Discussion in 'Tin Foil Hat Lounge' started by Mindgrinder, Feb 4, 2013.
Out of control - control and greed.
Due to the surge in plagiarism in the workplace as well as the learning centers aka University etc you may well find that all work presented is already stored and is then copyright protected. FWIW I have copyright protected many items I produce. Funny how that little mark on an item slows the thieves down a bit.
I don't know grinder, this is EXACTLY what you were shouting about in the shoutbox a while ago. Only difference is what the product is. Either way, it is theft of ideas. products made by one or a group to be taken from them by pirates. Same concept to the letter. Theft.
u cant own an idea any more than you can a person.
1's and 0's are not property.
"i thunk it first so nobody else can use that idea for my entire life +70 years" is absurd.
You are the one claiming out of control and greed. And yes, you can clearly own an idea, or a work of art, a process, and you are welcome to buy that idea, if they are willing to sell. just as you can buy a car or a house, you are buying the skill, the materials, and the labor that went into that construct. It is theirs and their's alone. What they do with it, it their choice.
If it is taken from them, without consent, by any means, (copies, reverse engineering, plagiarizism) it is no different than holding a gun to their heads and demanding their money. Theft, nothing more.
Really how about Albert Einstein`s Theory of Relativity.
His Theory, was Copywritten, in the Journal, in which he originally Published it, and therefor He Owned concept. I believe he then put it in the Public Domain, some years later when he was at Princeton...
No doubt. He owned what he produced, even if others did not agree with him.
I have copyrights to a challenge coin and I had the copyright before I produced the first coin. It was an idea, then a drawing, then a die and then a completed coin.
Had I used any part of it in the Public Domain before I finished then I would not have been able to copyright the finished product.
Same is true for every tool, symphony, scientific paper, drug, manufacturing process. It is all fruit of the mind first, last, and always, and it belongs to it's creator alone. What he/she does with it, is their business alone. To copy it, is theft. to repeat the ideas as your own, is theft. to steal a melody, is theft.
Well not quite... Many employers make part of the employment contract, that anything conceived while on Company Time belongs to the Company. Many colleges also, as part of their Employment contracts for non-tenyored employees do the same. So these things very much depend on Cotract Law, and what you sign, upon employment. This was true when I was in college, studing under a Private Grant from DuPont. All my research into Energetic Materials Science, was owned by DuPont, even though I was Named, on all the published Research Papers, as a Contributor, and the Prof was Lead Researcher. One of my few Claims, to dubious Fame, from a previous Lifetime.
Yes. The difference is a clear contract on the way in, not theft after. They understood the rules as they entered into contract.
There is also the rule, that if you invent something in your field of study, while a student, the teacher/professor is your source of knowledge. Therefore, what you create is of HIS mind, and his patent. (happened to my uncle).
His device saves lives, and you may have even used it. but to patent under his own name would have required a wait of two years. with an average death rate of 4 per year. His professor was not a complete prick, they split the rights.
What that contract agreement does, is transfer the right of the creator of an original work, to the person/business, that supplied the material, time, and paycheck while you created the item. It does not change the fact that the original ownership of the idea was the creator's alone. It is a sales contract in exchange for services rendered. You must AGREE to GIVE them the rights, before that transfer can occur. Your signing the contract, is your agreement with that transfer.
FAIR USE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
CORPORATE CONTROL OF COPYRIGHT IS STIFLING DOCUMENTARY MAKING AND THWARTING THE AIMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(link to .pdf): http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4599&context=expresso
Paige Gold (BA, Tulane University 1977; MBA, George Washington University
1989; JD, Southwestern Law School 1997, LLM, Southwestern Law School May 2006)
The Supreme Court has stated, “The self-expression of the communicator is not the only value encompassed by the First Amendment. One of its functions, often referred to as the right to hear or receive information, is to protect the interchange of ideas. Any communication of ideas . . . furthers the purposes of the First Amendment.”
And further we will find,
I care little for the opinions of what constitutes "theft" and thoughts on what appears to be law, when we are debating the basic rights of sovereign people to exchange knowledge. I do accept the proposition behind contracts entered knowingly under common law, but I will never accept the rules and subjugation from arbitrary standing under Admiralty and tyranny. Corporate control over knowledge is censorship --and it is more fitting for it to belong in the clutches of a fascist dictatorship or monarchy, not a free republic.
Perhaps the way of the future is Creative Commons.
Not censorship, just a case of paying a person for their time and work, in exchange for what the person agreed upon when they became employed and cashed that first check. Not happy with that? Find another job.
It appears you are being a bit Obsessive?
Me? I'm outta here, beat the horse all you want.
Here, is where your idea breaks down. "the interchange of ideas" is what is intended, but not what you want it to mean. Interchange, means to exchange value, give and take, trade. You want it to mean take, and give nothing back. When you copy, reverse engineer, or plagiarize , you take, and give nothing in return. That is theft. When you give back in return,(cash, information, company stocks) you have "Interchange". An exchange of mutual value is what is intended by your "the interchange of ideas".
1. To switch each of (two things) into the place of the other.
2. To give and receive mutually; exchange.
3. To cause to succeed each other in a series or pattern; alternate:
Here's where the Supreme Court's idea makes sense. A corporation used to be chartered for no more than ten years. They did not have monopolies and immunity or status as a person under the code of arbitrary law we use today. Once upon a time, in the republic of these United States, the people were sovereign and only they could determine what was just and fair, in their courts under common law --and rightly so. What some people today fail to recognize, is the inherent nature of corporatism, falsely believed to be the works of traditional capitalism.
I am not arguing the semantics of what constitutes an exchange of property or ideas to receive compensation, so please spare the unnecessary definitions.
I do believe I stated my case using specific and pertinent historical data and supreme court cases. I do not ask that you accept my position as though it were incredulous and opinionated. I am fairly certain I made some valid arguments which have been entirely ignored. This is most likely a misunderstanding, which is often the case when people do not fully read the information presented.
What exactly is the school giving by copyrighting students work?
Not a dang thing, really. That is one reason why it's wrong. Also, the kids involved are too young by law to enter into such a contract. This is nothing more than someone, once again, trying to overstep their authority, and attempting to take for nothing, that which was made by another. I think this should be turned around.
The point of a patent or copyright, is to protect the rights of the creator.
How about this: Demonstrable original works of students, should be automatically copyrighted for the expressed purpose of prevention of exploitation without consent. It would require a parental release to use the works of a minor, in any manner beyond legitimate class work assignments.
@Mindgrinder ...you are gonna love this. Oh, this will be good!
Separate names with a comma.