Lone Wolf sends Cease & Desist letters to anyone using the term 'Army Builder'

[S'mon]

Where do you teach law if you don't mind me asking?

I've been taught to view property simply rights, not ownership of a physical object. I took from your posts that you consider being a physical object / existing without / despite a law deeming it to exist, to be a key point of property. But from your irritation I seem to be missing your point, Could you please explain it to me more fully?

I'm a senior lecturer in Law at the University of Westminster, London, UK. I'm course leader, LLM International Commercial Law; modules I teach include LLM Protection of Industrial/Intellectual Property Rights, LLM Legal Aspects of e-Commerce, and LLB Intellectual Property Law, among others. My PhD doctorate was on the philosophical basis of Copyright law in UK, France & Germany. If you'd like to do an LLM or short course with us I'd be happy to discuss it in class.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, NOTHING has intrinsic value. Gold, for instance, may be a physically scarce resource, but I doubt a tribe of humans who had little contact with the outside world would care, they'd likely be more concerned with food. All economies are artificial constructs of civilizations.

But I can still take away your gold. Even if it means nothing to you or me. You won't have it afterwards. It's gone.

If I steal your idea of using Goblins as a slave race created from children with a growth disease, you can still use it. You don't forget it. Even if I create a setting book build around this idea, you could still do the same! If I had taken away your gold, you can't give it to anyone. You cannot even try, because it's not there.

There is a difference between these two types of things. Figuring out how to value it is the challenge.

How can we reward someone for having good ideas, without restricting these ideas so no one (or not enough) can benefit from it? We want people to have good ideas. Lots of them. But an idea that you can't use has no worth. In that regard, it is same as with the value of your gold. You can't eat or drink gold, and it can't protect you from the elements or predators either. But we agreed at some point that you can exchange this gold for something that you can drink, or eat, or that can protect you from the elements or from predators or for sexual services or whatever. You can exchange it for something that actually can satisfy one of your needs. That's why it can have worth.

 

[Mark Chance]

But I can still take away your gold. Even if it means nothing to you or me. You won't have it afterwards. It's gone.

If I steal your idea of using Goblins as a slave race created from children with a growth disease, you can still use it....

There is a difference between these two types of things. Figuring out how to value it is the challenge.

How can we reward someone for having good ideas, without restricting these ideas so no one (or not enough) can benefit from it?

“He who steals my purse steals trash. But he who steals my reputation steals that which is nothing to him, but everything to me.” - William Shakespeare, foreshadowing 21st century IP controversies.

 

[Henry]

I'm a senior lecturer in Law at the University of Westminster, London, UK. I'm course leader, LLM International Commercial Law; modules I teach include LLM Protection of Industrial/Intellectual Property Rights, LLM Legal Aspects of e-Commerce, and LLB Intellectual Property Law, among others. My PhD doctorate was on the philosophical basis of Copyright law in UK, France & Germany.

Absolutely amazing whom you get to know on these forums...

 

[pawsplay]

That's why I reject arguments designed to sidetrack things, such as "copying is not theft". While that may be technically correct under the legal code, it ignores the whole purpose of the laws setup to handle that and is a distraction.

That's really begging the question. Is the purpose of the law to treat copying as theft? My understanding is that US copyright law is based in the Constitutional provision to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Anything copyright-related that does not promote the progress of science and useful arts has no explicit Constitutional rationale, except under the commerce clause.

Like permerton says, there are lots of laws that are on the books, and law doesn't just deal with the physical. There's a reason why such "IP" laws were setup, as well as the concept of Intellectual Property being recognized by governments.

Very recently.

I think the key reason why I argue in favor of IP a lot here is I think too many people want to "throw out the whole system", because of some abuses by certain people. That seems to be a common thought nowadays, and I don't think the other side is seen fairly of late.

Who is arguing that? I think I've seen maybe one or two posts, ever, that took that position on these boards.

 

[pawsplay]

Well, NOTHING has intrinsic value. Gold, for instance, may be a physically scarce resource, but I doubt a tribe of humans who had little contact with the outside world would care, they'd likely be more concerned with food. All economies are artificial constructs of civilizations.

Bull pockey. Gold has intrinsic value as a chemically resistant, ductile metal that is visually distinctive. The aborginal American cultures often used it in utensils. Europeans have used it for centuries in coinage; steel would be inadequate for durable coinage, for instance. Gold is also an excellent conductor, and is used in computer components.

"They would be more concerned with food" is a weak argument. Air, immediate physical safety, and water are about the only things worth having that outrank food. So what? People need food to eat, so gold is worthless?

Not existing in many societies: Well, some societies don't have laws about murder, only mob justice. There are no civil liberties in some societies. Does the lack of those laws make them "better".

How did better into this? There are, however, no societies that do not have food, nor are there societies in which gold does not have a potential use.

Radically redefined--Well, all laws go through that. I mean, remember those 3/5th of a person part of the original constitution? Radical redefinition does not mean "bad". We didn't have any laws regarding things that science discovered such as mental illnesses, etc. Society itself goes through such redefinitions. The law tries to keep up with society and that why we have laws the founding fathers couldn't even have conceived of because they didn't have knowledge of science and the future or technology.

Again, what's with the bad? We are talking about different. If you are arguing that society has changed, I will agree, and then I am sure you will readily agree that IP laws have also changed radically. On the other hand, ownership of, say, a block of cheese, has had virtually the same meaning from 10,000 BC to the present day.

 

[pawsplay]

This is true of most property in a modern economy, which is neither real property nor bullion but choses in action (shares, debts and more complex contractual or contract-like entitlements).

Not that I think those kinds of properties are the best examples to bring into this discussion, but just for the sake of argument... you can destroy a debt. Obviously, I cannot destroy a debt I owe to you, since you "hold" the debt, but you could destroy it (indeed, the US Treasury will dutifully acknowledge this as income on my part), and a bankrupcy court can destroy a debt.

Similarly, shares are easily destroyed. Any time a corporation gets liquidated, all its shares become rubbish.

It is even true, to an extent, of pre-modern incorporeal property rights such as foraging rights and certain sorts of easements.

Foraging rights are the possession of an object (in this case, a physical territory). I can use foraging, I can destroy it (by, for instance, burning down a forest), and I can certainly exchange it. Foraging rights are ultimately permission to use my land, with my land being the thing I own (privately, or in common with others).

Now, I will happily argue that ownership of land, property and other things is "natural" only as it pertains to possession, use, and future possession and use. If your uncle dies and you inherit a banana farm 2000 miles away, I consider that statuatory. There are situations where I would assert your ownership may not trump other, more basic rights. For instance, I would not consider being an absentee landlord of a banana farm to give you unlimited rights; in the event of a famine, if locals eat your bananas, that is unfortunate, but whether it constitutes theft is a statuatory matter.

Imagine a scenario where a billionaire and 24 people are trapped on an island that the billionaire ostensibly owns. Can the billionaire demand they pay him $10,000 a day to have access to water and food supplies on his island? If the rest of the world dissolves in massive warfare, what claim does he have of ownership?

 

[czak]

I'm a senior lecturer in Law at the University of Westminster, London, UK. I'm course leader, LLM International Commercial Law; modules I teach include LLM Protection of Industrial/Intellectual Property Rights, LLM Legal Aspects of e-Commerce, and LLB Intellectual Property Law, among others. My PhD doctorate was on the philosophical basis of Copyright law in UK, France & Germany. If you'd like to do an LLM or short course with us I'd be happy to discuss it in class.

Maybe after I secure articles and see the real world. From my (limited) perspective as a student most of the folks from Canada who go to the UK for an LLM or PhD go into academia. Not sure I want to go that route yet. I like university, but maybe not that much


Is your thesis available online?

 

[S'mon]

Is your thesis available online?

No, but PM me your email and I can send you a copy.

Edit: Most people who do a PhD go into academia, but British LLMs are 1-year postgraduate degrees normally undertaken by practicing lawyers to boost their CV with an area of expertise.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Bull pockey. Gold has intrinsic value as a chemically resistant, ductile metal that is visually distinctive. The aborginal American cultures often used it in utensils. Europeans have used it for centuries in coinage; steel would be inadequate for durable coinage, for instance. Gold is also an excellent conductor, and is used in computer components.

"They would be more concerned with food" is a weak argument. Air, immediate physical safety, and water are about the only things worth having that outrank food. So what? People need food to eat, so gold is worthless?

You miss my point. Some societies don't even have the concept of private property, and thus you can't steal land. Gold as a standard of trade value wouldn't exist in some cultures, they might barter. The concept of money is an artificial law, yet we have laws against counterfeiting, stealing, virtual transactions, etc.

Again, what's with the bad? We are talking about different. If you are arguing that society has changed, I will agree, and then I am sure you will readily agree that IP laws have also changed radically. On the other hand, ownership of, say, a block of cheese, has had virtually the same meaning from 10,000 BC to the present day.

But the key point is, you are trying to argue (based not just on your immediate prior posts but other posts) that IP can't be compared to property because there's no physical objects involved, and I'm not certain that's the case. The terminology "Intellectual Property" came about because most elements of society feel there is real value involved and it must be protected. Despite people like Stallman saying that the term is bogus and should be rejected, I think it's an apt term (and Stallman is something of a radical--he LOVE to play word games and engage in memetic warfare). The US has the NET act (NO ELECTRONIC THEFT), which technically doesn't deal with theft, but with copyright violation, yet congress considers it an apt term.

That's really begging the question. Is the purpose of the law to treat copying as theft? My understanding is that US copyright law is based in the Constitutional provision to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Anything copyright-related that does not promote the progress of science and useful arts has no explicit Constitutional rationale, except under the commerce clause.

Well, turning it around, does making D&D, Mickey Mouse, Snoopy, and other books and items public domain assist the common good? The implication is that entertainment = advancements of the science and arts. And if what you say is true, if there's a huge commerce around these creations, they should be protected as well as any other industry.

I mean, I can understand limits to exclusive rights to inventions that help society, like a new drug, you don't want unlimited patents on those. And you don't want copyright law to be abused and applied to all ideas and prevent competition. I also saw recently the documentary "Food, Inc.", and it talked about the patents on DNA, something I think goes too far. (And especially blaming seed cleaners for violating something that can't be helped due to the nature of cross-pollination).

But over the last 100 years, large economic interests have sprung up, industries that have a lot of workers and a whole subset. We never had audio/visual recordings during the constitutional days. I don't believe many of these works going into the public domain is going to help our society, rather, I believe it would hurt it. I think, for instance, the Disney company is a great caretaker of its creations and should remain so as long as the law allows. I'm not sure the copyright extensions can just be attributed to the so called "Evil MAFFIA" (the term for RIAA/MPAA used).

Who is arguing that? I think I've seen maybe one or two posts, ever, that took that position on these boards.

I've seen a lot more, especially when the OGL is discussed. I've seen dozens of posts saying copyright should be limited to something like 15-20 years, it's outdated, etc., people getting mad when WoTC chooses to sue pirates, etc. Even if this thread one person talked about setting up "creative commons" for trademarks (something that is not possible), etc.

I don't really want to go into the whole IP thing since this was basically about Trademarks, and I'd like to stick to that.