Does wearing this on your shirt...

[King of the Americas]

...give you the legal authority to steal other people ideas:

"While I am always happy to hear from you, it is my policy not to accept or consider creative materials, ideas, or suggestions other than those I specifically request. This is to avoid any misunderstandings if your ideas are similar to those I have developed independently. Therefore I must request that you do not send to me any original creative materials such as screenplays, stories, original artwork, etc. Any communication or material you do transmit to me or my Site by electronic mail or otherwise will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary. Anything you transmit or post may be used by me or my affiliates for any purpose, including, but not limited to, reproduction, disclosure, transmission, publication, broadcast and posting. Furthermore, I am free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained in any communication you send to me or my addresses, accounts, or boardcasts for any purpose whatsoever including, but not limited to, developing, manufacturing and marketing products using such information."

---

Does bearing this mantra, give me sincere legal rights to material you send me, of your own creation?

[Tmy]

No

[Jocko]

Care to supply some context? In advertising we do the same thing, to protect ourselves legally.

[Crossbow]

But of course KOA!

Just get a notarized signature on the said shirt, then register it with your local recorder.

Should be a snap!

:p

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Crossbow
But of course KOA!

Just get a notarized signature on the said shirt, then register it with your local recorder.

Should be a snap!

:p

Isn't it amazing, the way KOA carps on about his ideas being "stolen," in the same forum where he decried the evils of copyright law? It's doubly ironic that he believes someone might steal something he's been trying to give away for free all these years.

But I am given to wonder who gave him that response- it looks familiar to me, much like what we were supposed to say to people who regaled us at parties with, "Oh, I've got the COOLEST idea for a McDonald's commercial..." If we let them get their idea out, WE were the ones who caught hell for it.

It's hard to hit on chicks when you have to run from the party with your hands over your ears, shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA!"

[King of the Americas]

...I disagree with being able to justify 'ownership' over something that is public domain.

I mean if I give a speech in a public forum, scribes who hear it SHOULD be able to make a record of what I said, and then reproduce that record for mass distribution. I think that is what the Freedom of the Press actually is.

I believe copyrights to be unconsitiutional, and that the latest RIAA actions are doing no less that attempting to halt the advance or progress of technology.

I got this off of the Universal Studios website, after I altered it a little.

http://www.universalstudios.com/homepage/html/contact_us/

How can anyone or anything claim ownership over something you tell them?

I mean I don't know that 'I' own what I say, much less owning what someone else says!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...I disagree with being able to justify 'ownership' over something that is public domain.

I mean if I give a speech in a public forum, scribes who hear it SHOULD be able to make a record of what I said, and then reproduce that record for mass distribution. I think that is what the Freedom of the Press actually is.

I believe copyrights to be unconsitiutional, and that the latest RIAA actions are doing no less that attempting to halt the advance or progress of technology.

I got this off of the Universal Studios website, after I altered it a little.

http://www.universalstudios.com/homepage/html/contact_us/

How can anyone or anything claim ownership over something you tell them?

I mean I don't know that 'I' own what I say, much less owning what someone else says!

And I presume this is a problem for you? First you want working authors, musicians and thinkers to give their livelihood away for free, then you decry the unfairness of the possibility someone might make a buck by "stealing" your "ideas"? Get a grip.

KOA, the only way anyone could ever make a buck off you disappeared with the extinction of side shows as a form of popular entertainment.

Those warnings are offered as mutual protection:

They protect you from having your idea ripped off for a profit.

They protect them from having to put up with every fivolous lawsuit dreamed up by underachieving entitlement-mided twits like you.

Everyone wins. It's just that some of us work on material that is worth protecting, some are not. All you need to do is write "© 2003, King of the Americas" and you're protected. Hell, you even have IMPLIED copyright, providing some protection, even if you're too lazy to circle-C it.

What the hell is your point? I can never keep up with which side of your own contradictions you're on.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jocko
But I am given to wonder who gave him that response- it looks familiar to me, much like what we were supposed to say to people who regaled us at parties with, "Oh, I've got the COOLEST idea for a McDonald's commercial..." If we let them get their idea out, WE were the ones who caught hell for it.

This came up for J. Michael Straczynski, the producer and writer of Babylon 5. A fan sent him an e-mail detailing a story idea that was very similar to a script Straczynski already had in the works. It was only because the fan was willing to put it in writing that he didn't have any rights to that story idea, and even if he did he'd fork them over, and he was very sorry and would gladly sacrifice his firstborn child, that the episode got made at all, and in the end it was delayed for almost a year as a result.

Jeremy

[King of the Americas]

Please address this arguemnt:

Well...

...I disagree with being able to justify 'ownership' over something that is 'public domain'.

I mean if I give a speech in a public forum, scribes who hear it SHOULD be able to make a record of what I said, and then reproduce that record for mass distribution. I think that is what the Freedom of the Press actually is.

I believe copyrights to be unconsitiutional, and that the latest RIAA actions are doing no less that attempting to halt the advance or progress of technology, which copyrights were NEVER intended to do!

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

I mean if I give a speech in a public forum, scribes who hear it SHOULD be able to make a record of what I said, and then reproduce that record for mass distribution. I think that is what the Freedom of the Press actually is.


If it begins with "King of the America's said..." then it becomes a fact, and you can report it and comment on it, etc. This is recognized by current law.


I believe copyrights to be unconsitiutional, and that the latest RIAA actions are doing no less that attempting to halt the advance or progress of technology, which copyrights were NEVER intended to do!


Since we're talking about the constitution, I refer you to Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power ... 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;

It was recognized even then, that the advance of progress and technology is furthered, not halted, by allowing people to own their ideas.

[King of the Americas]

"by securing for limited times"...

It seems that these rights are priviledges are associated with a "limited time", and NOT meant to be perminate.

Playing a song in a public venue would certainly 'limit' ones rights to a property even moreso...

My Argument is that 'I', as a 'record keeper' have the right to record that which I see and hear, (in the public domain) for the sake of mass distribution.

Thus it should be and IS legal to 'save' media files to be shared with anyone else, so long as that information is a part of the 'public record'.

[Mauler]

My Argument is that 'I', as a 'record keeper' have the right to record that which I see and hear, (in the public domain) for the sake of mass distribution.

How could you protect, and thus make a living off the product of your idea, if the first public exposure removed any protection of copyright?

[King of the Americas]

Ahhhh...

But is a 'private concert' a public venue...?

I mean, as opposed to having your CD played over the air in T.V. & Radio.

I think it would be quite easy NOT to release music in anything but a live form...

Today, artist are forced to give up studio quality recordings of their work, in order to get heard. Then the record industry gets pissed when technology overcomes them...

IF you want to OWN the music, then stop putting it over the air.

Play 'private-ticket holders ONLY concerts', search each attendent for recording devices, and play to packed houses for whatever price you can get. You should get paid to PLAY, not how often you GET played.

You can work with, or around 'file sharing programs', but to criminalize technological progress is folly.

[Skeptic]

EARTH TO KOA: you don't get to decide what copyright law says or how it is interpreted.

Regardless of your obviously self-serving "theory" of copyright law, downloading copyrighted music is theft.

Which means that if you do it, you're not a maveric techno-hacker fighting an unjust evil corporation, but simply a thief.

It doesn't matter if you don't like the law or don't think it's fair. It's the law, and you are breaking it, so you're a criminal.

Happy now?

[Skeptic]

But I am given to wonder who gave him that response- it looks familiar to me, much like what we were supposed to say to people who regaled us at parties with, "Oh, I've got the COOLEST idea for a McDonald's commercial..."

...not to mention the occassional nut who sues McDonald's for stealing his great idea, which was a commecial where, like, some dudes go to McDonald, andl, like, order food and stuff.

[King of the Americas]

Would you address these points:

IF you want to OWN the music, then stop putting it over the air.

Play 'private-ticket holders ONLY concerts', search each attendent for recording devices, and play to packed houses for whatever price you can get. You should get paid to PLAY, not how often you GET played.

*You can work with, or around 'file sharing programs', but to criminalize technological progress is folly.*

---

Why is recording that which you hear and see in a public venue, a 'criminal' act?

[King of the Americas]

Could you address my above stance?

[jj]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Could you address my above stance?

You need to read copyright law. You have no stance.

[Skeptic]

Would you address these points:

IF you want to OWN the music, then stop putting it over the air.

Sure, I'll address it. ONLY you think that "putting music over the air" somehow makes it public and void its copyright. No legal scholar, no lawyer, nobody that matters agrees with you.

Why do you want to believe this? Because you are stealing music and want to blame other people for your actions. But you're still a thief; just because you convinced yourself that you aren't doesn't mean s--t.

[King of the Americas]

...'I' do NOT, and have NOT actually used file sharing tools.

I am simply asking you to describe my 'theft', within my Rights to Free Press?

Copyrights were NEVER intended to be unlimited, nor a henderence on technological evolution.

What leads ME to believe 'I' am right?

Well, that would be HOW 'I' interpret the Constitution. I am not sure this argument is BEING put forth in defense of file sharing programs.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Regardless of your obviously self-serving "theory" of copyright law, downloading copyrighted music is theft.

Which means that if you do it, you're not a maveric techno-hacker fighting an unjust evil corporation, but simply a thief. From Webster's:

theft

\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery. (emphasis mine) The old laws against theft cannot apply to technology where "property" can be infinitely replicated at no cost. If one day we develop matter replicators, then would copying a house someone else built be theft?

[RPG Advocate]

As far as the RIAA and their "sue-em-all" campaign goes, there is no need to wait for legislators to act on this. Market forces will force the music industry to either adapt or die. Sales of RIAA music are down 30% from five years ago for a reason.

Hopefully what will happen is independent labels that use peer-to-peer file sharing to distribute their work as a preview will one-up the RIAA and force them to reduce CD prices to reasonable levels as well as offer digital downloads for pennies a song.

[Ipecac]

KOA,

Sorry! I already have the patent for the "Legal Disclaimer on Shirt" idea.

Stop positing creating, selling, or wearing such a shirt or I will sue you.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cecil

The old laws against theft cannot apply to technology where "property" can be infinitely replicated at no cost. If one day we develop matter replicators, then would copying a house someone else built be theft?

I think you're mistaking "real property" for "intellectual property," and it most certainly is theft because you are theoretically depriving its creater and intellectual owner from the profit of his/her enterprise.

When I download an album, I'm cheating the artist of the "full purchase price" of the album. Hair-splitting won't get you past this one. That being said, I'm a file-sharing lunatic anyhow.

Hey, I wouldn't recommend smoking, either, but there it is.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Ipecac
KOA,

Sorry! I already have the patent for the "Legal Disclaimer on Shirt" idea.

Stop positing creating, selling, or wearing such a shirt or I will sue you.

Wel,, I have bad news for you. I have the copyright on internet forum posting, so you owe me royalties for this post, and every post in the future. Screw fair use, I want my money.

[Jocko]

Okay, I'll bite. Things are slow today and I haven't baited this stooge in a while...

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...'I' do NOT, and have NOT actually used file sharing tools.

Better speak to the royal broadband minister about that.

I am simply asking you to describe my 'theft', within my Rights to Free Press?

Free press? You want to tie this to the 1st amendment? Why not tie it to the 8th? (look it up, numbnuts)

It's a non sequitur. There is no connection, legal, moral, ethical, supernatural or otherwise. JJ is right, you have no stance, you just have a couple of legal terms you overheard somewhere and all of a sudden you think you're a Constitutional scholar.

Dude, you're not even a Berenstein Bears scholar. Give it up.

Copyrights were NEVER intended to be unlimited, nor a henderence on technological evolution.

Says who? Sure the term is limited and they must be renewed, but I don't think those measures are in place to accommodate the eventual rise of internet file-swapping.

The onus is on you to prove your contention, not us to disprove it - above and beyond the level of "what the hell are you blabbering about now?"


What leads ME to believe 'I' am right?

Well, that would be HOW 'I' interpret the Constitution. I am not sure this argument is BEING put forth in defense of file sharing programs.

I wasn't aware of his majesty's ascension to the Supreme Court, where a Constitutional opinion matters. But this is par for the course whenever you blow a gasket over some obscure BS issue and try to turn in into a Supreme Court battle for "what you know is right(TM)."

And if I recall, you screamed bloody murder when I fooled you into believing I bought - legally and fairly - an internet domain you felt was yours because of three little initials:

W. P. I.

Remember that? How you demanded I surrender it at once because it was "yours"? How do you reconcile this grotesque contradiction?