing exclusive rights is
securing the revenue stream. (In other words, a core part of the copyright
notion is that other people can't make money off of your creation except
through license.) Copyright *is* securing the income. Spoken of as a goal,
it's the mechanical function of making it so. It's a perfectly proper and
accurate description by itself.

But then, it's not by itself anyway. The complete sentence identifies the
ultimate goal. I can only hope that one day you will recognize that when
you say something like, "That's a means it may use to achieve its goal,
which is to promote the progress of science the useful arts," you're simply
paraphrasing the very sentence you're disputing - or both are paraphrasing
the Constitution. Maybe you'll even see the humor in that.

But setting aside who's right, there's a huge SO WHAT? sitting in this
living room like the proverbial elephant. However you phrase any of this
and which goals are assigned where, you're still going to end up with a
construction of laws that secure exclusive rights, which are intended to
motivate authorship, which is supposed to represent progress. Do you really
dispute that? Does anybody here really dispute that?

I think you're mired in a quagmire of grammatical variances. Or maybe
diving in there to get around some difficult arguments. Whatever, I really
think you'd be better served by sticking to your points that promoting
progress is the controlling goal and "limiting time" has meaning - and
confronting the content, rather than the wording, of contrary points - such
as wanting to preserve property rights and pursue profit as legitimate goals
in their own right, or questioning whether the promoting progress part has
any true legal meaning. (Incidentally the word for "flowery language" that
people were looking for might be "dicta". That covers all sorts of
extraneous language. But it's normally used for judicial decisions. I'm
not familiar with it being used for documents of this sort.)
Post by Wingnut
Your response that, "No, the goal is..." goes awry.
If by "goes awry" you mean "proves One Bit Shy wrong, thereby causing his
dastardly scheme to go awry" then perhaps you're right, though you should
not have abbreviated it so.
Dastardly scheme, huh? Well, I'll take any excuse to twirl my moustache.
Post by Wingnut
It accurately describes the goal of the constitutional clause, but
copyright is an independent concept that the Constitution merely draws
upon in pursuit of its own objectives.
That's nonsense and it puts the cart before the horse. The Constitutional
clause clearly states what the purpose of any copyright-like law must be,
and therefore what the purpose of actual (U.S.) copyright law actually
is. The Constitution does not draw upon copyright; copyright draws upon
the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't invent copyright. Indeed, the first copyright
statute in the U.S. was essentially copied from long standing English law.
Please don't attribute such mystical qualities to the Constitution. I'm
fond of much of the document, but it's not really the well-spring for
everything. It draws on many sources and is frequently very scant in
content - barely an outline. Copyright draws very little from the
constitution beyond general topic and permission to exist.
Post by Wingnut
The goal of copyright itself remains unchanged - to generate income for
the author.
You're still confused, I see.
In any case, I think the constitutional argument has limits anyway.
People (and Congress) want copyright law for more reasons than the
stated constitutional objectives.
Regardless, the stated Constutitional objectives are the only ones that
provide any Constitutional validity to any such laws. Anything that goes
beyond that clearly
Clearly? I think you have some fanciful notions of constitutional law.
Post by Wingnut
falls afoul of the First Amendment without gaining
any countervailing Constitutional approval from the Progress Clause. It
may fall afoul of other Amendments as well, particularly those that are
involved in reserving powers to the States and the People that are not
expressly granted to government by other clauses (such as the Progress
Clause).
And, while the constitution does state a reason for allowing copyright,
it doesn't preclude other reasons.
The Progress Clause does not. One might argue that the First, Tenth, and
other Amendments do, however.
One might. One might lose too. Those are difficult arguments. There's
merit in them, but there's merit in the opposition too.

Here's something to chew on. Before copyright law was instituted in
England, the tradition had been for printing to be controlled and licensed
exclusively by the state. That was largely censorship driven. Tons of
people were arrested for illegal possession of a printing press in the 17th
century. Though it didn't really stop political flyers and such from
getting printed anyway.

One of the side effects of that practice was the establishment of a narrow
monopoly of printers for all sorts of books. One of the primary effects of
the copyright law instituted in the early 18th century was to break that
monopoly. Publishing volume skyrocketed as tons of printers entered the
business.

One of the reasons for that appears to be relatively short copyright
periods - which supports your position. But it's still interesting to note
copyright as a vehicle to market expansion. And to remember that there are
other alternatives to copyright besides unrestricted publishing.
Considerably less desirable alternatives.

You can argue this 'till the voles stop mating, but promoting progress is
not and never has been the only "goal" at issue in copyright.

OBS
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
In article
In article
<fb734389-
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in
the United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court
upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific
length for copyright protection.
But it does discuss the underlying reason/purpose that copyright
is provided for in the constitution and the length of copy right
now days would seem to directly violate that goal.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
No, it's explicitly and solely "to promote the progress of science
and useful arts". That's it.
And how does it do that?
The *means* is irrelevant to a dispute over a statement that begins
"the goal of copyright is...".
Providing an income is not an end in itself.
That is (one of your) error(s).
Pardon me for interjecting, but I fear that here you have fallen off a
rhetorical cliff.
No, sir, I have not.
And then you proceed to skip
the rest of the useless personal attack in your post until I find a part
that's actually relevant to copyright term lengths? Damn tootin'.

And now I'm going to do it again.
Post by One Bit Shy
I'm not disputing your broader position. While I'm sure that I'm not
precisely in agreement with it, I'm certainly far closer to that than
most debating you.
Yet you're producing some of the largest volumes of anti-personnel
vitriol in this debate and directing it, not at them, but at me. This
seems inconsistent. If you're going to resort to interpersonal venom at
all in a debate, shouldn't you reserve it for those whose position is
most opposed to your own?
Post by One Bit Shy
I believe copyright is seriously screwed up right now - for many
reasons, including a ridiculously long term of protection.
Then we really are in violent agreement. Will you agree then to cut the
"violent" part out of that and focus on the topic now?
Post by One Bit Shy
I'd probably focus debate more on concepts of "property" because, don't
kid yourself, no matter what the Constitution may say, the primary
reason people want copyright is to preserve their (perceived?) property
rights.
That's the rub, isn't it? Copyright not only is NOT a property right,
it's actually antithetical to property rights. All so-called
"intellectual property" rights inherently erode real property rights. (As
do laws permitting things like eminent domain, law enforcement search-and-
seizure, and the like; property rights aren't and shouldn't be absolute.
I'm not claiming that, either. But it is inconsistent to lump "IP" in
with property rights when the two are as at odds as eminent domain and
property rights.)

The tricky part is going to be getting people to stop believing that "IP"
rights are property rights (and phasing out the use of that name is gonna
have to be part of it). Then the laws can be more firmly grounded back in
their actual stated purpose; they limit speech and property rights for a
particular reason, and absent such reasons the principles upon which this
nation was founded demand that such restrictions be avoided.

Further, much of the pro-copyright-expansion side's force (and nearly all
of its most potent spokespeople) would desert if they no longer had the
sense of entitlement that comes with viewing copyrights as a form of
property right.
Post by One Bit Shy
My complaint here is with your chosen debate tactic
Sorry, you're straying out of bounds again. Complain about copyright, not
about other users involved in the debate about copyright, lest you commit
the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

(Several entire paragraphs of ad hominem arguing followed this)
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
I understand the distinction you're making between means and ends -
which I believe most everybody reading this thread understands.
At least two people do (or at least, earlier, did) not understand the
distinction.
There are some who don't believe the distinction is worth making or even
meaningful in this instance because the elements are so integrated and
must be seen as a whole to make any sense.
Then they're wrong. It is essential to distinguish means from ends. If
people feel that the only way to satisfy the ends (progress of the useful
arts) is to guarantee an income to authors, then they will ignore large
swathes of the solution space and every area they do focus on will
involve either raising taxes, granting monopolies, or some other
government intervention in the marketplace that is likely to be anti-
consumer and easily perverted into some form or another of corporate
welfare. In particular, the question of whether *any intervention is
actually necessary at all* may not even *occur* to them. Yet if progress
will actually occur with no government involvement at all, then isn't
that for the best? Any government intervention likely involves either
restricting freedoms (bad, if unnecessary) or spending tax monies (bad,
if unnecessary), after all, if not both.
Post by One Bit Shy
A debatable point, but largely a sideshow I believe.
Not if you don't intend to ignore large portions of the solution space,
and potentially to overlook the optimum solution to the problem of
promoting progress in favor of some inferior one.
Post by One Bit Shy
My interest is in nudging you away from
That's your problem. Your interest is not apparently in getting at the
*truth*, but in *controlling one of your fellow human beings*. That is a
serious error. Nothing useful will be accomplished by trying to play
dictator, least of all in an unmoderated Usenet group or two.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
the goal of U.S. copyright is "to promote the progress of science and
the useful arts". Income-providing is a means to that end. Stating that
income-providing is "the goal" is indeed a confusion of the means for
the end on Horace's part.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works
<laughng> No, the goal is to "To promote the progress of science and
useful arts".
Which different...how?
The very question betrays the same confusion of means and ends as
Horace had just demonstrated two posts earlier.
<laughing> No
Yes.
Post by One Bit Shy
That sentence originally continued with, "thereby encouraging people to
create original works of their own."
What that last part does is connect the first part to the stated
objective in the Constitution.
It's a distraction. It is still the case that he says the GOAL is to give
authors an income "thereby encouraging" them. That's not true. The GOAL
is to promote the progress, a MEANS is to encourage authors to write
more, and a sub-MEANS is to give them an income from writing. (Letting
them monopolize copies is a sub-sub-MEANS.)
Post by One Bit Shy
"Encouraging people to create" is meant to be equivalent to promoting
progress.
Yet it's not. Even if it were, the statement conflates the means and the
goal by lumping both together and referring to the lump as "the goal",
and that's ignoring the fact that encouraging people to create isn't the
only way.
Post by One Bit Shy
In summation, the sentence simply says that copyright secures income
which promotes progress.
Actually, it does not.

I'm starting to wonder if everyone except me is literally incapable of
the level of precision I am applying in separating out means from goals
and separating several levels of means? Because without that precision,
it's not possible to realize that some classes of potential solution to a
problem even *exist*.
Post by One Bit Shy
What's especially amusing about this instance is the mechanical error
you make this time.
I am not making any kind of error whatsoever, unlike you, who keeps
erring by trying to change the subject from copyright term lengths to
your opponent(?)'s perceived shortcomings.
Post by One Bit Shy
But the combined whole is the "goal" that is being spoken to, not just
that first part.
This "combined whole" of yours is still just a means!

(Snip "One Bit Shy" now not only insulting me but claiming that
grammarians would insult me, too -- how much further off the topic is he
going to veer?!)
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
David, however, has continued to argue this point. Oddly, his
subsequent posts bounced back and forth between continuing to conflate
"giving authors an income" and "promoting the progress" and
claim (unbelievably) that his "which different...how?" meant something
else entirely and hurl personal attacks at me. :-P
It's only natural that confusion would continue since you
OK, how about a challenge. If you post to this thread again (and really
you probably should not given when you do so it seems to cause nothing
but pain) I challenge you to write your reply avoiding any mention of
whoever you're replying to and avoiding the word "you". And any
construction meant to refer to the person you're debating with.

Adhering to that challenge should enable you to hold the focus of your
writing on the actual subject matter, copyright term lengths and their
(lack of) justification, and not get distracted by talking about your
opponent instead.
Post by One Bit Shy
Hence the very natural question of, "Which different...how?". To him,
encouraging people to create is equivalent to promoting progress.
And that's one of the errors I am trying to get him to see.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
My interpretation of this: either he realized he'd been wrong but is
very loath to admit it or he's just plain certifiable.
Or you're wrong for reasons you don't yet comprehend.
Flatly impossible.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
So we may still have someone confusing the means and ends. And we
definitely did have at least two only about 24 hours ago.
But, alas, your argument is erroneously constructed and has mostly
served to confuse. I'm not seeing people conflating means and ends.
My argument is perfectly soundly constructed and you are obviously not
reading half the posts to this thread,
I believe I've read all of it.
Then check Google and at least one other real newsserver, because the
completion of the server you're using must be pants.
Post by One Bit Shy
I won't pretend, however, to remember all of it.
Unless it's your memory that's pants.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
(Though some people are in favor of the income producing end in its
own right, irrespective of constitutional objectives.)
Idiots, and in some cases, greedy assholes.
For better or worse, we live in a capitalistic society with the
deliberate intention of motivating people through profit.
It doesn't get much more anti-capitalistic than handing out monopolies
like candy and thereby stifling competition.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
But you have appeared to conflate the notion of "copyright" with that
of "constitution".
I have done nothing of the sort; merely noted that the only thing
preventing *any* kind of copyright restrictions *at all* from violating
the First Amendment is the Progress Clause, which may thus be
interpreted as circumscribing the situations in which copyright-like
laws can be immune from First Amendment unconstitutionality.
That's an interesting proposition. I don't think I agree with you - not
in whole anyway. Not so globally. I think the commerce clause would
probably be adequate to pick up just about all of copyright and more.
If that's the case then the Commerce Clause is in serious need of
amending, because it clearly treads on the hallowed ground of free speech.
Post by One Bit Shy
And you really need to address the meaning of property rights in this
case before leaping so quickly to whose rights are being violated.
Property rights are a clear concept in economics. Property must be
naturally rivalrous and excludable. Ideas, "all copies of a work", "all
embodiments of an invention", etc. are not naturally rivalrous and
excludable.

Put it this way: with real property, you can lock it in a warehouse
somewhere or put a fence around it. You can stand guard over it and
anyone who wants to "infringe" on it will have to go through you, or your
fence, or your locked door, or bust down your walls, crash through your
ceiling, or tunnel through your floor to do it.

With so-called "intellectual property", people can "infringe" on it
without going anywhere near you or any fence, wall, door, floor, or
ceiling of yours. Persons A and B can "infringe" on it by carrying out a
mutually agreeable transaction (e.g. A lets B copy A's mixtape of music).
There's nothing the "intellectual property" holder can naturally do to
guard against this; he has to have power, or have the State grant him its
power, over not only A's own physical property holdings but also on
everyone else's. He, or the State, has to limit what A and B can do with
their tapes and recorders, in a manner that runs counter to the abilities
and limitations normally attendant property such as tapes and recorders.

This is how "intellectual property" differs from, and indeed infringes
on, real property rights.

Perhaps, though, Thomas Jefferson said it best when he wrote:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for
the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we
breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or
exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject
of property.

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as
an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but
this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the
society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a
fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the
only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to
the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes
done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally
speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more
embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the
nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England
in new and useful devices.

–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson, 13 August 1813
Post by One Bit Shy
One way or the other, copyright still has to be about securing
exclusive rights, or it loses all meaning.
Really? The Progress Clause *empowers* Congress to take certain actions,
granting copyright-like and patent-like laws, to promote progress. It
neither *mandates* them nor circumscribes the means of promoting progress
solely to this particular approach. It requires Congress limit the
durations but says nothing about what rights are actually made exclusive.
(Indeed, the right to make derivative works originally wasn't, only that
of making verbatim copies.)

If a way can be found that is better (more consumer-friendly, produces
more works at lower prices, etc.) should it not be found and implemented?
Surely you cannot disagree with that, only perhaps question whether such
a way exists to be discovered. Perhaps you believe the search for one is
a waste of time; if so, I'd have to disagree. Is that, then, our true
bone of contention?
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
It's not accurate because it claims that the *goal* of copyright is to
provide an income for authors. It is not. That's a means it may use to
achieve its goal, which is to promote the progress of science and the
useful arts.
It now looks like there is a third person here who has conflated the
means and the ends, and that that person is still doing so -- you.
Copyright is the surrogate word for the part of the progress clause that
allows for securing exclusive rights. Part of securing exclusive rights
is securing the revenue stream.
Is it? What if it was permitted to be used solely to secure a kind of
publicity right, that an author's work could not be redistributed
misattributed to another? This has nothing (directly) to do with revenue
streams, but it does protect authors from plagiarism, perhaps making it
likelier that they'll become famous (instead of someone else hogging all
the credit). Fame, in turn, brings money by various routes, women, free
stuff -- plenty of incentive there.
Post by One Bit Shy
But setting aside who's right, there's a huge SO WHAT? sitting in this
living room like the proverbial elephant. However you phrase any of
this and which goals are assigned where, you're still going to end up
with a construction of laws that secure exclusive rights, which are
intended to motivate authorship, which is supposed to represent
progress. Do you really dispute that? Does anybody here really dispute
that?
Seeing things in as fine-grained a manner as I do allows seeing more
possibilities:


GOAL -- Promote the progress
/ | \
MEANS -- Don't discourage authors Do nothing Encourage authors
/ \ / \
SUB-MEANS -- Tax cuts Shield laws Grants and subsidies Exclusive rights
|
/
------------------------------------------
/ | \

SSMEANS -- Publicity rights Copying rights Derivative rights
| / \ |
SSSMEANS -- Fame Royalties Monopoly prices Licensing

This is, of course, still woefully incomplete but I hope it gives some
taste of the richness of the true space of possibilities here, of which
only the three items at lower right seem to be given any real attention
these days!

It also recognizes that "do nothing" may be a valid solution, if progress
will be adequately promoted without any government intervention at all.
That lots of music and literature was created in times and places that
lacked any kind of exclusive rights, and that lots is created now and
subjected to liberal Creative Commons licenses, evidences that "do
nothing" may indeed be more than adequate, and then it's almost certainly
the best option from the left-wing standpoint (superior civil liberties)
and from the right (reduction of government).
Post by One Bit Shy
I think you're mired in a quagmire of grammatical variances.
Is the chart up above a "quagmire" to you? Really? Then you have no hope
of engaging in truly nuanced debate about these issues and I feel sorry
for you.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
It accurately describes the goal of the constitutional clause, but
copyright is an independent concept that the Constitution merely draws
upon in pursuit of its own objectives.
That's nonsense and it puts the cart before the horse. The
Constitutional clause clearly states what the purpose of any
copyright-like law must be, and therefore what the purpose of actual
(U.S.) copyright law actually is. The Constitution does not draw upon
copyright; copyright draws upon the Constitution.
The Constitution didn't invent copyright.
I never claimed that it did; however, (our) copyright law draws upon
(our) Constitution for its justification. The Progress Clause is what
empowered Congress to create it. It is not the other way around.
Post by One Bit Shy
Copyright draws very little from the constitution beyond general topic
and permission to exist.
And therein lies the rub: copyright depends on it for permission to
exist. Your suggestion that the dependency goes in the opposite direction
is frankly silly, to the point that I suspect you didn't intend it and
whatever you said came out wrong.
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
In any case, I think the constitutional argument has limits anyway.
People (and Congress) want copyright law for more reasons than the
stated constitutional objectives.
Regardless, the stated Constutitional objectives are the only ones that
provide any Constitutional validity to any such laws. Anything that
goes beyond that clearly falls afoul of the First Amendment without
gaining any countervailing Constitutional approval from the Progress
Clause. It may fall afoul of other Amendments as well, particularly
those that are involved in reserving powers to the States and the
People that are not expressly granted to government by other clauses
(such as the Progress Clause).
(The above has been stitched back together, removing an ad hominem
interjection of no substantial importance).
Post by One Bit Shy
Post by Wingnut
And, while the constitution does state a reason for allowing
copyright, it doesn't preclude other reasons.
The Progress Clause does not. One might argue that the First, Tenth,
and other Amendments do, however.
One might. One might lose too. Those are difficult arguments. There's
merit in them, but there's merit in the opposition too.
Perhaps.
Post by One Bit Shy
One of the side effects of that practice was the establishment of a
narrow monopoly of printers for all sorts of books. One of the primary
effects of the copyright law instituted in the early 18th century was to
break that monopoly. Publishing volume skyrocketed as tons of printers
entered the business.
Ironic, isn't it, that copyright now seems to have the opposite effect,
creating highly concentrated and highly powerful media conglomerates? And
that's even in areas where the big publishing gatekeepers *don't* force
authors to sign over their copyrights.
Post by One Bit Shy
One of the reasons for that appears to be relatively short copyright
periods - which supports your position.
While long ones let publishers become overly powerful due to their back
catalogs, and encourage them to merge (resulting in fewer, still larger
ones) to combine same?
Post by One Bit Shy
And to remember that there are other alternatives to copyright besides
unrestricted publishing. Considerably less desirable alternatives.
I don't think anybody here is proposing to repeal the First Amendment.
Post by One Bit Shy
You can argue this 'till the voles stop mating, but promoting progress
is not and never has been the only "goal" at issue in copyright.
It is the only one that has Constitutional blessing, and in the meantime
copyright's means gets a Constitutional squinty-eyed look of suspicion,
at best, from the First Amendment.
Wingnut
2010-09-01 05:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion, namely the
portion where Horace claimed that the goal of copyright was author-
welfare rather than progress-promoting.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 06:11:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 04:48:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:28:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
Riiiiiight. That was totaaallly agreement. It wasn't skepticism at
all.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:28:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
Right.
OK.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 06:23:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Right.
OK.
I'm glad you've come to agree with me.
Wingnut
2010-09-03 05:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Right.
OK.
I'm glad you've come to agree with me.
Yes. We agree that I quoted the part that was relevant.
David Johnston
2010-09-03 06:21:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:56:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Right.
OK.
I'm glad you've come to agree with me.
Yes. We agree
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:56:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Right.
OK.
I'm glad you've come to agree with me.
Yes. We agree that I quoted the part that was relevant.
Silence...which I guess signifies assent.

(Why are we spending so many posts simply agreeing with that statement
without adding anything new to the debate?)
David Johnston
2010-09-04 04:41:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:05:54 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:56:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Right.
OK.
I'm glad you've come to agree with me.
Yes. We agree
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:05:54 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:56:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Right.
OK.
I'm glad you've come to agree with me.
Yes. We agree that I quoted the part that was relevant.
How many more times will you childishly misquote my post before you give
up, David?
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 11:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:28:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
Right.
OK.
Seriously, dude, you're starting to show a lot of signs of being a troll.
Like editing peoples comments to make it look like they said something they
didn't. What he actually said was:

"Riiiiiight. That was totaaallly agreement. It wasn't skepticism at
all."

Do you seriously think we don't remember that?
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:28:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
Right.
OK.
Seriously, dude, you're starting to show a lot of signs of being a troll.
Ad hominem argument detected. Skipping.

Nothing left.

Error: no on-topic content found. Copyright length justification debate
FAIL.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-09-04 06:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
Right.
OK.
Seriously, dude, you're starting to show a lot of signs of being a troll.
Ad hominem argument detected. Skipping.
Nothing left.
Error: no on-topic content found. Copyright length justification debate
FAIL.
Wingy, you are starting to forget that you're not seamus.
Wingnut
2010-09-05 03:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
That sentence appears to be incomplete.
I quoted the portion that was relevant to the discussion,
Un-hunh.
Signification of agreement. Good.
Right.
OK.
Seriously, dude, you're starting to show a lot of signs of being a troll.
Ad hominem argument detected. Skipping.
Nothing left.
Error: no on-topic content found. Copyright length justification debate
FAIL.
Wingy, you are starting to forget that you're not seamus.
The fact that I'm not Seamus is not something I actually tend to give
much thought to, any more than I expect you do or any other people do.

And I don't see any content in *your* post relevant to the issue being
debated here, either. Are you going to argue for or against current
copyright term lengths or are you just going to snipe pointlessly at the
participants from the sidelines?
Wingnut
2010-09-01 05:56:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their value
then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?

I shall now repeat the argument that you failed to adequately address:

For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and no
single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly pricing
of all of these completely-substitutable goods?

Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of Avatar
is actually $40 or more?

Because either it is or the market is non-free, because a free market
drives prices down to marginal costs.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 06:07:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their value
then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods.
If I don't like it, I watch something else.

Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
Post by Wingnut
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
Post by Wingnut
For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and no
single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly pricing
of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of Avatar
is actually $40 or more?
Are we going to pay for the making of the movie or just assume that
the making of the movie is free?
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in
the market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
In other words, "no".
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the market
alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and no
single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly
pricing of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of
Avatar is actually $40 or more?
Are we going to pay for the making of the movie or just assume that the
making of the movie is free?
The making of the movie is irrelevant to the matter of marginal costs,
and the matter of non-marginal costs is irrelevant to this particular
branch of the discussion.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
This has led to an argument about whether the market in question is, in
fact, a non-free one hindered by monopolies, because you apparently
dispute that it is one.

Econ 101 tells us that in a market affected by monopolies prices will
include "monopoly rents" whereas in a competitive market prices will tend
to not rise much above marginal costs. So the question of whether the
goods in this market are being sold near, or well above, marginal costs
will answer with empirical evidence the disputed question of whether this
market is a competitive, or a monopoly-fettered, one.

But I think we both know the answer to that already. You just threw out a
feeble attempt at deflecting the topic instead of capitulating gracefully
on this particular point.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 04:43:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:24:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in
the market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
In other words, "no".
The correct other words would be "yes"
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the market
alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and no
single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly
pricing of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of
Avatar is actually $40 or more?
Are we going to pay for the making of the movie or just assume that the
making of the movie is free?
The making of the movie is irrelevant to the matter of marginal costs,
So then the movie wouldn't get made at all without the copyright?
Post by Wingnut
This has led to an argument about whether the market in question is, in
fact, a non-free one hindered by monopolies, because you apparently
dispute that it is one.
Actually I don't. I just argue that consumers choose the products
they like over the products they don't like.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:24:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in
the market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
In other words, "no".
The correct other words would be
"no".
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the market
alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and no
single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly
pricing of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of
Avatar is actually $40 or more?
Are we going to pay for the making of the movie or just assume that
the making of the movie is free?
The making of the movie is irrelevant to the matter of marginal costs,
So then the movie wouldn't get made at all without the copyright?
We don't know. But movies would get made. It's getting possible to make
decent movies very cheaply.

Not that this isn't an entirely-beside-the-point tangent when the debate
was about the freedom (or lack thereof) of a particular market.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
This has led to an argument about whether the market in question is, in
fact, a non-free one hindered by monopolies, because you apparently
dispute that it is one.
Actually I don't.
So you admit that it's rife with monopolies? Good.
Post by David Johnston
I just argue that consumers choose the products they like over the
products they don't like.
Nobody disputed that, so you're basically just making an irrelevant,
tangential remark that nobody would disagree with and pretending it's
somehow scoring a major point against the opposition.

Kinda silly, if you ask me.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 06:20:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:24:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in
the market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
In other words, "no".
The correct other words would be
Still "yes".
Post by Wingnut
Not that this isn't an entirely-beside-the-point tangent when the debate
was about the freedom (or lack thereof) of a particular market.
Not caring so much about that. The debate was about whether it would
be a good idea to subsidize all creators with government funds
regardless of whether anyone wanted their crap.
Wingnut
2010-09-03 06:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:24:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources
for video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There
is more than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find
in the market alternative legal sources of
completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008
have accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
In other words, "no".
The correct other words would be
Still
"no".
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Not that this isn't an entirely-beside-the-point tangent when the debate
was about the freedom (or lack thereof) of a particular market.
Not caring so much about that.
That's your problem then. Though given your tendency of late to profess
that just about anything that gets mentioned is "meaningless" I can't say
I'm surprised.

X is meaningless ... don't care about Y ... this is reminding me more and
more of something. Damn! Wish I could remember what ...
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize all
creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone wanted
their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths, and more immediately about
whether we currently had a free market in information goods or not.

Ah! I remember now. You've got all the signs and symptoms of clinical
depression. I'd consult a physician. It's easily treatable these days
with suitable medication, and you may even be able to get it cheap or
free on a health plan. If you have any. Or you could wait and see if
Obamacare bears fruit.
David Johnston
2010-09-03 06:20:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize all
creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone wanted
their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths,
And you suggested that the Constitution provision allowing copyrights
should be repealed in favour of a program of government subsidization
of all creators.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize all
creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone wanted
their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths,
And you suggested that the Constitution provision allowing copyrights
should be repealed in favour of a program of government subsidization of
all creators.
What I actually did was point out that there are a lot of alternative
ways to "promote the progress" than grant exclusive rights. I threw that
out as an impractical, but not physically impossible, example. A more
selective subsidization program might be quite practical. As might
inaction. As might a non-discouragement, such as a tax credit. (Some
countries have film-maker or musician tax credits for exactly this
purpose already; sometimes you'll see a movie or TV show whose credits
contain a mention of one of these, usually when it's filmed in Australia
or Canada. The respective country's flag commonly appears in the credits
at the same time -- watch for it!)

Further, I pointed out that if "the goal of copyright is to give authors
an income", as some had (erroneously!) claimed, then copyright did a cack-
handed job of it as the aforementioned subsidy would more immediately and
directly and accurately meet it (while having eventual problems, like
bankrupting the treasury while sending unemployment to 100%). This was
intended to point out that not only *wasn't* it the actual goal of
copyright (or else copyright would probably look different than it did),
but it was a poor goal to actually select instead of something more
nuanced.

Far from recommending such a subsidy, I was actually using it to both
expose Horace's earlier error to scrutiny and to point out that there are
worse (as well as better) public policy options for "promoting the
progress" than copyright as we know it.

Of course, that just went sailing right over your head. I should have
learned earlier in this mess of a debate that I'd need to dumb my
arguments down to your level. But it's kind of hard to do sometimes; it's
too easy to overestimate others' intelligence when yours is above-
average, and all the more so when theirs is below-average.
David Johnston
2010-09-04 05:52:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize all
creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone wanted
their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths,
And you suggested that the Constitution provision allowing copyrights
should be repealed in favour of a program of government subsidization of
all creators.
What I actually did was point out that there are a lot of alternative
ways to "promote the progress" than grant exclusive rights. I threw that
out as an impractical, but not physically impossible, example. A more
selective subsidization program might be quite practical. As might
inaction. As might a non-discouragement, such as a tax credit. (Some
countries have film-maker or musician tax credits for exactly this
purpose already; sometimes you'll see a movie or TV show whose credits
contain a mention of one of these, usually when it's filmed in Australia
or Canada. The respective country's flag commonly appears in the credits
at the same time -- watch for it!)
Further, I pointed out that if "the goal of copyright is to give authors
an income", as some had (erroneously!) claimed,
But that isn't the complete goal claimed. The complete goal includes
"...in order to promote progress in science and the arts". The goal
isn't to hand out money regardless of merit of the artist or inventor.
Wingnut
2010-09-05 03:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize
all creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone
wanted their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths,
And you suggested that the Constitution provision allowing copyrights
should be repealed in favour of a program of government subsidization
of all creators.
What I actually did was point out that there are a lot of alternative
ways to "promote the progress" than grant exclusive rights. I threw that
out as an impractical, but not physically impossible, example. A more
selective subsidization program might be quite practical. As might
inaction. As might a non-discouragement, such as a tax credit. (Some
countries have film-maker or musician tax credits for exactly this
purpose already; sometimes you'll see a movie or TV show whose credits
contain a mention of one of these, usually when it's filmed in Australia
or Canada. The respective country's flag commonly appears in the credits
at the same time -- watch for it!)
Further, I pointed out that if "the goal of copyright is to give authors
an income", as some had (erroneously!) claimed,
But that isn't the complete goal claimed. The complete goal includes
"...in order to promote progress in science and the arts".
That's not quite correct. The SOLE goal is "to promote the progress of
science and the useful arts". That is the SOLE reason the Constitution
grants Congress the power to enact copyright (and patent) laws.

And if you mean to refer to Horace's statement, that too is not quite
Post by David Johnston
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works, thereby encouraging people to create original works
of their own.
If you generously accept that he was really claiming income was a means
and "encouraging people to create original works of their own" was the
entirety of the goal, even then that's one step beneath "to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts". Another way to promote the
progress could be to avoid actions that discourage authorship. Authorship-
based enterprises receiving tax reductions is one way of doing that; one
that involves the government doing less (in this case, taxation) to
discourage authorship. Another is to grant laws protecting anonymity and
sources. Journalist shield laws and anti-SLAPP laws serve this sort of
function -- they promote the progress by limiting some governmental/
government-assisted actions (lawsuits, subpoenas) that would discourage
certain forms of authorship.

So the distinction between these two levels is quite important, as is the
distinction between the "encourage" level and the "by providing an
income" level, since again there are clearly multiple ways to provide an
income, and multiple ways to encourage other than provide an income.
(Publicity rights come to mind; they protect from plagiarism, where
someone else gets famous off your work, and from getting famous but not
being able to turn that into money in some ways such as via sponsorship.
They don't directly provide an income but they help indirectly provide an
income and other perks.)
David Johnston
2010-09-05 03:57:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:52:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize
all creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone
wanted their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths,
And you suggested that the Constitution provision allowing copyrights
should be repealed in favour of a program of government subsidization
of all creators.
What I actually did was point out that there are a lot of alternative
ways to "promote the progress" than grant exclusive rights. I threw that
out as an impractical, but not physically impossible, example. A more
selective subsidization program might be quite practical. As might
inaction. As might a non-discouragement, such as a tax credit. (Some
countries have film-maker or musician tax credits for exactly this
purpose already; sometimes you'll see a movie or TV show whose credits
contain a mention of one of these, usually when it's filmed in Australia
or Canada. The respective country's flag commonly appears in the credits
at the same time -- watch for it!)
Further, I pointed out that if "the goal of copyright is to give authors
an income", as some had (erroneously!) claimed,
But that isn't the complete goal claimed. The complete goal includes
"...in order to promote progress in science and the arts".
That's not quite correct. The SOLE goal is "to promote the progress of
science and the useful arts".
In one particular way.

That is the SOLE reason the Constitution
Post by Wingnut
grants Congress the power to enact copyright (and patent) laws.
And if you mean to refer to Horace's statement, that too is not quite
Post by David Johnston
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works, thereby encouraging people to create original works
of their own.
If you generously accept that he was really claiming income was a means
and "encouraging people to create original works of their own" was the
entirety of the goal, even then that's one step beneath "to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts". Another way to promote the
progress could be to avoid actions that discourage authorship. Authorship-
based enterprises receiving tax reductions is one way of doing that;
You're right. That is another way. Notice how that constitutional
provision is not a mandate to pursue it?
Wingnut
2010-09-05 04:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:52:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:02:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
The debate was about whether it would be a good idea to subsidize
all creators with government funds regardless of whether anyone
wanted their crap.
No, it was about copyright term lengths,
And you suggested that the Constitution provision allowing
copyrights should be repealed in favour of a program of government
subsidization of all creators.
What I actually did was point out that there are a lot of alternative
ways to "promote the progress" than grant exclusive rights. I threw
that out as an impractical, but not physically impossible, example. A
more selective subsidization program might be quite practical. As
might inaction. As might a non-discouragement, such as a tax credit.
(Some countries have film-maker or musician tax credits for exactly
this purpose already; sometimes you'll see a movie or TV show whose
credits contain a mention of one of these, usually when it's filmed in
Australia or Canada. The respective country's flag commonly appears in
the credits at the same time -- watch for it!)
Further, I pointed out that if "the goal of copyright is to give
authors an income", as some had (erroneously!) claimed,
But that isn't the complete goal claimed. The complete goal includes
"...in order to promote progress in science and the arts".
That's not quite correct. The SOLE goal is "to promote the progress of
science and the useful arts".
In one particular way.
That is the SOLE reason the Constitution
Post by Wingnut
grants Congress the power to enact copyright (and patent) laws.
And if you mean to refer to Horace's statement, that too is not quite
Post by David Johnston
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from the
creation of works, thereby encouraging people to create original works
of their own.
If you generously accept that he was really claiming income was a means
and "encouraging people to create original works of their own" was the
entirety of the goal, even then that's one step beneath "to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts". Another way to promote the
progress could be to avoid actions that discourage authorship.
Authorship- based enterprises receiving tax reductions is one way of
doing that;
You're right. That is another way. Notice how that constitutional
provision is not a mandate to pursue it?
Yes, I did notice that.

Interesting attempt, though, to deflect attention from the matter of the
distinct levels of goals/means in play here and the error inherent in
conflating them all.

Most interesting is that you seem willing to admit the existence of
likely viable alternatives to exclusive rights to achieve the Progress
Clause's goals in order to achieve said deflection. Given that such an
admission directly attacks your own goal of justifying long copyright
terms, you must consider the deflection of attention away from that error
to be even more crucial to achieving that same goal. Or some other.
David Johnston
2010-09-05 04:40:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Most interesting is that you seem willing to admit the existence of
likely viable alternatives to exclusive rights to achieve the Progress
Clause's goals in order to achieve said deflection. Given that such an
admission directly attacks your own goal of justifying long copyright
terms
I have never spoken a single word of justification for long copyright
terms. I am in fact opposed to them.
Wingnut
2010-09-06 03:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Most interesting is that you seem willing to admit the existence of
likely viable alternatives to exclusive rights to achieve the Progress
Clause's goals in order to achieve said deflection. Given that such an
admission directly attacks your own goal of justifying long copyright
terms
I have never spoken a single word of justification for long copyright
terms. I am in fact opposed to them.
What!?! <flabbergasted> All this time you've been *agreeing* with me? And
here it looked like you were arguing with me, and even quite frequently
*flaming* me!

That is not how one ordinarily expresses agreement.

And you've only been slightly less negative towards Thanatos, who you
also, it seems, actually have been agreeing with all this time.

If you really, genuinely think copyright terms are too long, you should
be attacking the *real* enemies, Dimensional Traveler, Anim, and Horace,
and not your goddamned *allies*. Arrgh! A house divided against itself
cannot stand. Believers in shorter copyright terms unite, dammit UNITE,
not UNTIE...arrgh.
David Johnston
2010-09-06 03:56:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Most interesting is that you seem willing to admit the existence of
likely viable alternatives to exclusive rights to achieve the Progress
Clause's goals in order to achieve said deflection. Given that such an
admission directly attacks your own goal of justifying long copyright
terms
I have never spoken a single word of justification for long copyright
terms. I am in fact opposed to them.
What!?! <flabbergasted> All this time you've been *agreeing* with me?
No, all this time you have been attacking me because I didn't use the
precise wording that you wanted, because I put the word "author"
before the word "progress", instead of vice versa.

And
Post by Wingnut
here it looked like you were arguing with me, and even quite frequently
*flaming* me!
That is not how one ordinarily expresses agreement.
And you've only been slightly less negative towards Thanatos, who you
also, it seems, actually have been agreeing with all this time.
If you really, genuinely think copyright terms are too long, you should
be attacking the *real* enemies, Dimensional Traveler, Anim, and Horace,
and not your goddamned *allies*.
They haven't been attacking me.
Wingnut
2010-09-06 04:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I have never spoken a single word of justification for long copyright
terms. I am in fact opposed to them.
What!?! <flabbergasted> All this time you've been *agreeing* with me?
No, all this time you have been attacking me because I didn't use the
precise wording that you wanted, because I put the word "author" before
the word "progress", instead of vice versa.
Because by doing so you put the cart before the horse. And I did not
"attack" you, at least at first; I tried to gently correct you, and
instead of accepting it you got all huffy in a disturbingly Seamushish
manner.

But all of this was in the context of a debate where you had already
apparently chosen to side with Anim8r and Horace against Thanatos and I,
and it was Thanatos and I championing shorter copyright terms.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
And here it looked like you were arguing with me, and even quite
frequently *flaming* me!
That is not how one ordinarily expresses agreement.
And you've only been slightly less negative towards Thanatos, who you
also, it seems, actually have been agreeing with all this time.
If you really, genuinely think copyright terms are too long, you should
be attacking the *real* enemies, Dimensional Traveler, Anim, and Horace,
and not your goddamned *allies*.
They haven't been attacking me.
I wasn't, either, at least at first, and you'd have to be Seamus to think
otherwise.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Which different...how?
Providing an income to authors is not equivalent to promoting the
progress. It may be a *means* of doing so but it is not *the same
thing* as doing so.
If you'd simply snipped it and replaced it with "[insult deleted]" then
I'd have *known*, then, what I merely *suspect* now.

Instead, it seemed at first to be a genuine misunderstanding of some
sort, before it became gradually clear that you would never even take a
consistent position on what you were even *asking* when you wrote that
question.

I guess I have to admit that you are an excellent troll, in fact probably
*not* Seamus simply because much more subtle at it; you had many of us
fooled for a while into thinking you were legitimately debating the issue
and simply incredibly confused and unwilling to admit to it. Seamus would
indeed have said "[insult deleted]" or otherwise been spotted much faster.

Now that you've been exposed as a troll, though, you probably have a very
short future of successfull trolling until you start nymshifting to do
your trolling. Then you'll run into a problem: any random trolling from a
new name will swiftly be identified, attributed to Seamus, and dismissed,
so you still won't have much luck. Probably your days of successfully
trolling rec.arts.tv are over now.

And it's *almost* a shame; this was a far better trolling than I've
encountered in many a moon. Perhaps you can have a fresh start in another
newsgroup, and even continue your non-trolling activities in this one
unhindered; we shall see.
David Johnston
2010-09-06 05:23:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 04:37:50 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:40:09 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I have never spoken a single word of justification for long copyright
terms. I am in fact opposed to them.
What!?! <flabbergasted> All this time you've been *agreeing* with me?
No, all this time you have been attacking me because I didn't use the
precise wording that you wanted, because I put the word "author" before
the word "progress", instead of vice versa.
Because by doing so you put the cart before the horse.
Yeah. Whatever.
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 11:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:24:05 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:56:37 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their
value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in
the market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods
I can always find another tv series to watch or book to read.
Not completely substitutable goods. Would a LOST fan in fall 2008 have
accepted any substitutes for LOST Season 5?
Depends how much they were going to be charged for Season 5.
In other words, "no".
The correct other words would be
Still "yes".
Post by Wingnut
Not that this isn't an entirely-beside-the-point tangent when the debate
was about the freedom (or lack thereof) of a particular market.
Not caring so much about that. The debate was about whether it would
be a good idea to subsidize all creators with government funds
regardless of whether anyone wanted their crap.
An economically infeasable (and enormously expensive) idea.
David Johnston
2010-09-03 16:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
Not caring so much about that. The debate was about whether it would
be a good idea to subsidize all creators with government funds
regardless of whether anyone wanted their crap.
An economically infeasable (and enormously expensive) idea.
Yes, but that's something _he_ didn't care about. Since after all, it
was only rhetorical.
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 16:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by David Johnston
Not caring so much about that. The debate was about whether it would
be a good idea to subsidize all creators with government funds
regardless of whether anyone wanted their crap.
An economically infeasable (and enormously expensive) idea.
Yes, but that's something _he_ didn't care about. Since after all, it
was only rhetorical.
*chuckle* I should hope so. Can you imagine how high our taxes would have
to be?
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 11:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I just argue that consumers choose the products they like over the
products they don't like.
Nobody disputed that, so you're basically just making an irrelevant,
tangential remark that nobody would disagree with and pretending it's
somehow scoring a major point against the opposition.
Actually, he's not, since this argument was started by the comment that the
consumer is the one who determines the value of a product. Strictly
speaking, it's the market that determines the value of the product in a free
market economy, but even in an economy rife with monopolies (and ours
definitely has monopolies - Microsoft being just one example), the consumer
has an effect on the value of the product. Price it too high, and most
people simply won't but it because they can't afford it, or don't feel it's
worth that much money.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
I just argue that consumers choose the products they like over the
products they don't like.
Nobody disputed that, so you're basically just making an irrelevant,
tangential remark that nobody would disagree with and pretending it's
somehow scoring a major point against the opposition.
Actually, he's not
Actually, he is.
Post by Dragon Lady
since this argument was started by the comment that the consumer is the
one who determines the value of a product. Strictly speaking, it's the
market that determines the value of the product in a free market economy
It's more that the consumer determines the value and the market sets the
*price*. Price and value are distinct concepts. We value oxygen very
highly but the price for it is zero, or near to it (however tiny a
fraction of our taxes goes to ecological and anti-pollution functions of
government).
Post by Dragon Lady
but even in an economy rife with monopolies (and ours definitely has
monopolies - Microsoft being just one example), the consumer has an
effect on the value of the product. Price it too high, and most people
simply won't but it because they can't afford it, or don't feel it's
worth that much money.
There's the concept of "demand elasticity" to consider. The more elastic
the demand, the less pricing power the seller has, and vice versa. In
Microsoft's case, Windows and Office are indispensible to enough people
that they can price it very high (*much* higher than would be optimal in
a truly free market) without losing very many customers.

Elasticity with entertainment is greater as a rule, but is reduced for
sequels and other tie-ins of very popular works. It's also reduced for
children's entertainment, since children don't feel the pricing pressure
but parents sure feel the "but I want REAL MICKEY MOUSE stuff, not this
'Richard Rat' rip-off!" pressure.

I also don't believe the existence of demand elasticity or partial
substitutability among many entertainment goods justifies high prices. It
certainly doesn't justify the extreme lockdown on derivative works, which
stifles much potential creativity and mainly just further lines a few
large businesses' pockets that would be quite profitable anyway.

On top of the justification angle, there's also a pragmatic one to
consider: piracy is a fact of life that is not going away, absent a
dramatic shift towards serious totalitarianism that nobody much wants and
that moreover is highly improbable. Entertainment companies do now have
to compete with free, no matter what they wish or what the law even
claims they are entitled to in the way of limitations on competition.

Those that don't figure out how to manage will not survive, and screaming
"BUT THE LAW IS ON OUR SIDE!!" won't change that, any more than dinosaurs
screaming about habeas corpus rights (or whatever) and railing against
pogroms and inquisitions could have deflected the asteroid that had their
name on it.

The ones that do survive, actually won't NEED the high prices and
exclusive rights of copyright, having found a way to get by without
depending on restricting copying. (In the movie case, they'll get by on
the fact that movie theaters still for the foreseeable future have bigger
screens and bigger sound than anyone's living room, and can still be the
first outlet for a new film; musicians always have gotten a lot more
money from touring than from royalties, which the record labels pocketed
nearly all of, and the internet just means they can dispense with the
record labels now. In the longer term (sense-immersion tech in the home
or even in the iPod and cheap) movies at first seem to be in deep doo-
doo, but wait! There's more! Movie production will get very cheap very
fast, especially if you get rid of one huge cost center -- clearing
rights for various things that appear in your movie! On top of that,
movies can go "on tour" and do other things too. Imagine if a movie maker
offers to let you be an extra in their movie for $100, offer limited
while supplies last. They'll probably get all the extras they need, and
enough money (several tens of grand) to make a movie using future movie-
making tech.)
Wingnut
2010-09-01 06:00:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
My first time through I didn't notice this lie of yours. I'll address it
now.

The wording of clauses of the Constitution is not at all "legally
meaningless".
David Johnston
2010-09-01 06:11:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:00:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
My first time through I didn't notice this lie of yours. I'll address it
now.
The wording of clauses of the Constitution is not at all "legally
meaningless".
You may claim that, but I see no reason to accept your claim. How
would it be determined that the goal is not being achieved? If it was
determined, what would be the legal response? If the statement of
what the intended purpose of the provision was never there, in what
way would the administration of said provision be different?
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:00:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for
the wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of
the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
My first time through I didn't notice this lie of yours. I'll address it
now.
The wording of clauses of the Constitution is not at all "legally
meaningless".
You may claim that, but I see no reason to accept your claim. How would
it be determined that the goal is not being achieved?
Evidence and reason. Scientifically-conducted polls and surveys. Whatever.

Some of this sort of thing is already done, and in particular the GAO has
recently looked into "intellectual property law" and found some of it
wanting, and not in an "it needs more strengthening" way either; they
found it should be weakened. Substantially.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 04:45:10 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:26:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:00:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for
the wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of
the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
My first time through I didn't notice this lie of yours. I'll address it
now.
The wording of clauses of the Constitution is not at all "legally
meaningless".
You may claim that, but I see no reason to accept your claim. How would
it be determined that the goal is not being achieved?
Evidence and reason. Scientifically-conducted polls and surveys. Whatever.
Which of these methods is actually being used to check whether the
goal is being achieved by the American government and what legally
mandates it being used?
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:26:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:00:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
your point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for
the wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of
the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
My first time through I didn't notice this lie of yours. I'll address
it now.
The wording of clauses of the Constitution is not at all "legally
meaningless".
You may claim that, but I see no reason to accept your claim. How
would it be determined that the goal is not being achieved?
Evidence and reason. Scientifically-conducted polls and surveys. Whatever.
Which of these methods is actually being used to check whether the goal
is being achieved by the American government and what legally mandates
it being used?
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims

Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.

This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here, they
worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring industries;
the industry studies used questionable methodology and aimed to influence
public policy with their bogus data.)
David Johnston
2010-09-02 06:22:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:26:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:00:11 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
your point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for
the wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of
the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
My first time through I didn't notice this lie of yours. I'll address
it now.
The wording of clauses of the Constitution is not at all "legally
meaningless".
You may claim that, but I see no reason to accept your claim. How
would it be determined that the goal is not being achieved?
Evidence and reason. Scientifically-conducted polls and surveys. Whatever.
Which of these methods is actually being used to check whether the goal
is being achieved by the American government and what legally mandates
it being used?
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here, they
worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring industries;
the industry studies used questionable methodology and aimed to influence
public policy with their bogus data.)
And is that finding being used by the courts to determine whether the
goal is being achieved?
Wingnut
2010-09-03 05:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their
methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and aimed
to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances, but it's late and I won't be
googling them for you. Do it yourself if you're really curious.
David Johnston
2010-09-03 06:21:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their
methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and aimed
to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Don't be ridiculous. Without even looking you simply assume I'm lying,
and then publicly accuse me of such?

That's gotta be the stupidest sure-fire recipe for (eventual) egg on your
face that I ever have seen. I mean, if you just respond eventually with
"he's lying" in every single debate, even if you get lucky the first time
or two and your opponent really WAS lying, eventually you'll hit one that
not only wasn't lying but had evidence to back up his claim, and then
you're up the proverbial creek.

And that has now happened: besides http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
we have:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10828r.pdf
Finds that satellite radio royalties requested by the record industry are
too high, at least early in the satellite radio industry's existence;

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10428r.pdf
Finds that a proposed new radio performance right with attendant
royalties, requested by the record industry, might benefit them but would
harm radio stations and could lead to "a shift toward more non-music
programming". (Reading between the lines: Radio already being partway to
becoming a wasteland of right-wing talk radio, this would presumably
complete the process of killing radio as a promotional vehicle for music,
and ultimately even do the record industry more harm than good.)

I think two more examples of the GAO probing into copyright and coming
out less than enthused about the industry's demands ought to suffice to
prove David the liar here, hmm?
David Johnston
2010-09-04 04:40:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Don't be ridiculous. Without even looking you simply assume I'm lying,
You've already demonstrated that you can't find an instance where the
courts evaluated whether the goal of the provision was being met.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Don't be ridiculous. Without even looking you simply assume I'm lying,
You've already demonstrated that
Au contraire. I found TWO additional instances of the GAO investigating
copyright matters AND coming out at best ambivalent about, and generally
skeptical of, the position taken by the copyright-favoring industries.

That makes YOU the liar when you said "no there aren't" in response to my
"there are, I am sure, other instances" of that.

You now have zero, I repeat ZERO credibility, both in your ad hominem
claims about me and in your claims about copyright. You disagree on
matters of legal interpretation with a lawyer. You accuse me of lying --
outright lying -- in TWO cases where I produce evidence exonerating me of
the charge AND turning it right back around at you. You're finished in
this debate. It's time that you admitted it and moved on. Continuing can
only dig you into an even deeper hole.
David Johnston
2010-09-04 05:54:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:58:07 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Don't be ridiculous. Without even looking you simply assume I'm lying,
You've already demonstrated that
Au contraire. I found TWO additional instances of the GAO investigating
copyright matters
That's nice. But not relevant to the courts.
Wingnut
2010-09-05 03:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:58:07 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters.
(Here, they worked primarily to debunk studies done by
copyright-favoring industries; the industry studies used
questionable methodology and aimed to influence public policy with
their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Don't be ridiculous. Without even looking you simply assume I'm lying,
You've already demonstrated that
Au contraire. I found TWO additional instances of the GAO investigating
copyright matters
That's nice.
So, you're "no there aren't" has been proven to be a lie and all you can
say for yourself is "that's nice"? Not "I'm sorry, I really shouldn't
have lied/jumped to conclusions" or even "Aww, shit, caught again, I
really should have at least done a cursory Google and seen if there WERE
more GAO reports on copyright before opening my damn-fool mouth and
making a usenet post asserting that there was only the one"?

Have you no shame, nor even the slightest bit of contrition?
David Johnston
2010-09-05 04:03:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:54:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:58:07 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 04:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:59:48 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:43:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
http://questioncopyright.org/us_govt_study_debunks_piracy_claims
Click through to the GAO report if you're curious about their methodology.
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters.
(Here, they worked primarily to debunk studies done by
copyright-favoring industries; the industry studies used
questionable methodology and aimed to influence public policy with
their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
Don't be ridiculous. Without even looking you simply assume I'm lying,
You've already demonstrated that
Au contraire. I found TWO additional instances of the GAO investigating
copyright matters
That's nice.
So, you're "no there aren't" has been proven to be a lie
What I denied was that the courts were investigating to determine
whether the intended goal of the provision was being achieved. Other
agencies and organizations can do all the investigation they want but
it doesn't have anything to do with the question of whether the courts
are regarding the statement of intent as being an enforceable element
of the law. It's just not relevant.
Wingnut
2010-09-05 04:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:54:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
So, you're "no there aren't" has been proven to be a lie
What I denied was that the courts were investigating
Not true at all.

The post in question, <***@4ax.com>, is at

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/17fd79fbae988061
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
The "No there aren't" clearly is a rebuttal of "there are, I am sure,
other instances", which I wrote. In turn, the "other instances" there can
only refer to what is in the paragraph at the top of the quote, saying
"this is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters". Further,
"such matters" is, in the message's thread-context, clearly in reference
to copyright.

So what you denied was *clearly* that there existed more than one GAO
report on copyright. Not that the courts were investigating anything.
That the GAO had investigated any more.

I found two more GAO reports on copyright. That makes three instances.
That means there are at least two more instances than the one. That makes
my statement correct and your mindless, knee-jerk "no there aren't"
response INcorrect.

The more you wriggle and squirm instead of either conceding this point or
simply shutting up, the worse it looks for you. Why can't you see that?

Or do you, and your constant nagging posting on this matter serves some
unseen goal of yours that is even more important to you than preserving
some shreds of credibility and dignity?
David Johnston
2010-09-05 04:42:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:54:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
So, you're "no there aren't" has been proven to be a lie
What I denied was that the courts were investigating
Not true at all.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/17fd79fbae988061
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters. (Here,
they worked primarily to debunk studies done by copyright-favoring
industries; the industry studies used questionable methodology and
aimed to influence public policy with their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
The "No there aren't" clearly is a rebuttal of "there are, I am sure,
other instances",
Actually that's a denial that that there are _any_ instances. That
GAO report and all the others? They are not instances of the Courts
taking cognizance of the question of whether the goal of the provision
is being achieved. Bringing it up is an irrelevant smokescreen.
'
Wingnut
2010-09-06 03:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:54:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
So, you're "no there aren't" has been proven to be a lie
What I denied was that the courts were investigating
Not true at all.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/17fd79fbae988061
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters.
(Here, they worked primarily to debunk studies done by
copyright-favoring industries; the industry studies used
questionable methodology and aimed to influence public policy with
their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
The "No there aren't" clearly is a rebuttal of "there are, I am sure,
other instances",
Actually that's a denial that that there are _any_ instances.
So you're claiming that all three of these:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10828r.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10428r.pdf

are figments of my imagination? Other people can read this thread and
click on those links, you know. I suppose you hope they'll think that the
pages of reports they'll see instead of 404 errors are hallucinations?

If I were you, I would not pin my hopes on such a slim chance. You're
more likely to get richer than Bill Gates by buying 100 lottery tickets
in 100 successive weeks and winning the jackpot all 100 times than you
are to convince more than a handful of people (all of those completely
crazy) via pure rhetoric that the three linked-to GAO reports don't
actually exist.
David Johnston
2010-09-06 04:27:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 03:43:40 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 04:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 03:54:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
So, you're "no there aren't" has been proven to be a lie
What I denied was that the courts were investigating
Not true at all.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/17fd79fbae988061
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters.
(Here, they worked primarily to debunk studies done by
copyright-favoring industries; the industry studies used
questionable methodology and aimed to influence public policy with
their bogus data.)
And
And there are, I am sure, other instances
No there aren't.
The "No there aren't" clearly is a rebuttal of "there are, I am sure,
other instances",
Actually that's a denial that that there are _any_ instances.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10828r.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10428r.pdf
are figments of my imagination?
No, that's not what I'm claiming.
Wingnut
2010-09-06 04:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
This is *one* instance of the GAO investigating such matters.
(Here, they worked primarily to debunk studies done by
copyright-favoring industries; the industry studies used
questionable methodology and aimed to influence public policy
with their bogus data.) [that was me]
And [David]
And there are, I am sure, other instances [me again, etc.]
No there aren't.
The "No there aren't" clearly is a rebuttal of "there are, I am sure,
other instances",
Actually that's a denial that that there are _any_ instances.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10828r.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10428r.pdf
are figments of my imagination?
No, that's not what I'm claiming.
I don't really even need to reply to this. It speaks for itself, in
context.

Goodbye, troll. I guess it's been fun. For you at least.
Thanatos
2010-09-01 10:49:33 UTC
Permalink
As I was not arguing that topic, I can only conclude you're not that
bright in waiting for me to address it and that you're in for a long
haul.
Actually, "in for a long wait" would make more sense here. "In for a long
haul" means a long journey of some sort
Well, knowing Kerman, it'll turn into one before this is over.
Adam H. Kerman
2010-09-01 11:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
As I was not arguing that topic, I can only conclude you're not that
bright in waiting for me to address it and that you're in for a long
haul.
Actually, "in for a long wait" would make more sense here. "In for a long
haul" means a long journey of some sort
Well, knowing Kerman, it'll turn into one before this is over.
Now you're taking lessons in using idioms from Wingy?
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Thanatos
As I was not arguing that topic, I can only conclude you're not that
bright in waiting for me to address it and that you're in for a long
haul.
Actually, "in for a long wait" would make more sense here. "In for a
long haul" means a long journey of some sort
Well, knowing Kerman, it'll turn into one before this is over.
Now you're taking lessons in using idioms from Wingy?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Thanatos
2010-09-01 10:48:25 UTC
Permalink
The whole purpose of copyright is not to provide an income for
anyone,
which you put as your first clause. It is to benefit society by
promoting progress in science and art. If those goals are not
being
promoted by the law as it stands, then arguably, the law is
unconstitutional.
Flowerly-sounding language in law and constitutions typically is
not
mandatory language.
LOL! I'd love to see your legal citation for that principle of
statutory construction.
Huh? Can you provide us with any example of an unconstitutional
statute in which the ruling was based on failure to achieve stated
goal?
I thought we were talking about the legally void nature of
"flowerly-sounding language".
Why don't you read what I actually wrote?
I didn't say it was "legally void", which it is not. But it's not
a mandate, either. There is a legal term for such language, but it
escapes me.
Well, after earning a law degree and practicing for years, I've never
heard of it. It would be amusing in the extreme to watch a court try
and
come up with a workable and legally binding definition for
"flowerly-sounding language".
I see. So you've never heard of expository language in a statute, such
as when the legislature begins a law with its findings, that preceeds
the
mandatory language. What kind of a lawyer were you?
The kind who knows there's no legal exception for "flowerly-sounding
language".
Expository language is not found in the statute itself. It's usually
introductory in nature, found before the statute begins.
This language makes it into codifications and restatements of
federal and state law all the time.
In the Constitution, that would be the Preamble. Once you get to the
actual Articles and Amendments, there is no expository language.
Still waiting for you to come up with an actual example of a ruling
finding a law unconstitutional for the result of the law not meeting
stated legislative goals.
As I was not arguing that topic, I can only conclude you're not that
bright in waiting for me to address it and that you're in for a long
haul.
You've made some absurd statements in this thread, like about construing
conflicting statutory language and going with the later provisions over
the earlier provisions. Yes, that's true when two different statutes
conflict (or when there's conflicting language in a single statute,
less common), but the Constitution is read as one document.
No, it's not. The Bill of Rights (and indeed all the amendments)
supersede any conflicting provisions in the body of the document. And
the 18th and the 21st Amendments would have equal effect if everything
in the Constitution were given equal weight.
You're being deliberately vague in your attacks and trying to get away
with it by playing a lawyer on Usenet.
I'm not "playing lawyer". I'm talking about the law. This conversation
is far too imprecise and unstructured to be fairly described as lawyerly.
Are you one in real life?
Yes.
Could have sworn you claimed you were a policeman.
You might want to look into the percentage of licensed attorneys that
make up federal law enforcement.
I find it fucking annoying
I'm aggressively disinterested in what you do and do not find annoying.
and don't grant you any expertise
Then it's a good thing I'm not dependent on grants of any kind from you.
you claim because what you're saying just doesn't sound right.
If not sounding right is the standard for lack of credibility, yours hit
rock bottom long ago.
Gah.
Might want to get that looked at.
Thanatos
2010-09-01 10:54:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 15:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit. But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.
trag
2010-09-01 16:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.  
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.  
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
states:

===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========

So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the
statement, "[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited
times to authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?

What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends? Or some other completely arbitrary use of
the power? Or could they grant exclusive rights with the goal of
restricting progress in some art or science?

Congress only has the power to secure these exclusive rights because
they're given that power in the constitution? Right? If the progress
clause wasn't there, would congress have any power to secure such
exclusive rights? Or could they grab it under the all-encompassing
Commerce Clause?

So, assuming the power only exists because it is granted in this
clause, can that power be used in a way that directly contravenes the
clause?

Regardless of the legal reality, I think that current copyright law is
wildly in violation of the spirit of the progress clause. I also
think that the fact that the patent office does not require sufficient
documentation to reproduce each patented invention is also a violation
of the sprit of the clause. How is it progress for society, if a
patented item can be essentially treated as a trade secret such that
no one else can benefit from the advancement of the art, or even
understand the art, after the patent expires?

The fact that so many people seem to believe that there's an inherent
property right in creative works doesn't help. Once you've shared an
idea with others, it is not just your idea any more. It is now in
other minds too, regardless of who thought of it first.
David Johnston
2010-09-01 18:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.  
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.  
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the
statement, "[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited
times to authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course
the political consequences.

Or some other completely arbitrary use of
Post by trag
the power? Or could they grant exclusive rights with the goal of
restricting progress in some art or science?
Nothing would stop them...except political consequences and other
constitutional provisions.
Thanatos
2010-09-01 22:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.  
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.  
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the
statement, "[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited
times to authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course
the political consequences.
Or some other completely arbitrary use of
Post by trag
the power? Or could they grant exclusive rights with the goal of
restricting progress in some art or science?
Nothing would stop them...except political consequences and other
constitutional provisions.
Well, feel free to implement your novel legal theories when they swear
you onto the Court. Until then, I suspect we'll continue to operate as
we always have.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 00:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.  
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.  
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the
statement, "[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited
times to authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course
the political consequences.
Or some other completely arbitrary use of
Post by trag
the power? Or could they grant exclusive rights with the goal of
restricting progress in some art or science?
Nothing would stop them...except political consequences and other
constitutional provisions.
Well, feel free to implement your novel legal theories when they swear
you onto the Court.
Novel? Kindly cite the occasion where the Supreme Court ruled on
against Congress on the grounds that "to promote the progress of
science and useful arts" was not being complied with.
Thanatos
2010-09-02 00:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.  
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.  
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the
statement, "[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited
times to authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course
the political consequences.
Or some other completely arbitrary use of
Post by trag
the power? Or could they grant exclusive rights with the goal of
restricting progress in some art or science?
Nothing would stop them...except political consequences and other
constitutional provisions.
Well, feel free to implement your novel legal theories when they swear
you onto the Court.
Novel? Kindly cite the occasion where the Supreme Court ruled on
against Congress on the grounds that "to promote the progress of
science and useful arts" was not being complied with.
Your novel legal theories don't extend to just this one issue, as you
amply demonstrated elsewhere in the thread.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording
of the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court
rules on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the statement,
"[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited times to authors
and inventors exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote the progress
of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
No.
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course the
political consequences.
And that pesky li'l First Amendment.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 04:47:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:27:04 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording
of the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court
rules on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it doesn't
tell people to do or not do anything.
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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;
===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the statement,
"[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited times to authors
and inventors exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote the progress
of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
No.
So you are telling me that is not my claim? What is my claim?
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course the
political consequences.
And that pesky li'l First Amendment.
If it did, that would come other the classification of "other
constitutional provisions". But I doubt that the First Amendent would
have any bearing since it doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to
make money from your speech.
Wingnut
2010-09-02 05:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 04:27:04 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording
of the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court
rules on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.  But even
if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because it
doesn't tell people to do or not do anything.
Let's see if I understand the position here. The (USA) constitution
===========
[The Congress shall have power to] 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; ===========
So, David, if I understand you, you're claiming that only the
statement, "[The Congress shall have power to] secure for limited
times to authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries" has any weight. And the clause "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts" is meaninglesss?
Yes.
No.
So you are telling me that is not my claim?
No, I am telling you that that clause is not meaningless.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Wingnut
Post by David Johnston
Post by trag
What if congress secures exclusive rights for the sole purpose of
benefiting their friends?
Then the only thing that will stop them are other constitutional
provisions about things like equality under the law. And of course
the political consequences.
And that pesky li'l First Amendment.
If it did, that would come other the classification of "other
constitutional provisions".
Well, "other constitutional provisions" is kind of understating things a
little.
Post by David Johnston
But I doubt that the First Amendent would have any bearing since it
doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to make money from your speech.
Irrelevant. Copyright being used to suppress unauthorized "derivative
works" is a free speech issue, not a money issue.
Thanatos
2010-09-01 22:01:28 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by trag
Regardless of the legal reality, I think that current copyright law is
wildly in violation of the spirit of the progress clause.
Most of what comes out of Congress these days is wildly in violation of
the spirit of the entire Constitution.

A lot of these guys don't even care what the Constitution says and
openly admit it.
Thanatos
2010-09-01 21:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.
Umm... no. They didn't rule that that language was legally meaningless.
They ruled that extending copyright doesn't violate it.
Post by David Johnston
But even if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because
it doesn't tell people to do or not do anything.
Using that criteria, the entire 10th Amendment is "legally meaningless".

But in any event, you *still* can't know if that specific language is
legally meaningless until the Supreme Court says so.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 00:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:47:16 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court rules
on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.
Umm... no. They didn't rule that that language was legally meaningless.
They ruled that extending copyright doesn't violate it.
Because of course you can't violate a legally meaningless provision.
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
But even if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because
it doesn't tell people to do or not do anything.
Using that criteria, the entire 10th Amendment is "legally meaningless".
Your point being?
Thanatos
2010-09-02 00:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme
Court rules on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.
Umm... no. They didn't rule that that language was legally meaningless.
They ruled that extending copyright doesn't violate it.
Because of course you can't violate a legally meaningless provision.
The point is, they didn't *rule* it such.

Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that point.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
But even if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because
it doesn't tell people to do or not do anything.
Using that criteria, the entire 10th Amendment is "legally meaningless".
Your point being?
Oh dear lord...
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court
rules on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.
Umm... no. They didn't rule that that language was legally
meaningless. They ruled that extending copyright doesn't violate it.
Because of course you can't violate a legally meaningless provision.
The point is, they didn't *rule* it such.
Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that point.
Because either he's a moron, he's a nut, or he's a troll. I'm now leaning
heavily towards the latter.
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
But even if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because
it doesn't tell people to do or not do anything.
Using that criteria, the entire 10th Amendment is "legally
meaningless".
Your point being?
Oh dear lord...
See?
Thanatos
2010-09-02 10:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Which is of course, legally meaningless.
Which, of course, you can't possibly know until the Supreme Court
rules on that particular issue one way or the other.
It ruled on that issue when it decided that it was within Congress's
authority to keep extending copyright terms without limit.
Umm... no. They didn't rule that that language was legally
meaningless. They ruled that extending copyright doesn't violate it.
Because of course you can't violate a legally meaningless provision.
The point is, they didn't *rule* it such.
Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that point.
Because either he's a moron, he's a nut, or he's a troll. I'm now leaning
heavily towards the latter.
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
Post by Thanatos
Post by David Johnston
But even if it hadn't the clause would still be meaningless because
it doesn't tell people to do or not do anything.
Using that criteria, the entire 10th Amendment is "legally
meaningless".
Your point being?
Oh dear lord...
See?
Yep.
trag
2010-09-01 16:07:55 UTC
Permalink
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front.   Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same.    The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front.  That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO.  Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
You're saying that people weren't aware of the difference in quality,
and were attempting to use Zip drives for purposes in which reliability
was critical?
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.

And yes, many folks stored their Windows "Documents" directory backups
on ZIP disks. That was not at all uncommon back in the 90s.
I saw people use Zip drivers to transfer data on mostly a one-time use
basis, replacing floppies that we might have carried with us in years
past or one-time laser disk burns when very little would fit on a single
floppy any more.
Who used it for mission-critical stuff? Contrarily, who would have used
the much more expensive system for one-time transfers?
Adam H. Kerman
2010-09-01 17:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front. Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same. The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front. That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO. Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
You're saying that people weren't aware of the difference in quality,
and were attempting to use Zip drives for purposes in which reliability
was critical?
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
And yes, many folks stored their Windows "Documents" directory backups
on ZIP disks. That was not at all uncommon back in the 90s.
I assume they learned not to do thta the first time an archive failed, if
they had as bad an experience with them as you say.
Anim8rFSK
2010-09-01 18:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by trag
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front. Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same. The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front. That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO. Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
You're saying that people weren't aware of the difference in quality,
and were attempting to use Zip drives for purposes in which reliability
was critical?
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
And yes, many folks stored their Windows "Documents" directory backups
on ZIP disks. That was not at all uncommon back in the 90s.
I assume they learned not to do thta the first time an archive failed, if
they had as bad an experience with them as you say.
LOL, no, nobody ever learns from a failure, they figure it's like
lightning, won't happen twice.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Dragon Lady
2010-09-02 23:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by trag
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front. Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same. The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front. That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO. Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
You're saying that people weren't aware of the difference in quality,
and were attempting to use Zip drives for purposes in which reliability
was critical?
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
And yes, many folks stored their Windows "Documents" directory backups
on ZIP disks. That was not at all uncommon back in the 90s.
I assume they learned not to do thta the first time an archive failed, if
they had as bad an experience with them as you say.
LOL, no, nobody ever learns from a failure, they figure it's like
lightning, won't happen twice.
Wouldn't *that* have put Microsoft out of business!
Dimensional Traveler
2010-09-01 19:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front. Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same. The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front. That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO. Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
You're saying that people weren't aware of the difference in quality,
and were attempting to use Zip drives for purposes in which reliability
was critical?
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
In this case compatibility with what everyone else is already using is a
consideration as well.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Adam H. Kerman
2010-09-01 20:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by trag
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front. Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same. The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front. That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO. Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
You're saying that people weren't aware of the difference in quality,
and were attempting to use Zip drives for purposes in which reliability
was critical?
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
In this case compatibility with what everyone else is already using is a
consideration as well.
Exactly. These things were used in lieu of burning CD-R's or CD-RW's, which
as we all recall come in several varieties.
trag
2010-09-02 15:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by trag
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry.  People buy what is cheap to buy up front.  If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
In this case compatibility with what everyone else is already using is a
consideration as well.
But when adoption first started, it wasn't what everyone else was
using. There was a time, back around '95 when the market could have
gone either way. However the lower cost of entry for the ZIP meant
it was more feasible to stick one in new computers as compared to the
more expensive MO drives.

Yet paying more up front would have saved most people money in the
long run or at least made it a wash with more reliable media into the
bargain.
David Johnston
2010-09-02 18:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by trag
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry.  People buy what is cheap to buy up front.  If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
In this case compatibility with what everyone else is already using is a
consideration as well.
But when adoption first started, it wasn't what everyone else was
using. There was a time, back around '95 when the market could have
gone either way. However the lower cost of entry for the ZIP meant
it was more feasible to stick one in new computers as compared to the
more expensive MO drives.
Yet paying more up front would have saved most people money in the
long run
So then most zip drives massively failed? How would it actually have
saved most of them money?
trag
2010-09-03 21:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by trag
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry.  People buy what is cheap to buy up front.  If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
In this case compatibility with what everyone else is already using is a
consideration as well.
But when adoption first started, it wasn't what everyone else was
using.  There was a time, back around '95 when the market could have
gone either way.   However the lower cost of entry for the ZIP meant
it was more feasible to stick one in new computers as compared to the
more expensive MO drives.
Yet paying more up front would have saved most people money in the
long run
So then most zip drives massively failed?  How would it actually have
saved most of them money?
If they ever bought ten or more pieces of media it would have been
cheaper to buy an MO drive. With the caveat that that's ten pieces of
media for capacity as opposed to ten pieces of media distributed to
different recipients.
Snarktopus
2010-09-01 20:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
I'm saying that even when folks were aware that MO was superior and
had a lower cost to own, they didn't care, because all that matters is
cost of entry. People buy what is cheap to buy up front. If it costs
more to own in the long run either through monetary costs or
difficulty of use or lack of reliability, they rarely factor that into
their decision.
This could have something to do with the fact that most people have a
limited amount of cash on hand at any given time, but a steady income,
so they can easily pay a large amount in small chunks and not so easily
pay a mid-sized amount in one lump sum.

Same reason people will charge stuff to credit cards or lease-to-own
stuff when the long run price is going to be higher due to interest
payments than if they paid the full price up front.
Micky DuPree
2010-09-01 23:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Jack Bohn <***@bright.net> writes:

: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:57:31 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
: <***@chinet.com> wrote:

:: I thought the Japanese wouldn't refer to animation produced by a
:: studio elsewhere in the world as anime.
:
: Again, I'm told they do: The Simpsons, Asterix, Akira, Betty Boop; all
: "anime" to them. (All "cartoons" to me.)

Correct. The Japanese expression for what we call 'anime' in English is
more specific: _nihon no anime_, meaning "Japan's animation" or
"animation of Japan." The particle _no_ (at least at the level of
introductory Japanese, which is what I took a while back) marks the
previous word as serving a genitive or possessive function, though you
may have to interpret the possessive very figuratively. (The particle
_wa_ denotes the nominative case. The particle _o_ denotes the
accusative case. I forget how the dative is handled. My _sensei_ was
upset at my case observations, but at the introductory level, I didn't
see a single exception to these rules.)

-Micky
Wingnut
2010-09-02 04:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
: Again, I'm told they do: The Simpsons, Asterix, Akira, Betty Boop; all
: "anime" to them. (All "cartoons" to me.)
Correct. The Japanese expression for what we call 'anime' in English is
more specific: _nihon no anime_, meaning "Japan's animation" or
"animation of Japan." The particle _no_ (at least at the level of
introductory Japanese, which is what I took a while back) marks the
previous word as serving a genitive or possessive function, though you
may have to interpret the possessive very figuratively. (The particle
_wa_ denotes the nominative case. The particle _o_ denotes the
accusative case. I forget how the dative is handled. My _sensei_ was
upset at my case observations, but at the introductory level, I didn't
see a single exception to these rules.)
Why should he get upset about a student noticing patterns in the subject
material? That doesn't strike me as optimal behavior for a teacher in any
field.
Micky DuPree
2010-09-01 23:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Wingnut <***@hotmail.invalid> writes:

: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:34:09 +0100, Angus Rodgers wrote:

:: [In Japanese:]
::
:: yubotu = "U-boat" = submarine!
:: aisukurimu = ice cream!
:
: Interesting the way a "u" got added after every consonant that wasn't
: followed immediately by a vowel.

Japanese is considered to be composed of syllables. A vowel may be
considered a valid syllable on its own, but not most consonants. What
we think of as consonants in the West usually have to be paired with
vowels in order to be considered valid syllables. When the Japanese
want to "spell" out a word rather than use the ideograms borrowed from
the Chinese (in telegrams, for example, or for introductory writing for
children or foreigners), they use prescribed symbols called _kana_ that
mostly stand for whole syllables (largely composed of one consonant
followed by one vowel when transcribed to the Roman alphabet) rather
than representing what we would consider individual letters in the West.

When the Japanese language borrows a foreign loan word, it requires a
syllabic "spelling" to conform to these rules. If consonants are shoved
together in the foreign word, they need to be separated, most often by a
"u" sound. As it turns out, though, the "u" and "i" sounds are
sometimes said to be "whispered" (which to my foreign ears was almost
the equivalent of what's known as a silent vowel in English or French),
so while foreign loan words may get "spelled" with extra "u" sounds, the
pronunciation may skip over those extra "u" sounds. Or not. It varies.

I can't remember any foreign examples offhand, but I have heard the
popular Japanese dish sukiyaki pronounced "s'kee-yah-kee" by a native.
Either way it's pronounced, though, it gets spelled the same way: with
four kana for "su," "ki," "ya," and another "ki." I don't know what the
_kanji_ (ideograms) for it are.

The only exception to the "no unaccompanied consonants" rule that I can
remember after all these years is the trailing "n" sound. So the
Japanese word for "Japan" is _nihon_ or sometimes _nippon_, not _nihonu_
or _nipponu_.

Probably off-topic, but I thought someone might be interested.

-Micky
Micky DuPree
2010-09-02 19:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:

: On 8/29/2010 7:02 AM, Thanatos wrote:

:: In article<ANIM8Rfsk-***@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
:: Anim8rFSK<***@cox.net> wrote:

::: In article<atropos-***@news.giganews.com>,
::: Thanatos<***@mac.com> wrote:

:::: Why shouldn't everyone have a similar right to Mickey Mouse?
:::
::: Why should they?
::
:: Because it's our shared culture.
:
: So they shouldn't be rewarded for adding to our culture? Copyright
: should be revoked as soon as something becomes popular and/or widely
: recognized?

Why are you implying that the only choices are between zero copyright and
infinite copyright? The Disney empire has been rewarded for Mickey Mouse
for almost 82 years. Should that be extended forever? Do you think that
artists will stop creating if they can only get 82 years' worth of
exclusive profit out of a work?

Notice I said "exclusive" profit. Ending exclusivity wouldn't mean that
the Disney corporation couldn't continue to make profitable Mickey Mouse
cartoons. Disney is an established and trusted brand for certain types
of entertainment. They could still get profit off of Mickey Mouse just
by virtue of maintaining their brand standards, i.e., by marketplace
merit rather than by government restriction. But if the copyright on
Mickey Mouse were to lapse tomorrow, and their profits from that one
character shrank (not that they'd disappear, just shrink), well, 82
years is still a long time, and it would provide more incentive for them
to create the next Mickey-Mouse-sized idea.

Walt Disney didn't create Mickey Mouse when he had a fantastically
profitable megacorporate empire. He created it when he was still
relatively young and hungry for success. Furthermore, he created it at
a time when the total term of copyright that he could expect for it was
56 years. Evidently, 56 years were plenty enough incentive to produce
one of the most popular fictitious characters of the modern age. And
that's assuming that Disney's primary motivation in creating Mickey
Mouse was milking it exclusively for profit for 56 years, rather than
what I suspect were his motives of putting food on the table for the
next few years, financing his next venture, having something that he
could point to and be proud of, and having something he'd be comfortable
showing to his children and grandchildren to come.

It's a good thing the writer of the original _Hamlet_ wasn't able to
squelch Shakespeare's version because of copyright infringement. Though
the original version has been lost to time, by all accounts,
Shakespeare's version was superior.

It's also a good thing for both the copyright holders and their
potential audience that we do not trust the reflexive impulse of
Disney, Universal, etc. to rigidly restrict intellectual material. If
we had, we wouldn't be allowed to have home video recording ability
today (as the famous Betamax court case attests), only restricted
playback capability or pay-per-view.

-Micky
Remysun
2010-09-06 05:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
It's also a good thing for both the copyright holders and their
potential audience that we do not trust the reflexive impulse of
Disney, Universal, etc. to rigidly restrict intellectual material.  If
we had, we wouldn't be allowed to have home video recording ability
today (as the famous Betamax court case attests), only restricted
playback capability or pay-per-view.
Although it hasn't stopped them from trying, Micky. Macrovision, Divx,
iTunes, that premium Hulu.
Anim8rFSK
2010-09-06 14:31:52 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Remysun
Post by Micky DuPree
It's also a good thing for both the copyright holders and their
potential audience that we do not trust the reflexive impulse of
Disney, Universal, etc. to rigidly restrict intellectual material.  If
we had, we wouldn't be allowed to have home video recording ability
today (as the famous Betamax court case attests), only restricted
playback capability or pay-per-view.
Although it hasn't stopped them from trying, Micky. Macrovision, Divx,
iTunes, that premium Hulu.
Regular Hulu blocks certain users, like those with PS3s.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Dragon Lady
2010-09-02 23:15:37 UTC
Permalink
The point is, crap sells. Price is all that matters, not quality,
except to collectors.
Yes, my favorite, somewhat obscure, example is the Zip drive. I
like this example because the quality comparison is clearly
supportable by numbers, unlike some of the comparisons of Microsoft
software to competitor software.
Back in the mid'ish 90s when the Zip drive came out, it cost about
$125 to buy one, media for the drive was about $10 - $15 each and the
media held about 100 MB of usable capacity. The drives and media
were notoriously unreliable (see "Click of Death". They were also
wildly popular.
At the same point in time, one could buy a magneto-optical drive for
about $250 - $300. The media for the MO drive cost about $10 - $15
each and had a capacity of about 600 MB of usable space (640 MB
nominal). The magneto optical drives and media were exceedingly
reliable. Even if your drive failed, your media would be fine at a
rate so close to 100% it's scary.
Yet, hardly anyone even knows what MO technology was/is. Why?
The Zip drive cost a lot less up front. Eventually the Zip drive
would drop under $100 and the MO drive would drop to about $200, but
the media prices stayed about the same. The total cost of ownership
was likely to be lower with the MO if one used much media at all.
The ZIP drive cost a lot less to purchase up front. That appears to
be the only reason Zip won over MO. Zips entry cost was lower, even
though it's total cost of ownership was higher, tremendously higher if
one factors data loss into the costs.
There's another factor involved here. Advertising. I never even heard of
the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero problems with
it, however. Of course, by the time I got it, they'd been around for
several years. I never buy new technology when it first comes out, because
if you wait, you now only know what you're getting into, but the price goes
down.
Tony Calguire
2010-09-03 01:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
There's another factor involved here. Advertising. I never even heard
of the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero
problems with it, however. Of course, by the time I got it, they'd
been around for several years. I never buy new technology when it
first comes out, because if you wait, you now only know what you're
getting into, but the price goes down.
MO drives were marketed under a different name. I can't remember it
offhand, but I remember wanting one. I never did get one, but it was only
a few years after the Zip drive craze that CD-R and CD-RW became cheap and
commonplace.

Googling... Wiki-ing...

OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
James Sidbury
2010-09-03 03:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Calguire
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
I don't think that's right. Superdisks were about the same size as zip
drives. I have a Castlewood Orb drive and three or 4 disks. They were
about 2.2 GB each and when the disk was inserted in the drive air was
pumped out to create a partial vacuum. It was a scsi drive with a
parallel to scsi interface. These drives were not MO either however. If
you're curious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlewood_Orb_Drive

dick
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 11:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Calguire
Post by Dragon Lady
There's another factor involved here. Advertising. I never even heard
of the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero
problems with it, however. Of course, by the time I got it, they'd
been around for several years. I never buy new technology when it
first comes out, because if you wait, you now only know what you're
getting into, but the price goes down.
MO drives were marketed under a different name. I can't remember it
offhand, but I remember wanting one. I never did get one, but it was only
a few years after the Zip drive craze that CD-R and CD-RW became cheap and
commonplace.
Googling... Wiki-ing...
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
Well, at least I've heard of the companies. But I still never heard of the
product until now. Maybe they weren't marketed to the general public?
trag
2010-09-03 21:12:48 UTC
Permalink
There's another factor involved here. Advertising.  I never even heard
of the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero
problems with it, however.  Of course, by the time I got it, they'd
been around for several years.  I never buy new technology when it
first comes out, because if you wait, you now only know what you're
getting into, but the price goes down.
MO drives were marketed under a different name.  I can't remember it
offhand, but I remember wanting one.  I never did get one, but it was only  
a few years after the Zip drive craze that CD-R and CD-RW became cheap and
commonplace.
Googling... Wiki-ing...
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
Those were one of the early MO drives. Several companies made MO
drives and by the time of the introduction of the ZIP the capacity was
up to 640 MB.
Mac Breck
2010-09-04 02:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
There's another factor involved here. Advertising. I never even
heard of the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had
zero problems with it, however. Of course, by the time I got it,
they'd been around for several years. I never buy new technology
when it first comes out, because if you wait, you now only know
what you're getting into, but the price goes down.
MO drives were marketed under a different name. I can't remember it
offhand, but I remember wanting one. I never did get one, but it was
only
a few years after the Zip drive craze that CD-R and CD-RW became cheap and
commonplace.
Googling... Wiki-ing...
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
Those were one of the early MO drives.
MO standing for what? Never heard of it.
Post by trag
Several companies made MO
drives and by the time of the introduction of the ZIP the capacity was
up to 640 MB.
Zip had 100MB and 250MB, and then along came Jaz Drives , first 1GB and
then 2GB Jaz, with all of that being being surpassed by CF cards (which
I still use via PCMCIA adapters in an old laptop, 8MB to 4GB, as
super-floppies.), other card types, and now USB 2.0 Flash Drives (2GB to
16GB, which I use on the desktop PC).
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Max Eilerson: "The story of my life. I finally find a city like this,
intact, deserted for ten thousand years. Probably contains hundreds of
patents that I could exploit and I'm going to die. I can appreciate
dramatic irony as much as the next person, but this is pushing it a
bit."
Zombie Elvis
2010-09-04 03:01:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 22:22:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Post by trag
Post by Tony Calguire
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
Those were one of the early MO drives.
MO standing for what? Never heard of it.
Magneto-optical?
Mac Breck
2010-09-04 15:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zombie Elvis
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 22:22:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Post by trag
Post by Tony Calguire
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
Those were one of the early MO drives.
MO standing for what? Never heard of it.
Magneto-optical?
D'oh!!! :-O
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Max Eilerson: "The story of my life. I finally find a city like this,
intact, deserted for ten thousand years. Probably contains hundreds of
patents that I could exploit and I'm going to die. I can appreciate
dramatic irony as much as the next person, but this is pushing it a
bit."
Wingnut
2010-09-04 03:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by trag
There's another factor involved here. Advertising. I never even heard
of the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero
problems with it, however. Of course, by the time I got it, they'd
been around for several years. I never buy new technology when it
first comes out, because if you wait, you now only know what you're
getting into, but the price goes down.
MO drives were marketed under a different name. I can't remember it
offhand, but I remember wanting one. I never did get one, but it was
only
a few years after the Zip drive craze that CD-R and CD-RW became cheap and
commonplace.
Googling... Wiki-ing...
OK, the MO drives were made by Imation, a 3M spinoff company, and were
called SuperDisk, or LS-120 disks.
Those were one of the early MO drives.
MO standing for what?
Magneto-optical.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by trag
Several companies made MO
drives and by the time of the introduction of the ZIP the capacity was
up to 640 MB.
Zip had 100MB and 250MB, and then along came Jaz Drives , first 1GB and
then 2GB Jaz, with all of that being being surpassed by CF cards (which
I still use via PCMCIA adapters in an old laptop, 8MB to 4GB, as
super-floppies.), other card types, and now USB 2.0 Flash Drives (2GB to
16GB, which I use on the desktop PC).
There are 32GB USB drives out there now.

Flash cards and USB drives have pretty much killed the floppy, the Zip/
Jaz drive, and all those other things. And DVD-RW has pretty much killed
CD-RW.

DVD-RW and Blu-Ray are next. Blu-Ray recordable is coming and eventually
will kill DVD-RW. Further, people already use that sort of thing mainly
for semi-permanent stuff (disks full of movies and music, backups, etc.)
and flash cards and USB drives are taking over for anything more
temporary (and for sneakernet). The other big use for optical still is
delivery of media created by big business -- video games, movies.

Not for long. We already have iTunes and Steam and gradually fattening
pipes. 32GB thumb drives exceed the capacity of BD-ROMs and are smaller.
Whenever the movie industry gives up the war on "piracy" and realizes
they can survive even if they do have to compete with unauthorized free
downloads (indeed, have been for several years now without realizing it)
they may decide to distribute on such media, once they get cheap enough.
(Right now a mass produced BD has a much lower marginal cost than a
decent-capacity flash memory, but that will change).

Fat enough, ubiquitous enough internet pipes could put paid to all of
this someday though.
trag
2010-09-03 21:11:30 UTC
Permalink
There's another factor involved here. Advertising.  I never even heard of
the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero problems with
it, however.  Of course, by the time I got it, they'd been around for
several years.  I never buy new technology when it first comes out, because
if you wait, you now only know what you're getting into, but the price goes
down.
I don't remember, but I doubt that Iomega spent much money advertising
the ZIP drive either, at first.

At the time of it's introduction in '94 (I think) Iomega's stock price
had dropped to about $.30 per share. Within a year or two of
introducing the ZIP drive and seeing it incorporated into all manner
of new computers, Iomega's stock climbed to over $30 per share.
There's a stock buy for you time travelers out there.

Anyway, point is, I don't think they had any money for advertising but
I don't specifically remember it's lack. If we cared enough we could
go look through the computer magazines from 94 and 95...

I suspect that what happened is they struck some deals to get their
drives incorporated as a build option at Dell or Gateway or some such
or perhaps through the university market.

MO is a technology, not a brand name. Companies such as Sony and
Fujitsu and Pinnacle made 640 MB MO drives, but they had been around
for years before that in the 128 and 230 MB capacities. The 640 MB
capacity was the one that happened to be co-chronic with the ZIP
drive. That's the 3.5" 640MB drive, of course. It wouldn't be a
good comparison to use the 5.25" 640MB MO drive, as the form factor
was different and not as convenient. The 3.5" MO media was almost
identical in form factor to the 120 MB ZIP disk.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 03:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
There's another factor involved here. Advertising.  I never even heard
of the MO drive until now. I have a zip drive, and have had zero
problems with it, however.  Of course, by the time I got it, they'd
been around for several years.  I never buy new technology when it
first comes out, because if you wait, you now only know what you're
getting into, but the price goes down.
I don't remember, but I doubt that Iomega spent much money advertising
the ZIP drive either, at first.
At the time of it's introduction in '94 (I think) Iomega's stock price
had dropped to about $.30 per share. Within a year or two of
introducing the ZIP drive and seeing it incorporated into all manner of
new computers, Iomega's stock climbed to over $30 per share. There's a
stock buy for you time travelers out there.
Anyway, point is, I don't think they had any money for advertising but I
don't specifically remember it's lack.
Most likely they had little advertising budget so applied it with maximum
leverage by marketing to OEMs instead of directly to end-users; hence the
"seeing it incorporated into all manner of new computers" bit.

Microsoft cornered the desktop OS market partly by doing likewise. (A bit
different in that after a while there was enough demand for preinstalled
Windows that MS began to be able to dictate terms to OEMs too. And the
first demand was, stop selling preinstalls of any other OS. Especially
Linux.)
Dragon Lady
2010-09-02 23:32:16 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Will you give it a rest for now?! Why are you posting another blitz of
three or four half-baked pro-copyright posts to this thread every fucking
two minutes? I'm trying to get caught up on my usenet and each time I
reload to mark my own posts read, I find MORE stuff to correct -- I'm
actually falling behind instead of getting caught up and it's largely
because of you.
You know, nobody is forceing you to answer his posts except you. :P
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:10:22 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:36:00 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
In article
On Aug 30, 11:41 am, Horace LaBadie
In article
<fb734389-
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Copyright length appears to violate the copyright clause in
the United States Constitution, but the US Supreme Court
upheld the law.
The United States Constitution also does not set a specific
length for copyright protection.
But it does discuss the underlying reason/purpose that
copyright is provided for in the constitution and the length of
copy right now days would seem to directly violate that goal.
The goal of copyright is to provide an income for authors from
the creation of works, thereby encouraging people to create
original works of their own.
<laughng> No, the goal is to "To promote the progress of science
and useful arts".
If society can make no use of the writings and discoveries, then
progress is not being promoted. For that matter, one could argue
that entertainment does not fall under the guise of "useful arts".
:-)
The whole purpose of copyright is not to provide an income for
anyone, which you put as your first clause. It is to benefit
society by promoting progress in science and art. If those goals
are not being promoted by the law as it stands, then arguably, the
law is unconstitutional.
When works can be locked up for lifetimes or even restricted in
availability beyond the time barely necessary to promote their
creation, then the law is no longer promoting progress, but rather
retarding it.
"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;"
You cannot separate the means from the end.
Sure you can, and indeed you must, else you might pursue the means
even to the point of thwarting the end.
Isn't that why you can't separate them? So that you don't pursue the
means to the exclusion of the end?
It's why you can't lose sight of the end while pursuing the means. At
the same time, it's why you can't conflate the two and then later
substitute the means for the end as if it were the end, which is what
many of the pro-long-copyright-terms faction in this thread have been
doing.
Nope.
Yep. There have been several claims that the purpose of copyright is to
ensure an income for artists/authors, i.e. that that is the *ends* and
not *a means*. Those statements are incorrect.
I thought you'd finally come to realize that, but now it seems that
you're simply confused, since your statements aren't consistent over time
in evidencing understanding (or not) of this matter, nor do they show a
one-way trend of increased understanding.
The goal is to encourage the creation of new, original works by
guaranteeing that the authors will be able to make money by the
creation of those works.
Really? Then instead of a copyright there should be a taxpayer subsidy
for all creative endeavors.
The copyright is less expensive.
But it doesn't fit the alleged means of "guaranteeing that the authors
will be able to make money by the creation of those works".
Semantic quibbling.
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your point
is?
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their value
then? A free market? Copyright creates monopolies. The government?
Government doesn't (for the most part) set royalties/media prices (*or*
hand out subsidies).
So you are ignoring his meaning in favour of a literal construction so
that you can score a meaningless point.
No, I'm demonstrating a total inability to read minds, thus necessitating
going solely by what a person *said* regardless of what they may (or may
not) have *meant*. There is a difference.
I'm also exposing flaws in various (sometimes implicit) proposals on how
to fund creation of works. You may not like that, but reality doesn't
care what you don't like, and going with a flawed proposal always
eventually comes back to bite you whether or not you stick your head in
the sand. Look at the miserable failure of DRM or counter-file-sharing
lawsuits for examples.
Wingnut
2010-09-03 05:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:17:11 +0000, David Johnston wrote: [snip]
Will you give it a rest for now?! Why are you posting another blitz of
three or four half-baked pro-copyright posts to this thread every
fucking two minutes? I'm trying to get caught up on my usenet and each
time I reload to mark my own posts read, I find MORE stuff to correct
-- I'm actually falling behind instead of getting caught up and it's
largely because of you.
You know, nobody is forceing you to answer his posts except you. :P
Duty calls.

http://xkcd.com/386/
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 11:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:17:11 +0000, David Johnston wrote: [snip]
Will you give it a rest for now?! Why are you posting another blitz of
three or four half-baked pro-copyright posts to this thread every
fucking two minutes? I'm trying to get caught up on my usenet and each
time I reload to mark my own posts read, I find MORE stuff to correct
-- I'm actually falling behind instead of getting caught up and it's
largely because of you.
You know, nobody is forceing you to answer his posts except you. :P
Duty calls.
http://xkcd.com/386/
*LOL*

You can't change his mind, you know. I'm not sure at this point if you're
trolling him or he's trolling you, or both, but seriously, this thread has
gotten waaaay out of hand.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:17:11 +0000, David Johnston wrote: [snip]
Will you give it a rest for now?! Why are you posting another blitz
of three or four half-baked pro-copyright posts to this thread every
fucking two minutes? I'm trying to get caught up on my usenet and
each time I reload to mark my own posts read, I find MORE stuff to
correct -- I'm actually falling behind instead of getting caught up
and it's largely because of you.
You know, nobody is forceing you to answer his posts except you. :P
Duty calls.
http://xkcd.com/386/
*LOL*
You can't change his mind, you know.
I'm beginning to suspect that. The problem is, it's not even just his
position on copyright. He has made *factual* errors that he refuses to
recognize despite plenty of evidence, which both I and Thanatos have
pointed out several times (and the latter is an actual lawyer, expertise
to which David and I can merely pretend), and not only doesn't he
recognize them he also won't shut up with repeating them! It gets
frustrating. A clearly factually incorrect statement about the law cannot
go on record as the final outcome of this debate -- that could mislead
generations of googling scholars! Yet if he both insists on being wrong
in those areas and insists on having the last word, the only alternative
is, I suspect, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/
SealedEvilInADuel ...
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 00:09:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their value
then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for video
entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more than one
book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and no
single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly pricing
of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of Avatar
is actually $40 or more?
Because either it is or the market is non-free, because a free market
drives prices down to marginal costs.
You're forgetting the effect of demand on a free market economy.
Wingnut
2010-09-03 05:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their value
then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and
no single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly
pricing of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of
Avatar is actually $40 or more?
Because either it is or the market is non-free, because a free market
drives prices down to marginal costs.
You're forgetting the effect of demand on a free market economy.
I'm forgetting nothing. Demand only drives prices up if the supply can't
be scaled up to meet the demand. That only occurs when whatever it is is
scarce. In this case, it is not anything that would be naturally scarce;
and if it's artificially scarce then the market is non-free.
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 11:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for the
wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of the
law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their value
then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in the
market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable goods and
no single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause monopoly
pricing of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of
Avatar is actually $40 or more?
Because either it is or the market is non-free, because a free market
drives prices down to marginal costs.
You're forgetting the effect of demand on a free market economy.
I'm forgetting nothing. Demand only drives prices up if the supply can't
be scaled up to meet the demand. That only occurs when whatever it is is
scarce. In this case, it is not anything that would be naturally scarce;
and if it's artificially scarce then the market is non-free.
While this is true, there's also another factor - if it's so plentiful that
the price becomes too marginal, producers will stop making it. The purpose
of making a product is to make a profit, not to provide the consumer with
what they want. The latter is the means for the former.

That said, I agree that what we have today is not by any means a free market
economy. I don't think it ever was.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 04:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dragon Lady
Post by Wingnut
Post by Dragon Lady
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
All debates about law boil down to "semantic quibbling". So: your
point is?
I see you didn't even try to answer this.
My point would probably be that you should save your quibbling for
the wording of law itself
I have been doing quite a lot of quibbling regarding the wording of
the law (particularly the Progress Clause)!
You should realise that he didn't mean "regardless of their value".
Then he should have said that. And who gets to determine their
value then?
Consumers
Not in a non-free market hindered by monopolies, they don't.
I have more than one channel on my tv, and alternative sources for
video entertainment should none of them satisfy me. There is more
than one book in my bookstore. So yes we do.
Really? For any given show, book, movie, or whatnot you can find in
the market alternative legal sources of completely-substitutable
goods and no single entity is up the supply chain positioned to cause
monopoly pricing of all of these completely-substitutable goods?
Do you think the marginal cost of a Blu-Ray stamped with a copy of
Avatar is actually $40 or more?
Because either it is or the market is non-free, because a free market
drives prices down to marginal costs.
You're forgetting the effect of demand on a free market economy.
I'm forgetting nothing. Demand only drives prices up if the supply
can't be scaled up to meet the demand. That only occurs when whatever
it is is scarce. In this case, it is not anything that would be
naturally scarce; and if it's artificially scarce then the market is
non-free.
While this is true, there's also another factor - if it's so plentiful
that the price becomes too marginal, producers will stop making it.
If demand is saturated, that's not a problem. I'm not aware that anything
desired has ever become so cheap that no-one makes it with demand
remaining unfulfilled, though.

It's especially unlikely with information objects of any sort: left to
their own devices humans will copy and distribute desirable information
objects even in the presence of attempts to restrict this activity, so
it's very unlikely that they'll ever be undersupplied except via a
strenuous and intentional censorship campaign by a very potent,
totalitarian state.

So, the simple solution to "if the price becomes too marginal, producers
will stop making it" when applied to information objects becomes "avoid
repealing the First Amendment".
Post by Dragon Lady
That said, I agree that what we have today is not by any means a free
market economy. I don't think it ever was.
And since that was the main bone of contention in this branch of the
thread, be it known that David is outnumbered 2-1 (and this time, one of
his outnumberers, though not a lawyer, IS an economist).
Dragon Lady
2010-09-03 12:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Did you think "get the fuck out" wasn't a personal attack?
Indeed; it is, rather, an offering of advice (tinged with more than a
little bit of frustration because you kept me up almost until midnight
playing "wack-a-mole" with your posts for some silly reason).
You know, blaming someone else for your actions is really counterproductive.
He did not keep you up until after midnight, you did. And there's a
distinct posiblitiy that he lives in an entirely different time zone than
you do. It's entirely possible that it's much earlier where he lives than
where you lives. Reality of the internet.
It's well-meant advice: if you really think all of this debate is
meaningless, then you must believe you're wasting your own time by
continuing to participate and you should have a higher utility function
if you quit than if you continue.
Clearly, both of you are enjoying the argument, or you wouldn't keep
answering each others posts. I suspect you even enjoy insulting each other.
Wingnut
2010-09-04 03:57:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:34:07 -0600, Dragon Lady wrote:

massive SNIP
Post by Dragon Lady
You know, blaming someone else for your actions
massive SNIP
Post by Dragon Lady
Clearly, both of you are enjoying the argument
massive SNIP

404: Nothing found about copyright term lengths

End of interaction, no on-topic content found.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...