Intellectual Property

[lorienrandir]

I wrote to BBC yesterday after seeing item on CD Piracy:
It should be stopped.
The piracy not the copying.
I suggested a system in 87 in response to RDAT.
The distribution companies want to keep their obsolete control over distribution of artists work.
Artists are only enabled by their patronage.
IP is justified to benefit society generally and should be made available to society generally.
Now that IT would allow monitoring of copying and thus distribution it is this that should be enabled.
Make it as easy to respect IP as copy the file.
The money in the market doesn’t want to know.
SDMI restricts copying thus making the data a trade secret rather than IP.
DMCA to support that raises hell in academia (see EFF website).
The common law of public nuisance protects against general harm
Intellectual Property (IP) is justified as a general good since it supports progress deemed beneficial.
Anything which impedes betterment to the general good is generally harmful.
If Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are impeded, general good is impeded and thus general harm occurs.
Impeding integration of IP into IT (Information Technology) to automate social regard for the beneficial principle of IPRs is generally harmful and the crime of Public Nuisance may be invoked.
Since governments and their financial technologies and the bankers using them disregard these arguments they are guilty.
The principles of IPR are justified in terms of general benefit to society. If the pattern of potential IP is not made available fully to society, only a trade secret exists which cannot be protected by IP law. To qualify for IPRs therefore the pattern must be made available in infinite supply. Yet with respect to the laws of economics this would make IP worthless. This would be incompatible with the requirement that originators should receive remuneration for their work to give economic security to the forces of progress. This full availability to society, in the information age should involve the ability to talk about and exchange objects of benefit freely within the confines of this respect for intellectual property. This translates as a requirement to make the ability to copy and otherwise process works of IP available to society generally. This makes the commercial publishing industry in fundamentally fraudulent conflict with the IP tools they seek to deploy to support their business.
Where one thinks, by sweat of the brow, of and expresses Intellectual Property to address this issue, one's IPRs, to have sole control over and determination of their development and use, require access to economic resources for the development of that expression. These economic resources are generally treated under the laws of liberal property rights which are considered to be a human right. However this liberal property is of such a nature that one may commit any act of destruction or deployment thereto, be it of whatever nature, including of detriment to the general good. Art works may be destroyed for example and history wiped out where this is dealt with in the most unlimited terms. There is a conflict between liberal and intellectual property which must be resolved in the general case in favour of the intellectual lest harm come to society which would involve the commission of a public nuisance. Particular individuals addressing this issue have specific cause of action over the issue as they suffer both the general harm to society of the frustration of progress and the specific harm that their properties are interfered with.
The requirements for and the right deriving from Intellectual Property which may be thought to be in conflict can be resolved granted the existence in any particular case that IP exists.

That makes the media fraudunent claiming they have IP in their secrets and the financial technology obsolete.

[Cyph]

Agh, myne eyes....I could only bear to read ..2/3 that, understand less than 1/2.

Artists are only enabled by their patronage.

Don't think I can agree with that tho. Artists will keep on making they're art, with or without the large cash bonuses. Least, the true ones would. Unless they have no other job...?

I guess what Im trying to say, that for the most part Artists don't make art just because they are paid.

[lorienrandir]

If everyone lives on welfare that is ok

[lorienrandir]

the idea that creativity should not be renumeratively recompensed by society rather than by patronage leading to medieval iconography is incompatible with the liberal assertion of IP in their information!
Welfare for all and bring the capitalists down?

[J. Burnaway]

I mean no offense, but perhaps you need to work on that first post. It is very difficult to read, and even more difficult to understand.

Take this for example:

Where one thinks, by sweat of the brow, of and expresses Intellectual Property to address this issue, one's IPRs, to have sole control over and determination of their development and use, require access to economic resources for the development of that expression.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at there. Also, this is the first sentence in a new paragraph, but it seems to be building on and referring to an idea in an earlier paragraph, which is confusing.

One more thing. When you use a lot of abbreviations (IP, IPR, IT) it is better to define them when you first mention them, not halfway down.

[lorienrandir]

I keep getting told my sentences need full stops. You have a part of it but in your contention what would be the issue?
There is a fuller post at http://www.graves4all.com/EE/ipsits.htm
The conflict between liberal and intellectual private property would seem to be my answer to that.

[lorienrandir]

No this is really a tricky issue. Perhaps I should have have said as did Copernicus in his de Revolutionaribus that this is just for mathematicians.
Liberal patronage Intellectual freedom and the media.
Much disordered thought ( diagnosed pschytsophrenic & MS e-commerce) on website.
The issue is the whole of the previous paragraph I think. This is the (liberal - intellectual) property conflict.

[lorienrandir]

CD (Compact Disc) Piracy should be stopped.
The piracy should be stopped that is not the copying.
I suggested a system in 87 in response to RDAT.
The distribution companies want to keep their obsolete control over distribution of artists work.
Artists in that scenario are only enabled by their patronage.
IP is justified to benefit society generally and should be made available to society generally.
Now that IT (Informatics) would allow monitoring of copying and thus distribution it is this that should be enabled.
Make it as easy to respect IP (Intellectual Property) as copy the file.
The money in the market doesn’t want to know.
SDMI restricts copying thus making the data a trade secret rather than IP.
DMCA to support that raises hell in academia (see EFF website).
The common law of public nuisance protects against general harm
IP is justified as a general good since it supports progress deemed beneficial.
Anything which impedes betterment to the general good is generally harmful.
If Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are impeded, general good is impeded and thus general harm occurs.
Impeding integration of IP into IT to automate social regard for the beneficial principle of IPRs is generally harmful and the crime of Public Nuisance may be invoked.
Since governments and their financial technologies and the bankers using them disregard these arguments they are guilty.
The principles of IPR are justified in terms of general benefit to society. If the pattern of potential IP is not made available fully to society, only a trade secret exists which cannot be protected by IP law. To qualify for IPRs therefore the pattern must be made available in infinite supply. Yet with respect to the laws of economics this would make IP worthless. This would be incompatible with the requirement that originators should receive remuneration for their work to give economic security to the forces of progress. This full availability to society, in the information age should involve the ability to talk about and exchange objects of benefit freely within the confines of this respect for intellectual property. This translates as a requirement to make the ability to copy and otherwise process works of IP available to society generally. This makes the commercial publishing industry in fundamentally fraudulent conflict with the IP tools they seek to deploy to support their business. This represents the economic argument of problems manifest in the conflict between liberal and intellectual private property.
One may think, by sweat of the brow, of and expresses Intellectual Property to address the issue of this conflict between liberal and intellectual private properties and the breach of economic ‘laws’ required. At that point, one's IPRs, to have sole control over and determination of their development and use, require access to economic resources for the development of that expression. These economic resources are generally treated under the laws of liberal property rights which are considered to be a human right. However this liberal property is of such a nature that one may commit any act of destruction or deployment thereto, be it of whatever nature, including of detriment to the general good. Art works may be destroyed for example and history wiped out where this is dealt with in the most unlimited terms. There is a conflict between liberal and intellectual property which must be resolved in the general case in favour of the intellectual lest harm come to society which would involve the commission of a public nuisance. Furthermore in favour of IP is the observation that if this conflict is to resolved in favour of the forceful liberal property the military that may be making that enforcement would act against mind and beliefs for freedom and reward for work. Particular individuals addressing this issue have specific cause of action over the issue as they suffer both the general harm to society of the frustration of progress and the specific harm that their properties are interfered with.
The requirements for and the right deriving from Intellectual Property which may be thought to be in conflict can be resolved granted the existence in any particular case that IP exists.

That makes the media fraudulent in claiming they have IP in their secrets and the financial technology to resource such a project obsolete and in need of legal sanctions.

[Mr_007]

I agree!

[Mattress]

I am thouroughly confused.

[lorienrandir]

I am disabled by my insanity.
Can anyone program? or is this a private party

[old and quite mad]

Originally posted by lorienrandir
I am disabled by my insanity.

Aren't we all?

As was stated above, your ideas are simply crushed by your words.

[lorienrandir]

Madness does not mean logic is incorrrect meerly that the mass is insensible to that.
I use the words as I choose to express a conflict with ignorance I percieve.
words express ideas. these syntactic atoms of semantics can communicate novelty. The idea is sometimes not readilly apparent because of the novelty moreso than the words.

[lorienrandir]

There is a need for interest in the fundamentals of Intellectual Property Rights principles and justifications more so than the existing law and also technology to securely implement IP principles. Preoccupation with the current world rather than looking around the centuries may reduce interest in these matters.
One may legally argue in support of IP within society that IPRs are justified as legal devices providing remunerative economic security to originators of the output of thought processes representing creativity. They are justified on the assumptions that they secure progress and that progress is generally beneficial. With reference to the Common Law of Public Nuisance which makes it a crime to harm society generally it can be seen to form the observation that repressing benefit is a general harm and thus to frustrate the progress of IP is a crime.
Patents, copyrights etc are secondary devices often having unacceptable regimes and applications monopolizing territorially linked recordings, other discoveries and databases etc which involve little creatively linked thought. Current security seeks to protect obsolete distribution networks that have been technically superceded. Such systems are riddled with patronage and vested interest. Intellectual Property requires fundamental address concerning principles on which it is granted and technologies which can secure this grant. Mere militaristic control of territory and discovery involving no novel thought and expression cannot be covered thus. The existing movie industry, sport and discovered bio-tech are unsustainable under this regime. Where IP is concerned it is only justified in infinite availability and so the law of supply and demand must be disregarded as a compatible rational value system is sought.
IP security cannot be allowed to prevent copying. IP is only granted to remunerate in return for granting availability to society to use. If society cannot distribute and develop work to the fullest extent technically possible IP cannot be granted. Any security which fails to respect this principle implements only secrecy. This is justifiably open to countermeasures. Rational security leaves no just assault possible. This secrecy does not warrant grant of the protection of Intellectual Property.
That is not to say that distribution systems should not be fairly designed to powerfully protect intellectual property and to say positively it should make it economically easier for people to respect these rights than to seek to subvert them. This is awareness of what would seem to be a problem for distributors were it to be taken seriously that the demands of consumers for access to IP through distribution of technologies of production and distribution of intellectual property patterns is reasonable. Technology replaces corporate control. Hardware production control would be essential to any control of distribution. Such control as would fail to respect IP opens that business to justifiable hacking.
Furthermore financial and organizational technologies require radical redesign to attain compatibility with these principles, for currently these liberal private property technologies are slanted in their benefits and fail to grant equal rights of freedom of thought and economic security for any progressively beneficial thoughts resulting from that freedom. These systems implement the liberal principles that one is free to do what one will with one’s properties These liberal properties may include resources that may be required to secure freedom to develop Intellectual Property. Where there is not a conjunction between ownership of liberal properties and intellectual properties the system fails. In practice IP is only granted to affluent liberals. Where another seeks to acquire finance to acquire resources to secure their IPRs, the liberal financial system, asserting its freedom not to lend, to decide who may borrow, steals from the IP owner the right to determine use, if those properties are effective, thus interfering with IP ownership. There is a fundamental conflict between Liberal and Intellectual Private Properties which I deem for general social, and yet individual freedom and psychological security from conflict and especially in terms of equality of rights under the Law must be resolved in favour of IPRs.
Essentially liberal wealth derives from profit from marginal awareness of trading values stemming from market inefficiencies of information and inequality of power. Actual power to access resources should be removed from these seemingly constitutional capitalists through enhancing competition for resources through a personalized issuance of legally recognized currencies based on intellectual property that has not been proven to be harmful for society and could thus be assumed to be of general benefit.

[Jay]

I feel like I just read a contract

[lorienrandir]

1 - Can I talk with you mindblown dust about contracts and contacts?
3 - Known or unknown it’s probably a set-up.
1 - Contracts as private law of effect and deviance remedy take no public effect on third parties but they may tentatively form a basis for public law, subject to wider agreement, providing a default basis for further private law. Public law comes from these agreements.
3 - Do you know whose privilege is imposed on me? I flee persecution for seeking to escape in my mind this totality of tedium where all is rigged against me. I am not even permitted that.
1 - I am adrift and know no one, have no personality.
3 - Fly on far: but if you want to talk to me about contact my need is to address this oppression.
1 - Remedy for any deviation from acceptability involving public observation and imposition of the result of private contract involves systems of taxation of attention to draw public attention to coherent states through means of accounts of reason to view such contract negatively.
3 - Hey at least I view it negatively but they say it’s for my own good, at least to stop me harming others. I say get specific. This is my head, my blood. How can I get through to them?
1 - Agreements modify structures in personality space, particularly the privacy boundary, as of potential between any primitive persons.
3 - But I don’t agree with them interfering with my head.
1 - Is that reasonable? You say you do no harm there. That at least may justify your privacy therein.
3 - What is privacy? I have none.
1 - Privacy is linked to attention and observation and willful actions of persons interacting with other persons or their works is thought to occur in public subject to modification of personality boundaries through agreement in a logical philosophical space, explicitly, rather than any territorial physical space.
http://www.graves4all.com/EE/IPSITs/ISM.htm

[Nimelennar]

It resembles more of a mathematical proof than a contract to me...

[lorienrandir]

reasons to be cheerful part 1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23 etc

[J. Burnaway]

Someday this will be the longest thread at the winamp forums (unless lorienrandir is killed by the forces of evil).