Edouard Bastarache on sat 5 jan 02
Hello Tom,
"In vino stat virtus"
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: tomsawyer
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 12:38 AM
Subject: Ethics vs Intellectual Property Rights
> As I stated in an earlier post, I am really conflicted about intellectual
> property rights and benovolent sharing. I never contemplated for a second,
> as a physician, not sharing information that might benefit another
> physician's patient; if something worked or works for me at the Homeless
> clinic in caring for another, I can't imagine not sharing. Sure I might
> allege that keeping information acquired in treating a patient proprietary
> and let others come to me for treatment so I might benefit from my studies
> and acuity but REALLY.... that would be unethical for a physician to act
in
> such a matter. The more I think about the matter the more I think that
> anyone who places formulas in the public domain and then complaints if
they
> are shared is not being realistic; it happens all the time in other areas
of
> endeavor. Frankly, if someone published all of the formulas in Ron's and
> John's book, I'd still buy it; hell I already have placed my order. As
Tony
> Hansen is fond of saying "formulas don't travel well". Heck half of the
> formulas in Ron and John's book won't work for me because of the way I
fire
> or the clay body I use. What I have always liked about potters is their
> willingness to share; if you don't want to share don't place it on clayart
> and accept the fact that what you publish might be shared without your
> knowledge. I happen to be a DEMOCRAT but I do beleive in the marketplace;
if
> you've got something worth buying and it requires an investment, invest
and
> put it in the market; too bad if it doesn't work, that happens all the
time
> in other business endeavors; why should authors or artist be protected?
Did
> Einstein charge for his theory of relativity? Did Salk charge for his
> discovery of the Salk vaccine? Did Fleming charge for his discovery of
> Penicillin? I know I'm being controversial but isn't this is what this
forum
> is for? I'm thinking if you make something good enough and unique enough
and
> valuable enough you don't need big brother to protect you. How many great
> artist were seriously worried that someone was going to copy their work?
> Just a late night reverly after a couple of glasses of wine.
> Tom Sawyer
> tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Cyberpotter@AOL.COM on sat 5 jan 02
In a message dated 1/5/02 9:46:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tsawyer@CFL.RR.COM writes:
> I never contemplated for a second,
> as a physician, not sharing information that might benefit another
> physician's patient; if something worked or works for me at the Homeless
> clinic in caring for another, I can't imagine not sharing.
I don't think the problem is other people USING published formulas for
glazes, but their republishing them. If I tried to republish Einstein's work
and claim it as my own, would that be OK? What if you invented a new medical
device or procedure and shared it with the world and someone else picked the
idea out of your journal article and republished it as their own?
Nancy in Cincinnati
tomsawyer on sat 5 jan 02
As I stated in an earlier post, I am really conflicted about intellectual
property rights and benovolent sharing. I never contemplated for a second,
as a physician, not sharing information that might benefit another
physician's patient; if something worked or works for me at the Homeless
clinic in caring for another, I can't imagine not sharing. Sure I might
allege that keeping information acquired in treating a patient proprietary
and let others come to me for treatment so I might benefit from my studies
and acuity but REALLY.... that would be unethical for a physician to act in
such a matter. The more I think about the matter the more I think that
anyone who places formulas in the public domain and then complaints if they
are shared is not being realistic; it happens all the time in other areas of
endeavor. Frankly, if someone published all of the formulas in Ron's and
John's book, I'd still buy it; hell I already have placed my order. As Tony
Hansen is fond of saying "formulas don't travel well". Heck half of the
formulas in Ron and John's book won't work for me because of the way I fire
or the clay body I use. What I have always liked about potters is their
willingness to share; if you don't want to share don't place it on clayart
and accept the fact that what you publish might be shared without your
knowledge. I happen to be a DEMOCRAT but I do beleive in the marketplace; if
you've got something worth buying and it requires an investment, invest and
put it in the market; too bad if it doesn't work, that happens all the time
in other business endeavors; why should authors or artist be protected? Did
Einstein charge for his theory of relativity? Did Salk charge for his
discovery of the Salk vaccine? Did Fleming charge for his discovery of
Penicillin? I know I'm being controversial but isn't this is what this forum
is for? I'm thinking if you make something good enough and unique enough and
valuable enough you don't need big brother to protect you. How many great
artist were seriously worried that someone was going to copy their work?
Just a late night reverly after a couple of glasses of wine.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
tomsawyer on sun 6 jan 02
Nancy,
In an earlier post, I discussed the elements necessary to bring a lawsuit. I
mentioned that one had to prove that they were damaged/injured. What we have
been discussing is financial damage. Large companies where millions are
involved have an easier time. A party that is smaller in scope regional vs
national or a publisher/author with a restricted audience will have a more
difficult time to prove that they have suffered financial damage. In the
U.S. the losing party does not necessarily have to pay the winner's attorney
fees or expenses such as expert testimony and review; therefore unless there
is substantially provable financial damage the winning party might actually
suffer a financial loss. It is not enough to allege that one will be damaged
or that unsubstantiated damages have been incurred, they must be documented.
It is true that large/wealthy companies/persons can go after smaller
concerns and that this in itself may act as a deterrent if the more wealthy
company/person is willing to sustain a potential loss. For the average
potter or author who has a limited audience, there is a more limited
recourse with copyright law.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
tomsawyer on sun 6 jan 02
Nancy,
I agree wholeheartedly that claiming another's ideas as one's own is wrong.
Even without last night's vino, I remain conflicted with this whole idea of
copyright. Certainly any worker has a right to be compensated for their work
and if that means government protection for their work so be it. But I see
people on this listserve worrying about sharing a formula that is published
in a book or magazine even when they give the author credit. There has even
been discussion about giving a page number in a book when discussing a glaze
formula! I find this kind of reaction stifling.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
Cyberpotter@AOL.COM on sun 6 jan 02
Tom:
(I'm drinking cabernet tonight, how about you?) Just noticed the subject line
and felt compelled to note that what we are discussing is really copyright,
not IP, at least not in legal terms, where IP refers to ideas, not works, and
the way to protect IP is to NOT publish it and file a patent. I doubt glaze
recipes are patentable for many reasons, the most obvious of them being that
the idea is thousands of years old; patentable ideas have to be both novel
and nonobvious. It might be possible to patent the use of an entirely new
component in a glaze, though, or an entirely new way to glaze. If someone did
patent a glaze recipe, not only could you not republish it, you couldn't even
(legally) use it. However, the minute the recipe was printed in a book
without having protected it first, it becomes "prior art" (no longer novel)
and unpatentable. So what we are talking about on clayart becomes whether we
can republish part of a published work, the same as reprinting part of a
novel or a published poem.
That academic point being exhaustively made, back to our regularly scheduled
programming... I run into copyright issues on almost a daily basis in my "day
job" in technology communications at a large company, and it is really a
pain. We pay a lot of money to obtain the rights to reprint journal articles,
etc. that we want to circulate internally for discussion. The scientists who
wrote and published the articles want these ideas to be known, discussed, and
built upon. We can discuss the ideas in the article all we want, we can even
summarize or quote to a limited degree, but still, even if we have purchased
the magazine, journal, or book, we legally can't just go ahead and make
copies of it or any substantial subset of it to mail around to employees or
hand out at a meeting or post the articles on our intranet websites without
permission and/or payment of copyright fees.
My guess is that if someone wanted to sue for copyright infringement, a glaze
recipe would be considered a substantial subset of a printed work. So,
copyright issues certainly could put a huge obstacle in front of discussing a
glaze formula on a public mailing list, and the best solution would be to ask
permission of the author prior to posting.
Nancy in Cincinnati
tomsawyer on sun 6 jan 02
Neil,
You wrote " What about the other side of copyright, which is
accuracy?.........
Really can't disagree too much to what you said. I have found this thread
stimulating. What I've found out over the years is that there are lots of
answers that I just don't have; even worse there are lots of questions I
don't even know how to ask. I keep finding nuances of this copyright
protection. Something I would like to ask is what about books that are
purchased by libraries and lent out. In the case of best sellers there must
be thousands of persons who check out books that might have otherwise
purchased. What about a ceramic program, schools and community programs,
that purchases a glaze/ceramic book and lends it out to students? Is this
practice wrong? There is certainly no copyright infringement if you lend
someone a book that I am aware of. On the otherhand if I were to scan/copy a
book and lend it on a disc, there would be an illegality because I've
duplicated the work. Interesting stuff.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
Craig Clark on sun 6 jan 02
Edouard, I suspect that your post is meant to elicite a chuckle or two.
Unfortunately, I do not understand. Could you explain. I know, if you have
to explain a joke or witicism the humor is lost, but give it a shot anyway
if you would be so kind.
Thanx
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edouard Bastarache"
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: Ethics vs Intellectual Property Rights
> Hello Tom,
>
> "In vino stat virtus"
>
>
> Later,
>
>
> Edouard Bastarache
> Irreductible Quebecois
> Indomitable Quebeker
> Sorel-Tracy
> Quebec
> edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
> http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tomsawyer
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 12:38 AM
> Subject: Ethics vs Intellectual Property Rights
>
>
> > As I stated in an earlier post, I am really conflicted about
intellectual
> > property rights and benovolent sharing. I never contemplated for a
second,
> > as a physician, not sharing information that might benefit another
> > physician's patient; if something worked or works for me at the
Homeless
> > clinic in caring for another, I can't imagine not sharing. Sure I might
> > allege that keeping information acquired in treating a patient
proprietary
> > and let others come to me for treatment so I might benefit from my
studies
> > and acuity but REALLY.... that would be unethical for a physician to act
> in
> > such a matter. The more I think about the matter the more I think that
> > anyone who places formulas in the public domain and then complaints if
> they
> > are shared is not being realistic; it happens all the time in other
areas
> of
> > endeavor. Frankly, if someone published all of the formulas in Ron's and
> > John's book, I'd still buy it; hell I already have placed my order. As
> Tony
> > Hansen is fond of saying "formulas don't travel well". Heck half of the
> > formulas in Ron and John's book won't work for me because of the way I
> fire
> > or the clay body I use. What I have always liked about potters is their
> > willingness to share; if you don't want to share don't place it on
clayart
> > and accept the fact that what you publish might be shared without your
> > knowledge. I happen to be a DEMOCRAT but I do beleive in the
marketplace;
> if
> > you've got something worth buying and it requires an investment, invest
> and
> > put it in the market; too bad if it doesn't work, that happens all the
> time
> > in other business endeavors; why should authors or artist be protected?
> Did
> > Einstein charge for his theory of relativity? Did Salk charge for his
> > discovery of the Salk vaccine? Did Fleming charge for his discovery of
> > Penicillin? I know I'm being controversial but isn't this is what this
> forum
> > is for? I'm thinking if you make something good enough and unique enough
> and
> > valuable enough you don't need big brother to protect you. How many
great
> > artist were seriously worried that someone was going to copy their work?
> > Just a late night reverly after a couple of glasses of wine.
> > Tom Sawyer
> > tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
> __
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Edouard Bastarache on sun 6 jan 02
Indeed Craig,
instead of saying "In medio stat virtus", I wrote "In vino stat virtus".
While studying humanities in a Quebec french college we often used this
expression when we went to the bar for a few cups of wine (Hehehe).
As for Tom Sawyer, I just meant he made sense even after a few cups of wine,
which was also my situation here.
I was just playing around with words as I often do in a few
languages,ancient and modern,
even using Quebec french slang and frenglish.
A good exemple of frenglish is "The black sister is coming" for
" La noiceur s'en vient" = "Darkness is coming".
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Clark
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Ethics vs Intellectual Property Rights
> Edouard, I suspect that your post is meant to elicite a chuckle or
two.
> Unfortunately, I do not understand. Could you explain. I know, if you have
> to explain a joke or witicism the humor is lost, but give it a shot anyway
> if you would be so kind.
> Thanx
> Craig Dunn Clark
> 619 East 11 1/2 st
> Houston, Texas 77008
> (713)861-2083
> mudman@hal-pc.org
carrie jacobson on tue 8 jan 02
Tom Sawyer said this:
In an earlier post, I discussed the elements necessary to bring a lawsuit. I
mentioned that one had to prove that they were damaged/injured.
-----
Anyone can sue anyone. It's winnning that demands proof.
Carrie Jacobson
Bolsters Mills, Maine
| |
|
