Now, if I can just hang on 'til then!
BTW, George you look great in your avatar. Where did you get the snappy threads?
Looks like I'll just have to wait a while.
I would also like to see the works of Lewis on Logos.
Rob Suggs: John is right. The family has circled the wagons around the don's intellectual property. It's understandable, and it's their prerogative and right, but you have to think Clive Stapes himself wouldn't be so comfortable with the legacy of his influence being leveraged completely on the basis of cash. ...
John is right. The family has circled the wagons around the don's intellectual property. It's understandable, and it's their prerogative and right, but you have to think Clive Stapes himself wouldn't be so comfortable with the legacy of his influence being leveraged completely on the basis of cash. ...
Actually, I don't think it's understandable. Intellectual property rights are simply a sham. There is no such thing as "intellectual property."
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
John Bowling: I would also like to see the works of Lewis on Logos. Rob Suggs: John is right. The family has circled the wagons around the don's intellectual property. It's understandable, and it's their prerogative and right, but you have to think Clive Stapes himself wouldn't be so comfortable with the legacy of his influence being leveraged completely on the basis of cash. ... Actually, I don't think it's understandable. Intellectual property rights are simply a sham. There is no such thing as "intellectual property."
I think you should wait until you have written a well-received book or produced some other work such as a painting or a film or a piece of music before you make such a statement. It takes real work to do that -- they don't just fall off the turnip truck. You pour your very soul into it, and just as most want to be able to pass on any wealth they have accumulated to their children or other loved ones on their death so does an author. It IS HIS RIGHT !
georgegfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
John Bowling:Actually, I don't think it's understandable. Intellectual property rights are simply a sham. There is no such thing as "intellectual property."
DuPont & General Motors seem to think differently. Every patent developed from within their labs belong to them. Mattel won a judgement against their former employee (creator of the Bratz dolls) for the full amount of his profits and ownership of the Bratz company.
When General Motors refused to pay me for freelance robotics programming, I exercised my legal rights and refused to deliver the program. They lost money exponentially higher than the fair amount of my wages.
I just wonder if a C. S. Lewis Collection would include the controversial pseudepigrapha. Not since the Shakespeare vs Alexander Pope mystery has there been this level of questioning.
...
Deleted because I double clicked "post" and had a double entry.
( shaky trigger-finger here. )
I would love to have CS Lewis' stuff in Logos
Jacob HantlaPastor/Elder, Grace Bible Church gbcaz.org | hantla.com/blog
George Somsel: I think you should wait until you have written a well-received book or produced some other work such as a painting or a film or a piece of music before you make such a statement. It takes real work to do that -- they don't just fall off the turnip truck. You pour your very soul into it, and just as most want to be able to pass on any wealth they have accumulated to their children or other loved ones on their death so does an author. It IS HIS RIGHT !
I. How do you know that I haven’t?
II. If I haven’t, how is that an argument for the existence of intellectual property rights? It looks to me like a simple ad hominem.
III. Obviously I disagree that it’s his right, so I don’t find your assertion to the contrary very persuasive. (Bold caps don't help either, unfortunately.)
IV. Rather than get into a debate about intellectual property rights, (your reply didn’t give any real arguments to the contrary) I’ll just point out where you can find arguments against them and, if you’re interested, you can study for yourself and decide whether you agree or not. (see here http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/B001DTHFWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259341896&sr=8-1 , here http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259341939&sr=1-1 , here http://mises.org/media/4255 , here http://mises.org/story/3631 , and here http://mises.org/daily/2632 )
Matthew C Jones: DuPont & General Motors seem to think differently. Every patent developed from within their labs belong to them. Mattel won a judgement against their former employee (creator of the Bratz dolls) for the full amount of his profits and ownership of the Bratz company. When General Motors refused to pay me for freelance robotics programming, I exercised my legal rights and refused to deliver the program. They lost money exponentially higher than the fair amount of my wages.
Seems like the is-ought fallacy to me… that is, IF you were trying to make that an argument. Of course, I realize that many people seem to think there is such a thing as intellectual property. However, the fact that people think so doesn’t have much persuasive value for me. You can see the resources I listed for George if you’re interested.
Don't even get me started on just price theory or the "fair wage" thing....
John Bowling:Don't even get me started on just price theory or the "fair wage" thing....
Funny how General Motors went bankrupt and I never did. The price of their product kept going up because they were too "Goliath" to consider their spaghetti code was costing them dearly. Their robots had a 4% failure rate on an MVSS test. But like eternal salvation, some just don't get it........
I'm not sure what you're point is. Is that an argument for just price theory? If so, how? Can you spell it out?
John Bowling:V. Rather than get into a debate about intellectual property rights, (your reply didn’t give any real arguments to the contrary) I’ll just point out where you can find arguments against them and, if you’re interested, you can study for yourself and decide whether you agree or not. (see here http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/B001DTHFWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259341896&sr=8-1 , here http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259341939&sr=1-1 , here http://mises.org/media/4255 , here http://mises.org/story/3631 , and here http://mises.org/daily/2632 )
You wasted your time posting this since I'm not going to read it. I don't waste my time with idiocy. The worker is entitled to the produce of his labor -- period.
John Bowling:Of course, I realize that many people seem to think there is such a thing as intellectual property.
The Bible says it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out. I will state that all intellect belongs to God. However profit from refined intellect should reside for a time with those who do the work. All of your Austrian economists would agree with that. That is why drug companies in the USA have exclusivity to their newly formulated medications. The copyright laws had a good intent but have been expanded beyond the original principle. The whole Doc Savage vs Blackmask lawsuit was a travesty.
When Charles Schultz died you saw a marketing blitz of the Peanuts franchise. That makes sense. I just never understood why heirs would cap a well when the commodity is at it's hottest. In theory, the Native Americans were correct in saying no man can own the land. But in reality someone must hold title to the land or no one will plow, sow or harvest.
Allow me to expand a bit by relating a couple of true stories.
A fellow member of several scholarly e-mail lists who teaches in a seminary and has some works published in Logos format suggested that I give him my license to LSJ in exchange for his providing me with TLG disk. I told him that were I to do that I would need to provide him with my license and I don't think I could look in the mirror nor did I think he could. Obviously I was trying to be kind since he apparently had no compunctions regarding it since he had done so with someone else previously. This is why it is now necessary for Logos to synchronize your licenses (especially in L4); they had to protect their intellectutal property rights. We had some spam in the old newsgroups touting a program to break any protection scheme. Apparently there are others who think there are no rights to intellectual property. Would you be one who would seize the opportunity to use Logos resources without paying for the right to do so? I hope your thoughts do not get put into practice though that is usually what happens.
I copied my notes and supporting resources and put them on the computer of the minister of a friend of mine since we had been discussing the book of Revelation which I have been working on for a number of years. I emphasized to him that I expected that after he had looked over the material he would delete it. I think he is honest enough to do so though I have no way to enforce it. I viewed it as being similar to lending a friend my car. If this is a one-time event or at least not habitual, I don't see a problem. If, however, I were to allow him to drive my car every day then my insurance company might have some qualms about that relationship. I could have been naive in letting him have access to my licenses, but I do think his honesty is such that he won't take advantage of it. On the other hand, I was surprised when my seminary professor acquaintance made his suggestion.
Don't say this too loudly. Considering the Logos Bible software is "intellectual property", we wouldn't want to scare off further development. The fact you can not get Barclay's Daily Study Bible in Logos format anymore is proof the law views this as real. I would hesitate moving to a country that did not recognize personal (or intellectual) property rights.
Matthew C Jones:When Charles Schultz died you saw a marketing blitz of the Peanuts franchise. That makes sense. I just never understood why heirs would cap an oil well when a commodity is at it's hottest. In theory, the Native Americans were correct in saying no man can own the land. But in reality someone must hold title to the land or no one will plow, sow or harvest.
44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 47 Of course, I always found the man's action a bit questionable, but perhaps I'm a bit hypersensitive in that regard. He failed to disclose a material fact to the owner of the property when he purchased it. There are other passages as well which assume that a man can own property, but I'll not be too prolix. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; 48 when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. 49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; 46 on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.
44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
45
47
Of course, I always found the man's action a bit questionable, but perhaps I'm a bit hypersensitive in that regard. He failed to disclose a material fact to the owner of the property when he purchased it. There are other passages as well which assume that a man can own property, but I'll not be too prolix.
George Somsel:Of course, I always found the man's action a bit questionable, but perhaps I'm a bit hypersensitive in that regard. He failed to disclose a material fact to the owner of the property when he purchased it.
I may be mistaken but doesn't disclosure on a purchase only apply to the seller? I sold a Gibson ES-135 for $200. The buyer did not have to disclose it was worth $1500. When our mayor's friends buy up property, they don't disclose the new interstate highway is going through that corridor.
I don't believe there is any moral obligation to disclose on the buyer's part. That would be where the intellectual property (expertise) of a real estate broker comes in...
Matthew C Jones: I may be mistaken but doesn't disclosure on a purchase only apply to the seller? I sold a Gibson ES-135 for $200. The buyer did not have to disclose it was worth $1500. When our mayor's friends buy up property, they donn't disclose the new interstate highway is going through that corridor. I don't believe there is any moral obligation to disclose on the buyer's part. That would be where the intellectual property (expertise) of a real estate broker comes in...
I may be mistaken but doesn't disclosure on a purchase only apply to the seller? I sold a Gibson ES-135 for $200. The buyer did not have to disclose it was worth $1500. When our mayor's friends buy up property, they donn't disclose the new interstate highway is going through that corridor.
Perhaps you're right, but I still feel a bit funny about it. Our character is the only true property we have so it must be protected.
George Somsel:Our character is the only true property we have so it must be protected.
So true, George. Words fitly spoken.
George Somsel: “You wasted your time posting this since I'm not going to read it. I don't waste my time with idiocy.”
Well I certainly hope you don’t treat every opinion that differs from your own as idiocy. I mean, if you feel justified in such an attitude, then couldn’t I just refer to your own position as idiocy? In fact, I think I might try that in this post to prove a point.
George Somsel: “The worker is entitled to the produce of his labor – period.”
I was going to read that sentence, but I’m afraid you’ve wasted your time in posting it. You see, I don’t waste my time with idiocy.
Matthew: “However profit from refined intellect should reside for a time with those who do the work.”
You’re simply begging the question (in the technical sense). Simply reasserting your opinion isn’t going to get us anywhere and since George has already tried that I don’t know why you’re even chiming in. (I also don’t take head counts.)
Matthew: “All of your Austrian economists would agree with that.”
Apparently not (cf. links).
Matthew: “That is why drug companies in the USA have exclusivity to their newly formulated medications.”
I’m not sure what you’re point is. It also has a lot to do with the FDA and safety regulation. But have you ever noticed how you can get store brand Tylenol and Tylenol Tylenol?
Matthew: “The copyright laws had a good intent but have been expanded beyond the original principle.”
I disagree. It seems to me like a simple product of greed. Throughout the majority of human history people have functioned fine in producing music and books without copy right laws, patents, or the notion of “intellectual property.”
Imagine three people on island and one of the persons, man G, becomes the governor (perhaps by coercion, it doesn’t matter). One day, the other two men are trying to get some food from a coconut. Man X figures out that he can get the coconut open easier if he bangs it with a rock. Man Y sees this and decides to do the same. Man X figures that he could make money from his idea if he could get the “Governor” to declare that the idea of using a rock to open a coconut “belongs” to man X. So he persuades the Governor to declare that man Y must pay man X if he wishes to open coconuts with a rock. Does this seem reasonable to you? It should, because it’s the basic idea behind intellectual property.
(By the way, the letters your using (the language your using) wasn’t your idea. It was someone else’s. I suppose they could copy right it and charge you money every time you speak/type, by that logic. I suppose they could dictate who you talk/type to and who you don’t. They could make it so that everytime you wish to type/talk you have to obtain written permission and pay a small fee. Sound good? It was their labor or “refined intellect” if you want to get rhetorical.)
Matthew: “In theory, the Native Americans were correct in saying no man can own the land. But in reality someone must hold title to the land or no one will plow, sow or harvest.”
I don’t think scarce resources are analogous to ideas, which are not scarce resources. So I don’t think your analogy is good or valid.
George Somsel: “Allow me to expand a bit by relating a couple of true stories. A fellow member of several scholarly e-mail lists who teaches in a seminary and has some works published in Logos format suggested that I give him my license to LSJ in exchange for his providing me with TLG disk. I told him that were I to do that I would need to provide him with my license and I don't think I could look in the mirror nor did I think he could. Obviously I was trying to be kind since he apparently had no compunctions regarding it since he had done so with someone else previously. This is why it is now necessary for Logos to synchronize your licenses (especially in L4); they had to protect their intellectutal property rights. We had some spam in the old newsgroups touting a program to break any protection scheme. Apparently there are others who think there are no rights to intellectual property. Would you be one who would seize the opportunity to use Logos resources without paying for the right to do so? I hope your thoughts do not get put into practice though that is usually what happens. I copied my notes and supporting resources and put them on the computer of the minister of a friend of mine since we had been discussing the book of Revelation which I have been working on for a number of years. I emphasized to him that I expected that after he had looked over the material he would delete it. I think he is honest enough to do so though I have no way to enforce it. I viewed it as being similar to lending a friend my car. If this is a one-time event or at least not habitual, I don't see a problem. If, however, I were to allow him to drive my car every day then my insurance company might have some qualms about that relationship. I could have been naive in letting him have access to my licenses, but I do think his honesty is such that he won't take advantage of it. On the other hand, I was surprised when my seminary professor acquaintance made his suggestion.”
I copied my notes and supporting resources and put them on the computer of the minister of a friend of mine since we had been discussing the book of Revelation which I have been working on for a number of years. I emphasized to him that I expected that after he had looked over the material he would delete it. I think he is honest enough to do so though I have no way to enforce it. I viewed it as being similar to lending a friend my car. If this is a one-time event or at least not habitual, I don't see a problem. If, however, I were to allow him to drive my car every day then my insurance company might have some qualms about that relationship. I could have been naive in letting him have access to my licenses, but I do think his honesty is such that he won't take advantage of it. On the other hand, I was surprised when my seminary professor acquaintance made his suggestion.”
I was going to read this… but then I figured “why waste time with idiocy?” ;) (You know I do like this tactic much better. It’s certainly a lot easier. Is this method copy righted? If I have to start paying royalties I may reconsider.)
Matthew: “Don't say this too loudly. Considering the Logos Bible software is "intellectual property", we wouldn't want to scare off further development. The fact you can not get Barclay's Daily Study Bible in Logos format anymore is proof the law views this as real. I would hesitate moving to a country that did not recognize personal (or intellectual) property rights.”
You’re ability to continue to commit the is-ought fallacy and argue by way of personal anecdote isn’t very impressive.
George Somsel: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”
How does this prove the existence of intellectual property?
George Somsel: “Of course, I always found the man's action a bit questionable, but perhaps I'm a bit hypersensitive in that regard. He failed to disclose a material fact to the owner of the property when he purchased it. There are other passages as well which assume that a man can own property, but I'll not be too prolix.”
Great. Now if you could just find a passage that assumes a man can own intellectual property.
George Somsel: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; 48 when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. 49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; 46 on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.”
I was not going to waste my time by reading this idiocy either, but then I just got off work so I figured I’d indulge a little.
Sorry, but I don’t see how this proves the existence or legitimacy of intellectual property.
Let’s ASSUME that these verses prove the legitimacy of property simpliciter. (It doesn’t, but let’s assume it does so I can be as generous as possible with your argument.) Does it thereby prove that all things can be a form of property such that we can say intellectual ideas are a form of property? Of course not, that’s a huge non-sequitur. Basically, you trying to justify intellectual property by these verses is akin to me trying to justify women as a form of property by these verses. If you can figure out why the one will not work (women), you should be able to see why it won’t work in the other instance (intellect).
(By the way, I don’t give anyone the right to read what I’ve written here unless you mail me five bucks. I take Visa.)
There is nothing a Christian needs to be more scrutinizing about than about his confirmed habits and views. He is too apt to take for granted the Divine approbation of them.
Cowman, L. B. (1925). Streams in the Desert (335). Los Angeles, CA: The Oriental Missionary Society.
Edit: Logos keeps switching to APA style no matter how many times I choose MLA...