Re: Re: amusing copyright limits

From: Theodore L. Araujo <taraujo[_at_]twcny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:30:30 -0500


Well put.

Ted Araujo, M.A., J.D.
University of Phoenix Online
UOP Online Faculty Practitioner 

ProfTed[_at_]email.uophx.edu
taraujo[_at_]twcny.rr.com
tls22[_at_]Cornell.edu

Syracuse, New York
© Copyright Ted Araujo 2003 All Rights Reserved

  It is amazing to see that any human for any reason would be willing to   allow any government to take the beautiful green gardens which their   "basic human talents" created and to then transpose those taken talent   made gardens into fenced yards with but one gate {the gate of monopoly},   requiring the very humanity that created the garden to pay or jump hoops   to walk on {access} their own creations, but some humans think it is ok.

  When a government conditions participation in one's own society on   monopolized gating, it stratifies that society into the haves and the have   nots. In the case of patent and copyright, it stratifies not only humans,   but also nation states. The rule of law is the most powerful ruling force   ever devised and it should not be used to achieve commerical advantage   in a free or a democratic society.

  Even more difficult to understand is why any human would

  1. want to allow "human thought" just as soon as it is expressed to be packaged as a private property with a monopoly gate as its entrance.
  2. want to allow any government to effect that packaging by rule of law
  3. agree that the transfer from the creative human to a non human creates in the non human, the right to monopolize that human thought. (its akin to selling body part franchises, granting a monopoly to sell be the only legitimate seller of arms, legs, or eyes, or other organs.) I wonder how much the monopoly for sell eyes will go for at the government auctions?
  4. agree to allow a government to order its society so that owners of the of the greatest numbers of packaged, monopolized human thoughts, determine wealth, especially, when that determination leads to wealthy non humans (i.e., corporations, NPOs, and institutions own most of the valuable "expressions of human thoughts")
  5. agree to allow a government to deny access to these (by ticketing or outright denial) monopolies based on one's ability or willingness to pay at the gate or based on one's insider relationship with the department of government that determines one needs to know or based on one's willingness to abide by the rules of a society (like willingness to get a Phd just so can see its subject matter)designed by the elected few as dictated to by the aristocrats.

  It is clear that rule of law has converted human expression into a   commodity and in doing so the law making state has converted humanity   from player in its own society to pawn in the game of $s played by the   non human elements of the aristocratically designed democratic society.

  Kitten of life (knowledge, information and technlogy and the training, and   education needed to use it) is an inalienable human attribute which should   not be eligible for commercialization; and but for, the right of   government to make laws without non elected human citizen veto, it   probably would not exist as Napster clearly showed.

  BTW, there is little difference in the file sharing of Napster and HTTP   file sharing. Again showing that when the files owned by Aristocrats are   challenged by technology, the rule of law serves the Aristocrats well,   because its soldiers round up the humans citizens who use it.

  Once again I am no lawyer, but i can see that something is wrong in our   society. Hope this Amuses you.

  sterling

  On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Wallace J.McLean wrote:

> >It is amusing to see professors and other academics arguing against
> >copyright protection
>
>
> Don't confuse arguing against overlong terms, term extension, erosion of
> exemptions, advocacy of new exemptions, or advocacy of other amendments to
> copyright acts, with "arguing against copyright protection" itself.
>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
> 

  #############################################################
  This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to     the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.   To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>   To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>   To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>   To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>   Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>

  Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. Received on Fri Nov 21 2003 - 00:30:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:51 GMT