SOPA and a strike, Jimbo requests comments Options

[anthony]

Creative material's classification as "property" is an abstract social construct

As opposed to any other type of property's classification as "property"?

[GlassBeadGame]

Maybe not a newsflash, but it looks like Jimmy may be losing his mind.

He does seem to suggest the RfCs are part of the normal legislative process.

[lilburne]

I didn't say I'm particularly endeared to the present copyright system, I just don't think you serve your case well by defending people who really are selling/swapping/etc. pirated movies, cds, books, or whatever. I suspect most of the hot trade is not in materials that are 70+ years old.

Its not just about movies, cds, books. Scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ugg+boots+cheap

it is affecting large parts of industry. Including automotive spares, medical, watches, fashion, perfumes, and food stuffs. The company I work for creates CADCAM software that is used by many of the worlds designers and manufacturers. Our website gets spam every day from knock off manufacturers offering counterfeit products.

[anthony]

Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons.

Who first envisioned this copyright, and where did s/he write about how s/he envisioned it?

"I do not know, nor can I comprehend any property more emphatically a man's own, nay, more incapable of being mistaken, than his literary works." - Justice Aston, Millar v. Taylor, 1767

I think you're relying on a revisionist history here. The debate over whether or not copyright is a property right / natural right / common law right, is at least as old as the Statute of Anne itself.

This post has been edited by anthony: Sat 21st January 2012, 2:14pm

[SB_Johnny]

And so the transformation from encyclopedia to political organization continues. Is Jimmy going to run for office soon?

[anthony]

And so the transformation from encyclopedia to political organization continues.

They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Copyright as originally envisioned was a way to provide a temporary haven for the author to make money in exchange for the 'property' passing into the commons.

Modifications to the copyright laws on behalf of the big publishing companies now make this 'property' ownership virtually indefinite. Author's life + 70 years.

Patents are particularly flawed in their current incarnation. They were designed around the same idea as copyrights but have turned into a mechanism to allow trivial ideas to acts as vehicles of extortion.

Both need to be revamped or utterly scrapped.

SBJ, your arguments are crap.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

And so the transformation from encyclopedia to political organization continues.

They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ance_initiative

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Sat 21st January 2012, 2:26pm

[Emperor]

And so the transformation from encyclopedia to political organization continues.

They're lobbying for anti-lobbying legislation?

And on the slippery slope.

[anthony]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

I like how they claim " that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession", and then quote the Constitution where it talks about "securing for limited Times...the exclusive Right".

[lilburne]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

I like how they claim " that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession", and then quote the Constitution where it talks about "securing for limited Times...the exclusive Right".

While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all ... it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land ... Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.
Thomas Jefferson

All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.
Benjamin Franklin

IOW all property is an artificial concession of society. So their point is?

[Doc glasgow]

Indeed, although by one logic one has more claim on intelectual property than, say, to a field.

If I write a song, I wrote it, I am its creator.

Cows, sheep, goats, forests, hills, gold and re-estate I cannot make.

[lilburne]

+5 that

[SB_Johnny]

IOW all property is an artificial concession of society. So their point is?

Ownership is evil. Shut up, get on the gurney, and gimme that damn kidney.

[anthony]

Indeed, although by one logic one has more claim on intelectual property than, say, to a field.

If I write a song, I wrote it, I am its creator.

Cows, sheep, goats, forests, hills, gold and re-estate I cannot make.

You can't?

[EricBarbour]

So much of Wikipedia is comedy......

Seen the "Ideas" page yet?

At the top:

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

Then a little further down:

I have been here only a short while, but have been dumbfounded at the levels of genius here at Wikipedia. It is a melting pot of the brightest minds in the World.

And below that:

When I'm advocating these, I'm thinking in terms of myself as an encyclopaedia editor, not as a "maker of sausages" as the process of politics is described. "No Copyright" is an excellent position to begin from, to be able to retreat to "Repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" or "Reduction of US copyright period to 15 years." Demands need to be strident, it is part of the process of compromise, you need to have something to sell-out. This is also an excellent position to hold, while accepting limited gains such as a potential dramatic and universal extension of free use for educational, academic and not-for-profit purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't make this shit up.

[radek]

So much of Wikipedia is comedy......

Seen the "Ideas" page yet?

At the top:

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

Then a little further down:

I have been here only a short while, but have been dumbfounded at the levels of genius here at Wikipedia. It is a melting pot of the brightest minds in the World.

And below that:

When I'm advocating these, I'm thinking in terms of myself as an encyclopaedia editor, not as a "maker of sausages" as the process of politics is described. "No Copyright" is an excellent position to begin from, to be able to retreat to "Repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" or "Reduction of US copyright period to 15 years." Demands need to be strident, it is part of the process of compromise, you need to have something to sell-out. This is also an excellent position to hold, while accepting limited gains such as a potential dramatic and universal extension of free use for educational, academic and not-for-profit purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't make this shit up.

Ok, honestly, I just have to ask, even though the answer may be obvious; is that page a joke or meant as a send up?

I mean Fifelfoo always talks crazy shit, I always have a hard time understanding what the hell he's saying and I always half suspect he's taking the piss. But I'm pretty sure that an "important wikipedian" like Jehochman doesn't usually go for the comedy.

They really ARE that insane, aren't they?

[Emperor]

It is a melting pot of the brightest minds in the World.

Quote of the day.

[Kelly Martin]

A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.

[NuclearWarfare]

A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.

And presumably gave some sort of evidence...

[Kelly Martin]

A G+ acquaintance informed me a couple days ago that, apparently, the driving force behind the Wikipedia blackout was none other than James Forrester.

And presumably gave some sort of evidence...

Comment was made in a public thread. Make what you will of it.