Road Cycling · Public discussion

AP article on Landis

Started by Gary · · Last activity · 43 posts · 1,205 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
3 October 2006
Last activity
10 October 2006
Original author
Gary
Posts
43
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,205
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 43
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. After two trying months marked by doping allegations, an assault on his
    reputation and his father-in-law's suicide, Floyd Landis doesn't wish
    for a stirring comeback so much as the simpler things in life.

    At this point, he'll take a good night's sleep, free of pain.

    To reach that goal, Landis had hip-replacement surgery last week. With
    his rehab under way, the 30-year-old won't rule out a return to
    competitive cycling and the Tour de France. As much as resurrecting his
    career, though, he wants to feel good again.

    "Things have been up and down for me," Landis said Monday in an
    interview with The Associated Press. "I'll be happy when it's a little
    more simple. I'll get through it though. I have a strong family. We're
    all being tested. Right now, this hip is something for me to focus on,
    something positive to focus on."

    He had endured three earlier operations on the right hip, injured in a
    2003 training crash, to keep him competing over the years, including
    this summer's winning ride through France — a victory derided by Tour
    officials after a positive doping test.

    Soon, the pain became too much.

    He underwent a state-of-the-art procedure, in which a metal cup was
    inserted into his damaged right hip socket and a metal cap was placed on
    top of a small stem that was inserted into the top of his thigh bone.
    The cap was then fit into the cup, and they combine to work as the new
    joint.

    Sometime next week, Landis will begin riding the stationary bike — the
    first major step in his rehabilitation process. In three weeks, he
    expects to be released to do anything he wants.

    And in a year?

    "We're moving forward with the idea that he will be back and be
    competitive," said Landis' personal physician, Brent Kay.

    Landis looks at the bigger picture.

    "A year from now, I see myself as the same human being I am now," he
    said. "I care about other people. I love my family. I'd like to race my
    bicycle again.

    "I know how I did it," Landis said of his Tour win. "I did it clean. The
    accusations against me are unfounded. I hope the world gets to see that.
    But I'm going to remain myself no matter what, and that's the most
    important thing."

    During this forced sabbatical, Landis spends a good deal of time working
    on his defense for his doping case, which is coming up in the next few
    months. His legal team is expected to argue that the tests that found an
    abnormal epitestosterone-to-testosterone ratio are faulty.

    Landis' attorney, Howard Jacobs, wants the arbitration hearing to be
    made public, and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which will prosecute the
    case, has said it will agree.

    Landis said he thinks a public hearing will be his best chance to have
    his side heard. He said officials at the International Cycling Union
    (UCI) and World Anti-Doping Agency have prosecuted his case in the press.

    He blames the UCI for the cycling's public-relations problems and says
    many who run the federation only want to stay in the good graces of the
    International Olympic Committee in hopes of advancing their careers there.

    "I'm not hopeful this sport can be fixed as long as UCI is running it.
    That's all I can say," Landis said.

    He did not, however, lump USADA with those he believes have tarnished
    his reputation and that of his sport.

    "Apart from my side, USADA has been the one group that has followed the
    rules, done everything properly," he said.

    It gives him hope that he'll get a fair hearing in front of an
    arbitration panel. His reputation, to say nothing of his Tour de France
    title, hangs in the balance.

    Meanwhile, he continues his rehab with the hope that a victory in the
    case could lead to other victories, and maybe another winning ride down
    the Champs-Elysees.

    "Hopefully, my career will go on, and I'm going to do my best to get
    there," Landis said. "But obviously, there are more important things."

  2. Gary said:


    He underwent a state-of-the-art procedure, in which a metal cup was
    inserted into his damaged right hip socket and a metal cap was placed on
    top of a small stem that was inserted into the top of his thigh bone.
    The cap was then fit into the cup, and they combine to work as the new
    joint.

    Lance would have had his F1 team design and build a cup and cap that
    was 15% lighter, 22% more aerodynamic, and 100% more marketable. Now
    when they talk of product placment it's surgically implanted.

    R

  3. On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    posted:
    [some copyrighted material]

    Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    or all the text.

    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  4. Quoted message said:

    On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    posted:
    [some copyrighted material]


    Thanks for the article!

  5. John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    posted:
    [some copyrighted material]

    Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    or all the text.

    Gary - thanks!

    John - get over it.

    http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
    http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Mises?hl=en&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&q=against%20intellectual%20property

  6. On 5 Oct 2006 17:00:38 -0700, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    posted:
    [some copyrighted material]

    Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    or all the text.

    Gary - thanks!

    John - get over it.

    Get over what? I'm asking someone not to break the law and do
    something unethical. I even said please.

    I don't understand why should you try to stop me from doing that.

    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  7. In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On 5 Oct 2006 17:00:38 -0700, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    posted:
    [some copyrighted material]

    Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    or all the text.

    Gary - thanks!

    John - get over it.

    Get over what? I'm asking someone not to break the law and do
    something unethical. I even said please.

    I don't understand why should you try to stop me from doing that.

    Because he doesn't understand fair use. Of course, fair use has something to do
    with government, so it must be evil...

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Never take a tenant with a monkey.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  8. "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On 5 Oct 2006 17:00:38 -0700, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    posted:
    [some copyrighted material]

    Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    or all the text.

    Gary - thanks!

    John - get over it.

    Get over what? I'm asking someone not to break the law and do
    something unethical. I even said please.

    I don't understand why should you try to stop me from doing that.

    --

    John is totally correct.

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Howard Kveck said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On 5 Oct 2006 17:00:38 -0700, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    > posted:
    > [some copyrighted material]
    >
    > Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    > copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    > or all the text.

    Gary - thanks!

    John - get over it.

    Get over what? I'm asking someone not to break the law and do
    something unethical. I even said please.

    I don't understand why should you try to stop me from doing that.

    Because he doesn't understand fair use. Of course, fair use has something
    to do
    with government, so it must be evil...

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.htm
    l

    Howard, I love you man, but please quote the section of that website
    that permits the reproduction of a complete news article in this forum.

    There's a pretty big argument that we have a violation of fair use based
    on the "amount and substantiality of the portion taken" (in this case,
    the whole thing).

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.
    html#3

    I don't think a critique of the column would save him in that case.

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Information wants to be pirated,

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  10. Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, fair use has something
    to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    Quoted message said:

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    "There is no duty to obey the state." -- BF, 1759

    Quoted message said:

    Information wants to be pirated,

    First one has to admit that "IP" is actually property to be stolen,
    before it can be pirated. The moral question is whether anything was
    actually stolen. Do the IP laws have a moral base or are they
    fictional, and a privilege bestowed by power brokers (the rulers)? Are
    ideas "property?"

    For citizens to simply parrot back what the rulers have told them is
    insufficient to sustain a free society. IMHO, of course.

    "It is true because the rulers said so." -- JFT paraphrase, 2006

    Why 20 years for a patent? Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    it is really "property?" Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    rules?) for a copyright? Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    really "property?" Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    after 75 years, up until recently. But they changed their mind, and
    now they only want to be pirated after 125 years. It must be something
    in the nature of ideas itself.

  11. In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, fair use has something
    to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    Quoted message said:

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    Comparing the morality of copyright law to the morality of slavery is so
    offensive I decline to comment further on that idea.

    Quoted message said:

    "There is no duty to obey the state." -- BF, 1759

    Quoted message said:

    Information wants to be pirated,

    First one has to admit that "IP" is actually property to be stolen,
    before it can be pirated. The moral question is whether anything was
    actually stolen. Do the IP laws have a moral base or are they
    fictional, and a privilege bestowed by power brokers (the rulers)? Are
    ideas "property?"

    Well, you could have a lively argument about whether copyright
    infringement is mala prohibita or mala in se (fancy Latin meaning "wrong
    because it is prohibited" or "wrong in itself"😉 but my feeling is that
    copyright exists because it is reasonable: the right to your own
    creative work is compelling.

    The sense of opposition I have to current copyright law doesn't come
    from the basics of law, it comes (slightly) from the limits of
    copyright, and (substantially) from stuff like the DMCA which allows
    companies to make certain forms of content repurposing not merely hard,
    but also illegal, even though they don't violate actual copyright law.
    (the classic example would be ripping a DVD to a hard drive: legal as a
    form of fair use if you've purchased the DVD, but illegal in the US
    because circumventing the (weak) copy protection is forbidden.

    Quoted message said:

    Why 20 years for a patent? Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    it is really "property?" Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    rules?) for a copyright? Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    really "property?" Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    after 75 years, up until recently. But they changed their mind, and
    now they only want to be pirated after 125 years. It must be something
    in the nature of ideas itself.

    Why indeed. These are utilitarian arguments, hinging on the question
    "what is best for society, while still letting creators enjoy the fruits
    of their works?"

    We try very hard to figure out these rights. I think recent copyright
    extensions are a bad trend (and yes, there are people, mostly the
    RIAA/MPAA types, arguing in favour of perpetual copyright), but there is
    a legitimate argument for them, even if I disagree on the whole.

    Nobody is conceiving of a state in which copyright will be reduced to 48
    hours, however, which is about what would be necessary for this
    circumstance to be a legal reproduction....

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  12. SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, fair use has something
    to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    Quoted message said:

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    "There is no duty to obey the state." -- BF, 1759

    Quoted message said:

    Information wants to be pirated,

    First one has to admit that "IP" is actually property to be stolen,
    before it can be pirated. The moral question is whether anything was
    actually stolen. Do the IP laws have a moral base or are they
    fictional, and a privilege bestowed by power brokers (the rulers)? Are
    ideas "property?"

    For citizens to simply parrot back what the rulers have told them is
    insufficient to sustain a free society. IMHO, of course.

    "It is true because the rulers said so." -- JFT paraphrase, 2006

    Why 20 years for a patent? Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    it is really "property?" Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    rules?) for a copyright? Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    really "property?" Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    after 75 years, up until recently. But they changed their mind, and
    now they only want to be pirated after 125 years. It must be something
    in the nature of ideas itself.

    Dumbass -

    The humorless bitter political [censored] belongs over in RBT.]

    Ron

  13. Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    > Of course, fair use has something
    > to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    Quoted message said:

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    Comparing the morality of copyright law to the morality of slavery is so
    offensive I decline to comment further on that idea.

    Oh grow up. It simply shows the legal positivist defense is nonsense
    by terrible but real examples. What you are saying is "don't
    understand history and its lessons because it is an uncomfortable
    history." Legal positivism is devoid of ethics, therefore one who says
    "don't do it because it is illegal" cannot simultaneously say it is
    unethical because it is illegal. There is no necessary relation, as
    the terrible examples show most clearly. Bluntly put, it was not a
    comparison of copyright and slavery laws, it was an attack on legal
    positivism -- showing the absurd results it can blithely allow.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "There is no duty to obey the state." -- BF, 1759

    Quoted message said:

    Information wants to be pirated,

    First one has to admit that "IP" is actually property to be stolen,
    before it can be pirated. The moral question is whether anything was
    actually stolen. Do the IP laws have a moral base or are they
    fictional, and a privilege bestowed by power brokers (the rulers)? Are
    ideas "property?"

    Well, you could have a lively argument about whether copyright
    infringement is mala prohibita or mala in se (fancy Latin meaning "wrong
    because it is prohibited" or "wrong in itself"😉 but my feeling is that
    copyright exists because it is reasonable: the right to your own
    creative work is compelling.

    The sense of opposition I have to current copyright law doesn't come
    from the basics of law, it comes (slightly) from the limits of
    copyright, and (substantially) from stuff like the DMCA which allows
    companies to make certain forms of content repurposing not merely hard,
    but also illegal, even though they don't violate actual copyright law.
    (the classic example would be ripping a DVD to a hard drive: legal as a
    form of fair use if you've purchased the DVD, but illegal in the US
    because circumventing the (weak) copy protection is forbidden.

    Quoted message said:

    Why 20 years for a patent? Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    it is really "property?" Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    rules?) for a copyright? Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    really "property?" Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    after 75 years, up until recently. But they changed their mind, and
    now they only want to be pirated after 125 years. It must be something
    in the nature of ideas itself.

    Why indeed. These are utilitarian arguments, hinging on the question
    "what is best for society, while still letting creators enjoy the fruits
    of their works?"

    We try very hard to figure out these rights. I think recent copyright
    extensions are a bad trend (and yes, there are people, mostly the
    RIAA/MPAA types, arguing in favour of perpetual copyright), but there is
    a legitimate argument for them, even if I disagree on the whole.

    Nobody is conceiving of a state in which copyright will be reduced to 48
    hours, however, which is about what would be necessary for this
    circumstance to be a legal reproduction....

    Ryan,

    Thanks for your thoughts. Personally, I don't know, but as the debate
    currently goes, I think the "against IP" argument is better and more
    consistant. I just object to the knee-jerk "it is a law so it must be
    unethical/immoral to copy works." (Which is incoherent and self
    contradictatory legal positivism.) Most people can't explain why ideas
    are property. Most people just have blank stares and start drooling
    all over themselves when trying to explain "their" position.

    Some libertarians, like J C Lester and Richard Epstein argue for IP as
    valid. Obviously Kinsella argues against IP.

    blogging started by Kinsella and on Epstein is going on now (a more
    appropriate place for arguing the point than rbr):
    http://blog.mises.org/archives/005713.asp#comments

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Howard Kveck said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:

    On 5 Oct 2006 17:00:38 -0700, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:10:57 -0500, Gary <[email hidden]>
    >> posted:
    >> [some copyrighted material]
    >>
    >> Please don't post stuff like that unless you have permisson from the
    >> copyright holder. Post a link, and maybe an excerpt, but not the bulk
    >> or all the text.
    >
    >Gary - thanks!
    >
    >John - get over it.

    Get over what? I'm asking someone not to break the law and do
    something unethical. I even said please.

    I don't understand why should you try to stop me from doing that.

    Because he doesn't understand fair use. Of course, fair use has
    something
    to do
    with government, so it must be evil...

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.h
    tm
    l

    Howard, I love you man, but please quote the section of that website
    that permits the reproduction of a complete news article in this forum.

    There's a pretty big argument that we have a violation of fair use based
    on the "amount and substantiality of the portion taken" (in this case,
    the whole thing).

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.
    html#3

    I don't think a critique of the column would save him in that case.

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Information wants to be pirated,

    No, I agree with JT on this. The link was to give some ideas on what constitutes
    fair use. I've also been an advocate of the cut-n-paste a small section of an
    article but include a link to it school of thought. Taking and posting the entire
    article does not constitute fair use. And JT doesn't just have the law on his side,
    he also has convention. That (small excerpt and, when online, a link to the original
    article) is pretty much how it's done.

    I also agree with your comments in your next post in this thread inre: copyright
    law, especially regarding the extensions of them. Disney has been one of the biggest
    beneficiaries of those extensions. There is a point at which that stuff should
    revert to public domain.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Never take a tenant with a monkey.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  15. In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Of course, fair use has something
    to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    Well, Greg, posting an article in it's entirety (especially with no critical
    commentary on the article) *does* fall under the concept of fair use.
    __________________________________

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
    copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by
    any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
    news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
    or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use
    made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered
    shall include

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
    commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
    copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
    copyrighted work.
    __________________________________

    From the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C.107 .

    Quoted message said:

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    Actually, you're correct there, Greg. From your writings in the past, I believe
    that you would find murder to be wrong, but would believe that a law against it
    would be an unneeded interference, as people should simply know not to commit murder.

    Quoted message said:

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    Quoted message said:

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    Hmm. Your examples are perversely extreme and equally perversely not relevant to
    the subject at hand.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Never take a tenant with a monkey.

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  16. In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:

    Ryan Cousineau wrote:
    > In article <[email hidden]>,
    > Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > > Of course, fair use has something
    > > to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    > So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    > have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    Comparing the morality of copyright law to the morality of slavery is so
    offensive I decline to comment further on that idea.

    Oh grow up. It simply shows the legal positivist defense is nonsense
    by terrible but real examples. What you are saying is "don't
    understand history and its lessons because it is an uncomfortable
    history." Legal positivism is devoid of ethics, therefore one who says
    "don't do it because it is illegal" cannot simultaneously say it is
    unethical because it is illegal. There is no necessary relation, as
    the terrible examples show most clearly. Bluntly put, it was not a
    comparison of copyright and slavery laws, it was an attack on legal
    positivism -- showing the absurd results it can blithely allow.

    Dumbass: use a sense of proportion in your examples. Contemplate how
    mala prohibita and mala in se (most perversely!) might apply here.
    Google "Godwin's Law".

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "There is no duty to obey the state." -- BF, 1759

    > Information wants to be pirated,

    First one has to admit that "IP" is actually property to be stolen,
    before it can be pirated. The moral question is whether anything was
    actually stolen. Do the IP laws have a moral base or are they
    fictional, and a privilege bestowed by power brokers (the rulers)? Are
    ideas "property?"

    Well, you could have a lively argument about whether copyright
    infringement is mala prohibita or mala in se (fancy Latin meaning "wrong
    because it is prohibited" or "wrong in itself"😉 but my feeling is that
    copyright exists because it is reasonable: the right to your own
    creative work is compelling.

    The sense of opposition I have to current copyright law doesn't come
    from the basics of law, it comes (slightly) from the limits of
    copyright, and (substantially) from stuff like the DMCA which allows
    companies to make certain forms of content repurposing not merely hard,
    but also illegal, even though they don't violate actual copyright law.
    (the classic example would be ripping a DVD to a hard drive: legal as a
    form of fair use if you've purchased the DVD, but illegal in the US
    because circumventing the (weak) copy protection is forbidden.

    Quoted message said:

    Why 20 years for a patent? Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    it is really "property?" Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    rules?) for a copyright? Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    really "property?" Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    after 75 years, up until recently. But they changed their mind, and
    now they only want to be pirated after 125 years. It must be something
    in the nature of ideas itself.

    Why indeed. These are utilitarian arguments, hinging on the question
    "what is best for society, while still letting creators enjoy the fruits
    of their works?"

    We try very hard to figure out these rights. I think recent copyright
    extensions are a bad trend (and yes, there are people, mostly the
    RIAA/MPAA types, arguing in favour of perpetual copyright), but there is
    a legitimate argument for them, even if I disagree on the whole.

    Nobody is conceiving of a state in which copyright will be reduced to 48
    hours, however, which is about what would be necessary for this
    circumstance to be a legal reproduction....

    Ryan,

    Thanks for your thoughts. Personally, I don't know, but as the debate
    currently goes, I think the "against IP" argument is better and more
    consistant. I just object to the knee-jerk "it is a law so it must be
    unethical/immoral to copy works." (Which is incoherent and self
    contradictatory legal positivism.) Most people can't explain why ideas
    are property. Most people just have blank stares and start drooling
    all over themselves when trying to explain "their" position.

    Unless I missed a spot and JT raised a moral/ethical argument, he was
    arguing that it was (and I'm overusing these terms because they're so
    much fun to write) mala prohibita.

    the issue is that rbr is not an appropriate venue for civil disobedience
    of copyright.

    Especially when the copyright-holder has made the work publicly
    available via a URL!

    Information wants to be cut and pasted,

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  17. in message <[email hidden]>, SLAVE of

    THE STATE (') said:

    Why 20 years for a patent?  Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    it is really "property?"  Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    rules?) for a copyright?  Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    really "property?"  Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    after 75 years, up until recently.  But they changed their mind, and
    now they only want to be pirated after 125 years.  It must be something
    in the nature of ideas itself.

    Except that the exact same ideas that don't want to be pirated for 125
    years in the states, want to be pirated in Europe seventy years after the
    death of the original author. It's all very confusing.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; this is not a .sig

  18. in message <[email hidden]>, Ryan Cousineau

    (') said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article
    <[email hidden]>,
    Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    > Of course, fair use has something
    > to do with government, so it must be evil...

    1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    use" has nothing to do with it.

    2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    simply because government also has a law against it.

    So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)

    Quoted message said:

    So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    have another thought.

    Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.

    By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    they were the law.

    Comparing the morality of copyright law to the morality of slavery is so
    offensive I decline to comment further on that idea.

    No, actually, it isn't. Intellectual freedoms are just as critical to a
    good society as physical ones, and property in ideas is actually just as
    indefensible a concept as property in people. And before you start, the
    slave merchants of Bristol (and, doubtless, other places) could - and
    did - produce a whole slew of fine sounding arguments about how reasonable
    and utilitarian chattel slavery was. It didn't make it right, and they
    lost the argument in the end.

    And yes, I'm a self employed software architect (or at least, I own the
    company which employs me).

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    ;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
    ;; then Perl is executable line noise
    -- seen on Slashdot.

  19. Ryan Cousineau said:

    The sense of opposition I have to current copyright law doesn't come
    from the basics of law, it comes (slightly) from the limits of
    copyright, and (substantially) from stuff like the DMCA which allows
    companies to make certain forms of content repurposing not merely hard,
    but also illegal, even though they don't violate actual copyright law.

    And the absurd ease with which ridiculous patents are granted by the US
    patent office. In particular they don't seem to have many people qualified
    to evaluate software patents so they grant just about any application as
    long as the corporation making the application has enough $. Thank
    heavens M$ haven't been able to bribe enough European politicians yet to
    have their software patent laws pushed thu in the EU.

  20. On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:46:38 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    SLAVE of THE STATE said:
    Ryan Cousineau said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
    > > In article <[email hidden]>,
    > > Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    > > > Of course, fair use has something
    > > > to do with government, so it must be evil...
    >
    > 1. If you'd (Howard) read the Kinsella article you would know "fair
    > use" has nothing to do with it.
    >
    > 2. By your way of thinking I would be against a law against murder,
    > simply because government also has a law against it.
    >
    > So in every way you could quickly think of, you were wrong. (Given
    > more time, I'm sure you could figure out more ways to be wrong.)
    >
    > > So good or bad, JT pretty clearly has the law on his side, unless you
    > > have another thought.
    >
    > Very true. There is no dispute on what the law actually states.
    >
    > By John's logic, operators of the underground railroad should have been
    > tossed in jail, because the fugitive slave laws were.... well, the law.
    > Rosa Parks should have been tossed in jail because she broke the law.
    > Jews in Nazi Germany should have obeyed the Nuremburg laws because..
    > they were the law.

    Comparing the morality of copyright law to the morality of slavery is so
    offensive I decline to comment further on that idea.

    Oh grow up. It simply shows the legal positivist defense is nonsense
    by terrible but real examples. What you are saying is "don't
    understand history and its lessons because it is an uncomfortable
    history." Legal positivism is devoid of ethics, therefore one who says
    "don't do it because it is illegal" cannot simultaneously say it is
    unethical because it is illegal. There is no necessary relation, as
    the terrible examples show most clearly. Bluntly put, it was not a
    comparison of copyright and slavery laws, it was an attack on legal
    positivism -- showing the absurd results it can blithely allow.

    Dumbass: use a sense of proportion in your examples. Contemplate how
    mala prohibita and mala in se (most perversely!) might apply here.
    Google "Godwin's Law".

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > "There is no duty to obey the state." -- BF, 1759
    >
    > > Information wants to be pirated,
    >
    > First one has to admit that "IP" is actually property to be stolen,
    > before it can be pirated. The moral question is whether anything was
    > actually stolen. Do the IP laws have a moral base or are they
    > fictional, and a privilege bestowed by power brokers (the rulers)? Are
    > ideas "property?"

    Well, you could have a lively argument about whether copyright
    infringement is mala prohibita or mala in se (fancy Latin meaning "wrong
    because it is prohibited" or "wrong in itself"😉 but my feeling is that
    copyright exists because it is reasonable: the right to your own
    creative work is compelling.

    The sense of opposition I have to current copyright law doesn't come
    from the basics of law, it comes (slightly) from the limits of
    copyright, and (substantially) from stuff like the DMCA which allows
    companies to make certain forms of content repurposing not merely hard,
    but also illegal, even though they don't violate actual copyright law.
    (the classic example would be ripping a DVD to a hard drive: legal as a
    form of fair use if you've purchased the DVD, but illegal in the US
    because circumventing the (weak) copy protection is forbidden.

    > Why 20 years for a patent? Why not 21 years, 19 years, or infinity, if
    > it is really "property?" Why 125 years (125?, and a bunch of other
    > rules?) for a copyright? Why not 126 years, or infinity, if it is
    > really "property?" Apparently written works only wanted to be prirated
    > after 75 years, up until recently. But they changed their mind, and
    > now they only want to be pirated after 125 years. It must be something
    > in the nature of ideas itself.

    Why indeed. These are utilitarian arguments, hinging on the question
    "what is best for society, while still letting creators enjoy the fruits
    of their works?"

    We try very hard to figure out these rights. I think recent copyright
    extensions are a bad trend (and yes, there are people, mostly the
    RIAA/MPAA types, arguing in favour of perpetual copyright), but there is
    a legitimate argument for them, even if I disagree on the whole.

    Nobody is conceiving of a state in which copyright will be reduced to 48
    hours, however, which is about what would be necessary for this
    circumstance to be a legal reproduction....

    Ryan,

    Thanks for your thoughts. Personally, I don't know, but as the debate
    currently goes, I think the "against IP" argument is better and more
    consistant. I just object to the knee-jerk "it is a law so it must be
    unethical/immoral to copy works." (Which is incoherent and self
    contradictatory legal positivism.) Most people can't explain why ideas
    are property. Most people just have blank stares and start drooling
    all over themselves when trying to explain "their" position.

    Unless I missed a spot and JT raised a moral/ethical argument, he was
    arguing that it was (and I'm overusing these terms because they're so
    much fun to write) mala prohibita.


    There is a moral element -- AP makes money by syndicating the text to
    newspapers that make money by showing ads. So posting the full text
    goes around that -- depriving those organizations of money.

    Considering the text is available at the newspapers website for free
    (apart from glancing ove the ads) it seems immoral to deprive them of
    money for their work.

    Now if the OP actually thinks that newspapers are bad, and should be
    deprived of income (the same way some of us might feel about, say drug
    smugglers or other bad industries) then I guess there is logical
    consistency in not supporting them in that way. Otherwise, it's
    wrong.
    --
    JT
    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.