Hear, hear!
-Rens
At 11:21 PM 4/30/2002 -0700, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, I am doing my part by exercising my rights to avoid buying any of
>the stuff that does not let me copy it, and I will not buy any computer
>stuff that is unable to copy stuff.
>
>And, so I agree that if the IPR folk wan
US Jurisprudence is built upon a suspicion of strong
central governments. This is in part inherited from a
suspicion of a strong central British king. The
original colonies and states were just that,
decentralized jurisdictions that could barely sit in
the same room and write up a constitution.
John Stracke wrote:
> As John Gilmore has pointed out, we are approaching an age when
> nanotech will mean that any material object can be copied as
> easily as we can currently copy digital information.
This discussion is leaving the realm of ~modifications to RFCs. However,
there are two comm
>As I already said, "I also feel that Disney et al should have been
>investing in new assets rather than working to lockup old assets"
(That message hadn't reached me when I wrote.)
>I am/was arguing against the complete emasculation of IPR that Keith
>called for in his original message:
>
> | L
John Stracke wrote:
> If you get your copyright extended indefinitely (or put your materials
> under copy protection, which amounts to the same thing), then you are
> getting that monopoly for nothing; you are reneging on the bargain.
As I already said, "I also feel that Disney et al should hav
(Second thoughts on the same message.)
>Which of the following two options is more likely to feed starving
>children in Africa:
>
> 1) the Africans produce millions of pieces of valuable IPR
>
> 2) we take Steamboat Willie away from Disney, making it valueless
> to everybody
In the long ru
> 2) we take Steamboat Willie away from Disney, making it valueless
> to everybody
If it has value to Disney, then it has value to the public once it moves
into the public domain. For example, several universities had planned
courses and books around the early Mickey Mouse material; clear
> > you falsely assume that "millions of pieces of valuable IPR" can be
> > created out of thin air.
>
> I make no such assumptions. It would certainly help things, for example,
> if you were to donate your IPR to them. Which is better, that I donate my
> IPR for them to sell, or that you take my
Keith Moore wrote:
> you falsely assume that "millions of pieces of valuable IPR" can be
> created out of thin air.
I make no such assumptions. It would certainly help things, for example,
if you were to donate your IPR to them. Which is better, that I donate my
IPR for them to sell, or that yo
> Which of the following two options is more likely to feed starving
> children in Africa:
>
> 1) the Africans produce millions of pieces of valuable IPR
>
> 2) we take Steamboat Willie away from Disney, making it valueless
> to everybody
>
neither one is going to help starving childr
rather than revising the RFC maybe it would be good to develop some
recommendations for the principles or features of a useful framework?
I am also guessing that most of the ietf would prefer NOT to put up
with further debate on this topic. Maybe we should move over to the
Internet Societal Discu
Keith Moore wrote:
> And the downside of information capitalism is that it facilitates
> control over the many by those few who possess "crucial" pieces of
> information - the information produced by everyone else is nearly
> useless in comparison. Ironically, what you call "information
> capit
> > Let us dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the
> > provisions in intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and
> > trademarks - which stifle the freedom of expression and the development
> > of a gloabl marketplace of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of
> > real val
Keith Moore wrote:
> Let us dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the
> provisions in intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and
> trademarks - which stifle the freedom of expression and the development
> of a gloabl marketplace of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of
Keith you have put your finger squarely on the nub of what is wrong
with this RFC .
I recommend to you and other list members the essay of Yochai
Benkler. Grab the whole essay with the following URL. Benkler asks
that we consider what we are doing. Building the perfect shopping
mall or the
On Wed, 1 May 2002, vint cerf wrote:
> At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > For instance, it could assert that the assumed
> >state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
> >assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions a
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 15:00:53 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > a very important thing. For instance, it could assert that the assumed
> > state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
> > assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
At 03:00 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For instance, it could assert that the assumed
>state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
>assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
current copyright law says that from th
That would be nice!!!
James
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alexandre Dulaunoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: RFC3271 and independance of "
On Wed, 01 May 2002 15:00:53 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> a very important thing. For instance, it could assert that the assumed
> state was that information was in the public domain, and resist the move to
> assume all information innately carries enforceable restrictions ab initio.
Unfortun
Well, I am doing my part by exercising my rights to avoid buying any
of the stuff that does not let me copy it, and I will not buy any
computer stuff that is unable to copy stuff.
And, so I agree that if the IPR folk want to be so damned
proprietary, they can just sit at home with all their un
> i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to
> claim rights should not be prevented from doing so.
>
> vint
Claiming rights is different to be able to enforce rights.
It would be useful if there was a document which helped clarify the limits
to enforcement giv
> i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to claim
> rights should not be prevented from doing so.
sure - but which rights they should be able to claim, what remedies should be
available when rights are violated, and what presumptions are made by the law
until di
i think people should be free to create and share but that those who wish to claim
rights should not be prevented from doing so.
vint
At 12:14 AM 5/1/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>however, there seems to be a strong and alarming tendency for global legal frameworks
>on
>IPR to discourage, ra
> well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare one of your own?
maybe.
> I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is the right one either.
> We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I am no sure that
> the wholesale dispatch of Intel
well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare one of your own?
I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is the right one either.
We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I am no sure that
the wholesale dispatch of Intellectual Property
> ""
>Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if legislation around the
>world creates a thicket of incompatible laws that hinder the growth
>of electronic commerce, stymie the protection of intellectual
>property, and stifle freedom of expression and the development of
>mar
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Sandy Wills wrote:
> James Seng wrote:
>
> > bad idea for engineers to play lawyers.
>
> "Engineer" means "someone who takes dreams and makes them real".
>
> "Lawyer" means "someone who takes nightmares and makes them real".
>
> I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer,
James Seng wrote:
> bad idea for engineers to play lawyers.
"Engineer" means "someone who takes dreams and makes them real".
"Lawyer" means "someone who takes nightmares and makes them real".
I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer, than have a lawyer play
engineer.
--
: Unable to locate cof
Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
> Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:26:41 CDT, Stephen Sprunk said:
> >> The buyer, presumably residing in France or Germany, is
> >> alr
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:36:16 CDT, Stephen Sprunk said:
> If eBay doesn't exist (legally speaking) in Germany, tough luck. Forcing
> German ISPs to block the content, however, would be doable.
Unfortunately, I think eBay does have a German subsidiary..
> Next, are we to force the post to read a
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:26:41 CDT, Stephen Sprunk said:
>> The buyer, presumably residing in France or Germany, is
>> already responsible for the legality of anything he imports.
>> How is this the seller's problem?
>
> The problem is that (for example) it is *total
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:45:45 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > What is a global legal framework ? I do not understand the
> > purpose of that ?
I believe his desire is to create a single set of laws which apply to the
entire world, ignoring c
Remember the joke about the comedian with one crippled hand who held
up both hands and said "Lord, Please make both my hands the same!"
And She Did;-)...\Stef
In Reply To Message from Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Quote from RFC3271 :
>""
>Internet is for everyone - but it won't b
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:45:45 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> What is a global legal framework ? I do not understand the purpose of that ?
The purpose of that is so that the owners of eBay don't have to go to
jail because somebody sells something that's totally legal in th
Quote from RFC3271 :
""
Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if legislation around the
world creates a thicket of incompatible laws that hinder the growth
of electronic commerce, stymie the protection of intellectual
property, and stifle freedom of expression and the developmen
36 matches
Mail list logo
