ROFLMAO, Keith. Salut.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org [mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org]
On Behalf Of Keith Tabor
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:42 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: The good fight
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
Received on Wed Sep 18 2002 - 13:53:51 GMT