[zigzag]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Of course, getting back to the earlier part of the discussion, no need for oral argument there. I wouldn't file a claim for theft in a copyright suit, and if someone tried to do that to my client, I'd file a R. 12(b)(6) motion and win.

Of course, but I don't think that really proves anything other than that lawyers speak a special language, as do doctors and plumbers, which is why people hire lawyers, doctors and plumbers instead of doing it themselves. The average person still regards unauthorized copying - getting something for nothing - as a form of theft, as do many lawyers. That we wouldn't rely on that particular term in a pleading doesn't by itself invalidate the generic use of it. Indeed, that we now have criminal sanctions for large-scale copying only serves to reinforce the popular notion of infringement-as-theft. It doesn't really bother me - at that level, it's more a matter of opinion, ethics, and morality than law, and if someone's moral compass causes them to regard that behavior as a form of thievery, who am I to argue with them? If my audience is a bunch of academics, I'd want to be more precise; if my audience is lay people, I might say "Yeah, I suppose you could consider it a form of thievery, but try looking at it this way . . . ". Maybe it's because I've spent most of my time trying to explain law to lay people and judges; in an academic environment, I'm sure I would be in a different frame of mind.

One reason I admire Litman's book is that it's so plain-spoken. I suppose you could look at her glossary definition of "patent" and find all sorts of loopholes, but if we couldn't speak in generalities from time to time, we would all go insane.

[cpt kangarooski]

Still, as I've been saying, the problem with this is that it becomes self-fulfilling. Copyright is a utilitarian system, intended to further the public good. If people approach it with norms relating to personal property, they seem doomed to fail to even consider the idea that it can be modified with a useful goal in mind, and instead keep expanding it.

I think that people just harm themselves by trying to cram copyright into a property shaped hole. Copyright is basically sui generis, and is beneficial when you treat it as such. Rather than try to fight against people's conceptions of property themselves, I think it's easier to point out that the copyright regime is a thing apart, and needs to be looked at in its own terms, not those of property.

[turtle777]

Just one question, cpt.

You are (pretend to be) a lawyer. So if someone hires you to give advice, and you do that, and then he doesn't pay you, according to your own words, he has NOT STOLEN ANYTHING, because there is no right on intellectual property, which your service would fall under ?

-t

[cpt kangarooski]

turtle777--

Just one question, cpt.

You are (pretend to be) a lawyer. So if someone hires you to give advice, and you do that, and then he doesn't pay you, according to your own words, he has NOT STOLEN ANYTHING, because there is no right on intellectual property, which your service would fall under ?

Oh, I am a lawyer, no doubt about that. Though I hope you'll understand if I don't feel like posting a scan of my bar card.

To answer your question, legal services are not a form of intellectual property by any definition I've ever heard, any more than the services of a fry cook are intellectual property.

For someone to not pay for the services I render them is merely breach of contract. That is, they made a binding promise to do something, have not, and enforcement of their promise is all that is sought. Contracts, remember, are essentially enforced between parties that have some manner of connection between them. This might be expanded a bit, e.g. with unjust enrichment, but still contracts really only work amongst a limted group.

Copyrights, or property rights, on the other hand, can be enforced against the world, without having to have a contract beforehand.

It is good to be rather cautious as to what general purpose rights enforcible against others we create. People will generally be stuck with them. More options are available in the contract realm, however, since parties can usually tailor their agreements between one another, or even decide not to agree.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I just kinda skimmed over all of this... effgee, what you're doing to cpt kangarooski is the same as if he tried to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to design. I would be offended if I was him, I'm surprised this hasn't turned into a flame war yet.

It would probably be helpful if you took a peek at how this thread started, where, when and how I got involved and what the intial response was that the kangaroo man threw my way. If after reading said posts you still believe that it was me who tossed the match into this hay stack, that is of course your prerogative but I would still disagree with that notion,



As far as Cpt. K. (or anyone else, for that matter) telling me that I didn't know the first thing about design - if I honestly and to the best of my abilities tried to communicate my ideas/intentions/interpretations and after doing so, the person I was talking to would still call me an incompetent ****, I most likely would react pouty (as in: possibly but not necessarily offended) as well.

But following that initial pouting phase, I am willing and ready to bet my mother as well as my hindquarters, I would sit down and think for a few minutes exactly where and why the obvious disconnect occured - and it is very likely that I would make at least one additional attempt at rectifying the situation - not bend it my way solely for the purpose of saving face and/or "defending" my position as an expert.

Hell, if anyone thinks that I am clueless in what I consider my field of expertise, they are more than welcome to their opinion. Nobody is always right - regardless of the subject at hand and/or the level of knowledge one possesses - and that always has and always will include myself. I have met my share of folks who knew a crapload more about design than I may ever be able to fit inside my puny brain. Serves me as a welcome reminder that there is always work left to be done/stuff that needs to be learned - and keeps my feet on the ground wherever those matters are concerned.

IMHO, knowledge without the ability to convey it to others is a very lonely and sad thing. Might be sufficient for some, it is not for me. And no - for a change this was not a pot shot at the Cpt. - I am speaking hypothetically about something that I generally consider to be a rather sad matter.

[Cody Dawg]

[Xeo]

It was finally almost dead and you had to bump it to say that!?

[macintologist]

I'm sorry for starting a thread that ended up being a fight fest between fellow Mac users



I didn't mean it I swear !

[budster101]

Locky.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Ahh... I'm so glad I don't have to deal with this anymore...

Trust me cpt kangarooski, he's not worth your time.

But you continue to talk about me...



Not only that, make inane posts like this one .

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by jokell82

Man, I never understood why people put Zimphire on their ignore list until I read this entire thread. Sheesh.

Yes, some people don't like being reminded of the truth.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Star Jones

Oh, I am a lawyer, no doubt about that.

[fireside]

zimphire doesn't need arguments, he has pictures! how can you possibly win against that?!

[Zimphire]

Oh, I already made my arguments.

Now I am just making fun of the tards.

There is really nothing to argue over here now. No matter how you look at it, or try to justify it, it is theft.

It has gotten redundant.