From joelmeulenberg at attbi.com Sat Jul 13 01:41:50 2002 From: joelmeulenberg at attbi.com (Joel Meulenberg) Date: Wed Aug 4 00:01:21 2004 Subject: first_last@mcgraw-hill.com --> first.last@2020.net in Majordomo lists References: <000c01c22a33$3d2c5750$6901a8c0@attbi.com> <002f01c22a37$9db8d860$6901a8c0@attbi.com> Message-ID: <004701c22a38$5ea2d4e0$6901a8c0@attbi.com> In the 2 Majordomo mailing lists, all email addresses of the form first_last@mcgraw-hill.com have been coverted to first.last@2020.net . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.pm.org/archives/grand-rapids-pm-list/attachments/20020713/daed50cf/attachment.htm From williamday at email.com Tue Jul 30 07:35:05 2002 From: williamday at email.com (Bill Day) Date: Wed Aug 4 00:01:21 2004 Subject: Meeting Message-ID: <20020730123505.14436.qmail@email.com> Buried at the bottom of this email is a request for ideas for the August meeting. I wanted to send out a follow-up to last friday's meeting, as well as a request for a presentation for the August meeting. Due to the length of the video on Friday we skipped introductions, lending library, and any discussion for future meetings. I personally enjoyed viewing the video the 2nd time as much as I did the 1st time. We had a wide ranging and discussion after the video ranging including Free software, copyrights, legal issues, and technology (RMS has indicated we should banish the term "intellectual property"). I wish we could have had a longer discussion. Steve Johnson is working on a Perl/Tk presentation for the Sept. meeting. We still need something for the August meeting. Please help come up with something for the August 30 meeting. -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Get 4 DVDs for $.49 cents! plus shipping & processing. Click to join. http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-3566-59 From williamday at email.com Tue Jul 30 10:56:12 2002 From: williamday at email.com (Bill Day) Date: Wed Aug 4 00:01:21 2004 Subject: Meeting Message-ID: <20020730155612.21648.qmail@email.com> My comment that RMS wants to banish intellectual property was out of context. This was not from the film, it was from yesterday's slashback: "...the term 'intellectual property' lumps together disparate areas of law, including copyright, patent, trademark, and others, and that they are so different that it is a mistake to try to group them together." He is not completly against ownership, he just wants the issues to be dealt with seperatly. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew.Heusser@mks.net Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:49:52 -0400 To: williamday@email.com, grand-rapids-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org Subject: Re: Meeting > > > >(RMS has indicated we should banish the term "intellectual property") > > Did you notice that, even though he is against IP, he still wants > "Credit", by having Linux called GNU/Linux? What's that all about? > > I also noticed that three other open source people, during the movie, > said something to the effect of "I couldn't beleive that something I > WROTE became so popular / was read by so-and-so / impacted such-and-such > a company to reach X-Y-Z decision." > > Kinda funny, to give up you IP rights but want credit. :-) > > > As i've stated before, I'd be happy to present on Extreme Programming > (which, IMHO, is just as perl-ish as revolution-os was ...) but our > 1st Child is due in August so i'm gonna be kinda busy. Maybe october? > > regards, > > Matt H. > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Get 4 DVDs for $.49 cents! plus shipping & processing. Click to join. http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-3566-59 From sdpoling at attbi.com Tue Jul 30 16:33:55 2002 From: sdpoling at attbi.com (Steve Poling) Date: Wed Aug 4 00:01:21 2004 Subject: Meeting In-Reply-To: <20020730155612.21648.qmail@email.com> Message-ID: <003a01c23810$ceb86b60$0c00a8c0@CSISDP01> I think that "ownership" means different things in different contexts. Who owns a sunset? Who owns a gold coin? Who owns the theorem of Pythagorus? It is pretty clear that only deity could hold claim to the first. It is also pretty clear that tangible items of value have clear ownership. The theorem of Pythagorus probably belongs to Pythagorus, but there's a sense that Py can derive no value from this theorem unless it is distributed in some sense to others. Intellectual property has its legal basis in Copyright/Patent law. I've speculated before that intellectual property may have no legal basis in those stone tablets that Moses brought down from Sinai. If I understand the Constitution rightly, copyrights and patents were intended to prevent Pythagorus from keeping his theorems secret by granting him a monopoly for a fixed period after which everyone could use it. I think that expiration of copyrights and patents was a key element of the law so that other guys like Euclid or Plato could use the info after expiration. These days expiration of copyrights and patents is timed to make sure nobody else benefits from the info. It is interesting to note that Freon was found to be harmful to the ozone layer and then outlawed at just the time when DuPont's patent expired. Not to worry, DuPont has a different chemical for sale that is covered by non-expired patents. If I understand the Constitution rightly, copyrights and patents were to ENCOURAGE wider dissemination of information. However, with everything locked up in DRM schemes and with it soon to be a felony to possess code-breaking software that would undermine such systems, one wonders if information will be tied up too tightly in bureaucrasy to be disseminated. If so, this may have a baleful influence on societal progress. However, it will have a positive influence on the finances of Senators Biden or Hollings. Stallman made the simple observation that he could be more effective if everyone shared information. Within the friendly confines of the MIT AI lab, one didn't need passwords because nobody wearing a diaper on his head was trying to throw a spanner in the works. Perhaps Stallman would have a different attitude if he'd encountered a saboteur or a script kiddy. It now appears that mechanisms are being put in place under the guise of protecting us from saboteurs and script kiddies, but their end effect is to protect monopolies rich enough to buy Senators. Because laws will prevent law-abiding people from testing the efficasy of these so-called security measures, the public will have less security when hostile-state-sponsored saboteurs attack. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-grand-rapids-pm-list@pm.org > [mailto:owner-grand-rapids-pm-list@pm.org] On Behalf Of Bill Day > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:56 AM > To: Matthew.Heusser@mks.net; grand-rapids-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org > Subject: Re: Meeting > > > My comment that RMS wants to banish intellectual property was > out of context. This was not from the film, it was from > yesterday's slashback: "...the term 'intellectual property' > lumps together disparate areas of law, including copyright, > patent, trademark, and others, and that they are so different > that it is a mistake to try to group them together." > > He is not completly against ownership, he just wants the > issues to be dealt with seperatly. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matthew.Heusser@mks.net > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:49:52 -0400 > To: williamday@email.com, grand-rapids-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org > Subject: Re: Meeting > > > > > > > > >(RMS has indicated we should banish the term "intellectual > property") > > > > Did you notice that, even though he is against IP, he still wants > > "Credit", by having Linux called GNU/Linux? What's that all about? > > > > I also noticed that three other open source people, during > the movie, > > said something to the effect of "I couldn't beleive that > something I > > WROTE became so popular / was read by so-and-so / impacted > > such-and-such a company to reach X-Y-Z decision." > > > > Kinda funny, to give up you IP rights but want credit. :-) > > > > > > As i've stated before, I'd be happy to present on Extreme > Programming > > (which, IMHO, is just as perl-ish as revolution-os was ...) but our > > 1st Child is due in August so i'm gonna be kinda busy. > Maybe october? > > > > regards, > > > > Matt H. > > > > > > -- > __________________________________________________________ > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Get 4 DVDs for $.49 cents! plus shipping & processing. Click to join. http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-3566-59 From sdpoling at attbi.com Tue Jul 30 18:43:18 2002 From: sdpoling at attbi.com (Steve Poling) Date: Wed Aug 4 00:01:21 2004 Subject: More copyright drivel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005b01c23822$e1ecef00$0c00a8c0@CSISDP01> I'd just as soon you NOT personalize the matter of me getting paid. But since you mentioned it, let's look at artists getting paid: For the most part, we don't. Talk about copyrights is generally meaningless to artists because artists never exercize copyrights, they sell them to some publishing mega corp. Let's name some names and see if you recognize them: Plato, Aristotle, Socrates. They're not well known because the Sicilian mentions them in the copyrighted work entitled "The Princess Bride." Their work did quite well. I have written two novels and a couple dozen short stories. I've sold three short stories and one non-fiction article. If I get a book deal, that may get me some royalty income. But given the fact that I don't have a book deal, the best for me now is get my work pirated wide and far to build a constituency, a public following who'll want me to do more writing. It's like the garage band who can't get an "in" with Sony records, so they post their MP3s on the web. Your comment assumes that production is a big part of the printing business. It is not. (Maybe it was in 1650, but in 1650 you would be better off reading John Bunyan than me. BTW, that's still true.) Marketing and distribution are the mainstays of the publishing business, not printing. Look at the Sweet's catalog. If it wasn't freely given away to architects, no manufacturers would advertise therein. Printing those green books was completely secondary. Often manufacturers would drop-ship printed copy to the binding plant. MGH didn't even bother with printing, their entire emphasis was on marketing and distribution. Copyrights allow publishing companies to maintain a stranglehold on marketing and distribution. (Any idiot can make money running a monopoly. Look at Rapistan.) This gives the publishing megacorps enough cash to pay Clintons zillion-dollar advances that will never earn out. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew.Heusser@mks.net [mailto:Matthew.Heusser@mks.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:53 PM > To: sdpoling@attbi.com; grand-rapids-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org > Subject: RE: Meeting > > > > >If I understand the Constitution rightly > > If I understand enlish law correctly, one of the big > benefits of copyrights was to make Publishing _Profitable_. > > In other words, say it's 1650 and Steve Poling has > something he wants to have published. He probably can't > afford to order a print run himself - he has to go to a > business that does this routinely, and pitch his book. The > business needs to believe that it can make $$$ publishing his book. > > Now, if the business has to pay Steve L 5,000 for the > document, then prints it ... the next day, a different > publish can buy a copy of Steve's book for L 5, set his > presses, and run copies. So why would anyone want to publish > as a business? Unless those companies paid a pittance to the > authors ... so why should the author bother to write the book? > > Enter CopyRights. Now the company can have a lock on the > book long enough to make a few $$ for themselves and the > author. Over time, these publishers become very big. Big > enough to have lawyers on staff. > > So, IMHO, Poling's right - CopyRights were actually used to > reward sharing. Now, with the cost of reproducing documents > down to the time it takes me to press Control-C Control-V, > we're going to need a new system to deal with the change in > media formats. > > Or, we could just prop the old system up on it's end > through restrictive OS controls. Enter Microsoft, enter the > RIAA, enter Digital Rights Management. > > My conclusion: With all the dotCommers talking about > Paradigm shifts over the past 5 years or so, this is one area > that's actually due for one. > > my $0.02, > > > Matt H. > >