RE: The good fight

This would be an opportunity for LOL to be used on this listserv.

At 05:42 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, Keith Tabor wrote:
>Without knowing the question, I would think the answer
>has to be exactly 42.
>
>Keith
>
>--- Chris Mohr <chrismohr[_at_]sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> So, the answer to my question is roughly 7.2
>> million.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
>> [mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org]
>> On Behalf Of RCumbow[_at_]GrahamDunn.com
>> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 1:25 PM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: RE: The good fight
>>
>> Saying that a ditch and a book should have the same
>> economic value
>> simply because each one took one person three months
>> takes an awful lot
>> out of the economic equation. It's like saying
>> there's no difference
>> between cleaning out the garage and performing
>> life-saving brain
>> surgery, simply because each one takes one person
>> six hours to do.
>> Robert C. Cumbow
>> Graham & Dunn PC
>> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
>> Seattle, WA 98101-2390
>> direct 206.340.9619
>> fax 206.340.9599
>> rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
>> http://www.grahamdunn.com
>>
>> Big law firm experience
>> without the big law firm experienceR
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com
>> [mailto:sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:25 AM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: Re: The good fight
>>
>> While I am estatic that the entire very elite
>> intellectual property
>> community will provide support, the point in the
>> ditch digger example,
>> is
>> that if it takes 3 man months to create one ditch
>> and it takes 3 man
>> months to create one book, the effort of the ditch
>> digger is the same as
>>
>> the effort of the book writer and therefore each
>> should be paid but one
>> time from one buyer for the effort. The very idea
>> that the 1 man 1
>> effort gets paid a million or more times via the
>> vehicle of a monopoly
>> is
>> patently wrong.
>> Next, the is argument of CO-kit entitlement.
>> CO_KIT is a product
>> of human endeavor and as such cannot be gated from
>> the eyes and ears of
>> the rest of humanity because that gate violates the
>> inherent right of
>> man
>> to the benefits of the CO-KIT of the society in
>> which they live during
>> their life time.
>> If you or the intellectual property community were
>> to
>> decide otherwise, then It would be difficult to see,
>> why humans should
>> subject themselves to the top down rule of law.
>> Mercantislists cannot
>> have it both ways: either citizens agree to the rule
>> of law and society
>> makes available all of its CO-KIT in completely
>> ungated form; or humans
>> each standand alone, one against the other, the one
>> with the most power
>> uses the forces of government to gate, harrass and
>> economically exploit
>> the other.
>> The history of copyright and monopolies has been
>> that a few empowered
>> people exploit the masses of the people and they use
>> the rule of law
>> backed up by the power of a government with military
>> and police forces
>> to
>> make sure the exploitation is effective.
>> There is no room in a free society for monopoly!
>> sterling.
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dodi Schultz wrote:
>> >
>> > Sterling writes,
>> >
>> > >> A ditch digger's ditch is not different than
>> a author's book...
>> It is
>> > >> economically unfair to pay the ditch
>> digger(compensation) once
>> and
>> > >> the author(royalty) many times.
>> >
>> > You know, on further thought, I've been persuaded
>> that you're
>> absolutely
>> > right. A digger's ditch is every bit as creative,
>> and deserving of
>> suitable
>> > compensation--and protection--as my book, poem, or
>> article. Royalties
>> > should be paid, and unauthorized copying
>> prohibited. Any attempt by
>> some
>> > wannabe digger to pass off an imitative ditch as
>> an original earthwork
>>
>> > should be prosecuted to the full extent of the
>> law, with the support
>> of the
>> > entire intellectual property community.
>> >
>> > --Dodi Schultz
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>> This email message may be protected by the
>> attorney/client privilege,
>> work product doctrine or other confidentiality
>> protection.
>> If you believe that it has been sent to you in
>> error, do not read it.
>> Please reply to the sender that you have received
>> the message in error,
>> and then delete it. Thank you.
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
>http://news.yahoo.com

This e-mail message, together with any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the author immediately and destroy this message. Also, refrain from copying, disclosing or using the contents in any way. Received on Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:09:46 GMT