#SOPA/PIPA @WordPress

Yes, democratized web-publishing is a great force for change, for good. That’s why I blog. That’s why I use WordPress (and a dozen other social publishing tools).

But that doesn’t mean SOPA / PIPA are a bad thing. Creative people publishing content can choose their preferred IP model. Creative musicians and artists can work outside the corporate mainstream if they want, with cheap distribution and easy access to their customer base, with a larger share of a smaller revenue stream – if they want. (That is an example of what is enabled by the democratized publishing capabilities.)

And we can all choose to ignore the offerings of mainstream publishing, not contribute to their corporate coffers. But, unless you’re a “property-is-theft” extremist, IP needs copyright protection, to the extent that its owner wants to assert that copyright (again the owner is free to choose what rights to assert, or not).

The problem as ever is potential abuse of powers of enforcement, and conspiracy theories whipped-up to focus on “censorship” and infringements against freedoms. But theft is no-one’s right. We should focus on practical implementation and safeguards against abuses, not throw out common sense.

20 thoughts on “#SOPA/PIPA @WordPress”

  1. “unless you’re a “property-is-theft” extremist, IP needs copyright protection”

    Not necessarily. There are anarchocapitalist extreme deniers of IP. We believe in private property, but IP is not property. It is a government-induced monopoly

  2. Probable induced is a wrong word here. What I’d meant is that private property appeared before the state, and it was recorded under many forms of state, failed states and even in some stateless societies. IP is perfectly correlated with contemporary state forms.

    A different kind, I agree, but logically better founded than simple “property-is-theft”! More then that, everyone who bought any information carrier into his private property knows that “IP-is-theft” 🙂

  3. True but states enforced individual property rights before intellectual property was recognized. I’d guess it was the owners of such IP that decided they’d like their ownership recognized and sought state help. (Be interested in any references for that “correlation”.)

  4. We’ve no examples of non-state institutions of IP, but plenty of that for private property.

    Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” mises.org/books/against.pdf contains the most convincing analysis for me.

  5. Pingback: Psybertron Asks
  6. Psybertron said, “unless you’re a “property-is-theft” extremist, IP needs copyright protection”

    IP has an absolutely perfect and natural protection: don’t share it with anyone (companies {and governments} use this tactic ALL THE TIME: trade secrets)! Wonderfully, that is fully in the grasp of the person who “creates” it. To say that it needs some further “copyright” protection is to say that … you wanna’ tell us what it says, cybertron? Doesn’t the “I” here stand for “intellectual”? So, if the intellectualizer decides he likes to share his “property”, he is, – much like a criminal defendent who takes to the stand in court to testify, – waiving his “right” (to “silence”)! He is willfully sharing his property. He has already decided that that is better than holding onto it for himself alone, “sharing” meaning that there is some other person involved, qua “social” relationship. Psybertron, from whence comes your demand for further protection?! And, if that’s not enough, why do you demand that such protection must be enforceable by the state: which, of course, means ultimately by violence (“biological” level stuff, right?)?!

    Business is risky. Life is risky. Share at your own peril: isn’t that intellectual quality?

    Tim

  7. Not so much “further protection”, as making existing (fair) protection enforceable in the world of the internet (and beyond). (Not concerned here with “secrets” so much as fair use of the known IP / knowledge.)

    Yes one shares at ones own peril, but in risky business, one insures some protection against investment made creating the IP. I think the idea of “fair” return for such investment is inescapable, if the investor is a corporate entity.

  8. Ian,

    I don’t think you got the gist of my meaning vis-a-vis “further protection”. But let me get to it at length. You talk about insuring an investment, and ” ‘fair’ return, but the whole point about this is that there is a huge disagreement about about what such investments warrant as return. That’s why I say it’s risky business. If the business is too risky, they should look for another business: why should their business be insured “further”?

    Ian, there is this principle that capitalists like called “creative destruction”. If movie makers etc. find themselves in a world where there old business model has become too risky, simply, maybe it’s time to find a new business model! Perhaps they could fund the movies before they make them (much like poor people have to do when they want to buy a DVD or a TV). If people don’t jump at the opportunity to fund entertainers before they make their entertainment, perhaps they would be more inclined to do so after a lull. To be sure, if the movie makers are no longer making money, or if the opportunity cost becomes prohibitive, I can live in a world without new movies and what not. In this world, a great mass of people value an open internet more than movies and music and novels etc. In the internet age, people who have been on the receiving end of such intellectual property do not want to be handicapped as to how they might use it derivatively. Why can’t we let the dynamic free force of life establish what’s what?

    Anyway, working back towards the first point, I like honesty. But I have no “further” insurance that people I engage socially will be honest. I can’t lock them up or anything for their dishonesty. What I can do is embargo them personally, and try to convince others to do likewise. This dynamic might work on a greater scale – especially with the internet available! – if the crutch of state compulsion were removed! This is to say, Ian, that neither you, nor the entertainers, nor the legislators, etc. can claim to have the meaning of “fair” wrapped up. It’s not like you had such LAW handed to you in stone from a mountain-top 🙂 Which is to say, Ian, these social forces should not be defined “further” from below (state coercion backed by violence), right? Ian, aren’t you trying to set up a perfectly Pirsigian-immoral order!: an intellectualizer himself decides that it is valuable to share socially, but wants coercive (biological) nsurance to some manner of exclusivity thereafter, because some property (probably the money to be gained) is valued foremost. WTF? Doesn’t the MoQ suggest that the dynamic force should win this argument?

    Furthermore, even if you can argue that there is some sort of implicit contract to exclusivity for the creator of the IP which is agreed to by the receiver, when he buys the movie ticket for example, there are “innocent” bystanders who did not enter such a contract! I don’t grant exclusivity of use for people who are gonna force their IP on me! I have to live in the world where there IP is out there, but I am precluded from using it?! I’d rather they were not permitted to put it out there in the first!!! Maybe I, or someone else, open to openness would have come along and produced its like, or something near but even better!

    Ian, no one makes IP in a vacuum. Everyone who makes IP is indebted to many (including God who shares freely). I like honesty and openness. Some would rather confine society to some contract of exclusive IP rights. Usually I am in a vast minority regarding my opinions and views; but here I may actually be amongst the majority 😉 Either way, I don’t see why you think the one view, favoring respect for the creators of the IP, should have anything more than the social level dynamic. Why do you think your definition of “fair” should be, *further*, enforceable by force?

    Anyway, I was talking only of copyright because I didn’t want to get bogged down in the debate about patents, which are a little different (though I wasn’t overly clear about that). But, either way, actually, life is risky. If people want to ignore the investment needed for the creation of IP, then they should soon find out – experientially – that the repercussions reach further than they had thought. Why not let the equilibrium come “organically”? In fact, I believe, it is the fact that such “organic” operations have been precluded for so long that we find our governments having ever more to get involved in such minutiae. And, while it may have had some justification back in the day, in the age of the internet, what is the reason for not letting society self-organize on its own terms?! This copyright business seems a desperate clinging to the past, at best. In fact, if you look you’ll see that most people play “fairly” because they prefer the game of life when it is played fairly! But, on the contrary, when monied contracts get involved, I see, for instance, commercials on the TV where I know they are using the music of someone else, but it goes wholly unattributed. Haven’t we made the sweet, bitter and the bitter, sweet?

    Again, you say you’re concerned with “making existing (fair) protection enforceable”. Why not rather be concerned with dynamism and evolution? And the hope for an organic morality? Why should some be able to enforce their wants on others?: aren’t they, in fact, trying to subvert the nature of life? Aren’t they making they artificially indebting the future to the past: “I was here first, haha, you must be my intellectual slave.”?

    I prefer friendship with God, (you can call him “DQ” if you aren’t there yet,)
    Tim

  9. Ian,

    To be sure, though I don’t subscribe to the MoQ, I wonder to what pattern you suggest that that IP is supposed to attach? The idea of a controlling homunculus being a “hopeless fiction”, right?

    Ian, you may or may not know, but I like G.H. Howison’s personal idealism as a metaphysic (I say ” i’dealism “). For us the i’dea “I am” is thee (only) ultimate, real i’dea. I find it funny that you who do not subscribe to such an “I” advocate for property rights for such an “I” anyway, while I, who does subscribe to a fundamental “I” find that such “I”s have no such rights. The right of the “I am” is merely to his “perspective” of the plural society of “I am”.

    Maybe you could convince me that my perspective would be worse without our making pragmatically real this thing we call copyright, but I have imagined a just society, rather, at least the foundation for such, so I kinda doubt it.

    Best,
    Tim

  10. Your first long comment first @Tim,

    No I think you misunderstood my reply. Of course there is disagreement over what’s fair – that’s why I used the word fair – it needs to be resolved, by negotiation as I said. This is what should be focussed on. (Whilst law is nevertheless enforcable – every enforcement is a decision – but the law has to be fair to start with.)

    Social / Intellectual distinction is primarily about individual freedom, but the reaction to the basic principle of enforcing IP Licenses are not individual – they are a “mob” social phenomenon. I know my Marx and Schumpeter, the “creative destruction” – I’ve written papers back in my masters days on business change strategies, and industrial change cycles. In fact I also did a study on “big-pharma” industry IP-copyrights at one time … ultimately it’s a matter of fairness, and fairness is not decided by a lawless mob.

    Secondly, yes, in individual cases intellectual wins, but the social pattern is there for a reason to act as static latch on things – a useful conservatism of stability. Evolution requires that patterns replicate as well as mutate, in fact it requires much more of the former than the latter to produce new viable patterns. If the future world was completely un-patterned at the social level we would not like it, I can assure you.

    Finally – I said fair, you said God, and suggested quality, I’d agree with quality and add love, actually …. the people protesting against SOPA / PIPA don’t show any love towards those nasty capitalists, and what might be mutually fair. It’s just a anti-capitalist / anti-establishment bandwagon – social for the most part – clearly individual intellectuals like Jimmy Wales can see the real issue and are working hard to find fair agreements. That involves mutual respect of BOTH parties.

    (Again to be clear, people have a right to social “revolt” – they just need to take responsibility for the consequences – like the rest of us.)

  11. Ian,

    when I said that you didn’t get my gist, I said vis-a-vis “further protection”. I had offered, in an effort to reach out to your MoQ penchant, that there were two levels of “protection”. The first was a social one: we give credit to the various sources, quoting them and what not. The game of sharing amongst individual “I am” has some explicit or implicit rules of fairness, and breaking them results in repercussions vis-a-vis social interaction. The argument I offered concerned “further” protection on top of that. In addition to the free responses, should there also be a further level of protection that resorts to (state) violence?

    I say “no”. Who is the arbiter of “fair” that he can claim such powers? Ian, the social patterns don’t just fall apart if recourse to biological violence is removed. In fact, unless such recourse is removed the foundation pattern for all social patterns is none other than violence. How you gonna’ find “fair” there? And, how exactly do you propose that such a resolution to the nebulous meaning of “fair” be resolved?! I don’t have any idea where you’re going with “law being enforceable”. “(human) Law” is a joke. It is a ghost. All there is vis-a-vis “enforce” is someone forcing himself on another; and so often adherence to the ghost that is “law” isn’t even kept as a pretext. Ian, (human) law can’t be made fair to start with; in fact, human law is a flat admission that “fair” has already been missed.

    this sentence by you is incredible, and disturbing:

    “Social / Intellectual distinction is primarily about individual freedom, but the reaction to the basic principle of enforcing IP Licenses are not individual – they are a “mob” social phenomenon.”

    First, you ignored my most recent post about the nature of the “I”. Or, to what pattern is the IP right supposed to attach. I have no idea what you mean about “Social / Intellectual distinction is primarily about individual freedom”.

    Next, I have no idea how you get to “enforcing IP Licenses” is a “basic principle”!? Whether one has created the IP or received it, if one possesses it he has a natural license for it. If the creator wants to maintain exclusivity over such license, he must keep from sharing – and cross his fingers. Ian, WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT EXCLUSIVE (human) LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CAN BE “FAIR”, EVER?! It is to say that “I want to get the benefits of sharing, while also keeping others from those benefits”. Why do you think we might find “fair” in this direction?

    And then you tell me that my perspective is not mine, but that of a “mob”???

    But, you – inadvertently – end that paragraph on a fine note 🙂 :

    “…ultimately it’s a matter of fairness, and fairness is not decided by a lawless mob.”

    As man will never be more than a “lawless mob”, you have shown that “fairness” is beyond our capacity to decide 😉 thanks!

    I can’t not mention your sentence on evolution, cause it gives me the willies: what is a “pattern” (that it can “replicate” or “mutate”)? Ghosts. You go on about an “unpatterned social level”; there are but two options for ground pattern: near-justice and blatant injustice.

    you said, “the people protesting against SOPA / PIPA don’t show any love towards those nasty capitalists, and what might be mutually fair.”

    Ian, you – if you follow your argument to the end – must think that “mutually fair” must be inclusive of of “both” those who would found society on the hope for justice, and those who would found it on the freedom to pursue injustice. But one of these gets trounced. How do you vote?

    If justice is to be possible, people must be free to refrain from injustice. While you might have studied the ins and outs of “business”, I have studied the potential dynamic of a society of man founded on the great freedom to refrain from injust behavior (as determined by himself) if he had a guarantee to the savage necessities of life. And it is exceedingly beautiful! I wish you would consider it before you start trumpeting about IP and “mutually fair”. As we stand now, the game of money is designed to force participation (in what may be wholly antithetical, injust goals) at risk of want of the savage necessities. This is not a prescription for “fair”. Society cannot claim the title “civilized” under such circumstances. “Law” and “property”, under such circumstances, is just “jungle” and “jungle”. The picture you (I) see in the mirror is stupendously ugly, so I do kinda get why you refuse to look.

    Ian, “fair” and “just” are words we are never going to be able to hammer down. The only standard is unanimity of individual opinion: “I can call this just”. Until there are no dissenters, we aren’t there.

    you said, “the people protesting against SOPA / PIPA don’t show any love towards those nasty capitalists, and what might be mutually fair. It’s just a anti-capitalist / anti-establishment bandwagon”

    Ian, the people protesting are the ones who know that they are natural owners of intellectual property, which may have been forced upon them by their society, yet who are prevented from using that intellectual property because someone else (the one who forced it on them) claims exclusivity. These protestors merely want to be able to fulfill themselves (as well). But you say it’s fair that those with all the advantages can run off to get there first, and then entrench their advantages even more. Poor people in india, or china, or africa, who must live in a world dominated by the west, they can’t even afford to keep themselves abreast of the ongoing flow. Living on a dollar a day they’re supposed to pay western prices for copyrights?! Ugghhhhh, enough.

    Ian, I could come up with numerous hypothetical scenarios of what is lost, of how a world without IP exclusivity would offer so much more. Let me just point you to this TED talk, Clay Shirkey:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

    To be sure, he still seems to hold onto belief in the validity of IP. Maybe there could be some regime of the game of money where such a ghost still would prove useful. But the game of money itself can’t be called “fair” until everyone enjoys an effective guarantee of the savage necessities. That is, the game of money is a game of luxury. It is not fair that those playing a game of necessity have to compete with those who are playing a game of luxury; it isn’t even a competition! And, Ian, whether the protestors can express it or not, capitalism, the “free market”, proposes that there actually is A VALUE to the goods or services exchanged! Do you know what that VALUE is?

    Don’t cheat.

    Think about it.

    $$$

    $$$

    $$$

    $$$

    $$$

    It is the exchange rate in the limit if INFINITE COMPETITION!!!!! Short of such infinite competition, no one has any way of saying what the value is!!! Short of infinite competition, no one can say he has paid “fair value”! Unless we find a way to promote the poor to actual competitor status, again, the social pattern is just JUNGLE. Some smooth talkers spreading their deceit notwithstanding.

    Not until everyone is free to refrain from injustice, and truly free, can we say that we are all even competitors. Where’s your love for these?

    Tim

  12. Hi Tim, I didn’t “ignore” your point about “I”, I didn’t see it, still don’t – don’t get all accusatory, I’ve not said anything about you specifically. I was talking about the SOPA / PIPA campaign as a whole – clearly individual intellects support it too (I said that already too, Wales and Shirky – you maybe, I’ve no idea yet.) – me included, by having a debate about which issues matter.

    I’m happy to debate, but you have to switch off the aggressive rhetoric. Just a couple of points, and there are dozens – not being ignored, just addressed one at a time ….

    The extension of “further protection” – the extension is simply into the internet across national borders – no further rights to enforce – just enforcement of existing rights in further areas. And yes, using physical preventative force if that’s what it takes – if fair process breaks down, that’s the nature of enforcement. (It always comes back to fairness and love.)

    This point “Not until everyone is free to refrain from injustice, and truly free, can we say that we are all even competitors. Where’s your love for these?” Your rhetoric’s got me there – no idea what you’re talking about. The last sentence sounds like you’re accusing me again.

    Not sure why it’s news that capitalism values money – my point was that much of the SOPA / PIPA reaction was anti-capitalist, and you seem to be reinforcing that point. Certainly I value and love a lot more than that, but I don’t think we should throw out all existing value -patterns with the capitalist bathwater.

    BTW Tim who are you ? I’m open about who I am.
    And if you don’t like which of your points / questions I address, ask them again, one at a time. (Trading essays in comment blocks is pretty tough to follow.)

  13. Ian,

    I’ll do my best to keep my “aggression” in check, but for better and worse, this conversation is not private, so you’ll have to grant me a little leeway too; I also need to make sure to cover all my bases: and that is hard to do if I try to just win a pleasant point about SOPA / PIPA.

    My point about “I”. Ian, I guess we never got into it too much when I was on the MD, so maybe I am reading too much into you based on your association with the MoQ. I am thinking about Marsha, and DMB, and Steve Peterson, for example, none of whom buy into the concept of an ontologically existent “I”. In the absence of such an “I”, there is no pattern (but maybe DQ itself) to attach any exclusive IP rights to! None of them could advocate both their metaphysical position and such exclusivity to IP without hypocrisy!!! Perhaps you *DO* buy in to an ontologically (self-)existent “I”? If not, though, you will have to leave intellectual patterns above any such *individual* forest of patterns as your MoQ perspective might have you casually refer to as “I”.

    you said, “…don’t get all accusatory, I’ve not said anything about you specifically. I was talking about the SOPA / PIPA campaign as a whole…”,

    Ian, perhaps what you interpret as accusation and aggression is merely my frustration. We are having different conversations. I see the one you want to have, but find it a vain course, and I’m trying to get you dig deeper. I have just been a little frustrated that you wont go there, and that you seem to think there can potentially be resolution without going there. A perfect example of this comes when you say:

    “The extension of “further protection” – the extension is simply into the internet across national borders – no further rights to enforce – just enforcement of existing rights in further areas.”

    I have been trying to get you to see the deeper fact that even the idea of “nation” is a ghost. And it isn’t a very valuable one at all! While Pirsig might say that certain principles like freedom of speech, or right to a trial, etc. are intellectual patterns, the idea “nation”, or “government”, isn’t even a social pattern! It is a biological pattern: violence, jungle. That’s what I have been saying about “further” vis-a-vis social interaction. We can, maybe, all agree that intellectual value demands recognizing the “creator” of IP. We might all also agree that “creators” should enjoy a special place in society (knowing we are all creators of something). The question I have been prodding you to answer, though, is why should such hopes be enforced *further* by biological violence, and threats thereof? You see how Pirsig’s moral hierarchy is going backwards here, culminating in the prizing of money / weapons (inorganic value) above all else?

    Ian, man was progressed to this degree of advancement due to the sharing of ideas. (shouldn’t there be another type of IP, ideal property, then too? That was my idea, you can think it.)From africa and the middle east and europe and asia, ideas spread without such exclusive protection for the IP. For the vast swaths of history, those who could understand the IP were the rightful owners of the IP. One can make a good argument that our contemporary “laws” are only holding us back (on the whole of course, though certain individuals “benefit” a great deal). Ian, why should anyone respect these national borders and IP rights? Seriously. Violence and threats of violence are it. To be sure, there is good reason to respect the dictates of morality, but I simply don’t see how “national borders” and “IP rights”, in their hard “law” sense, fit in. Ghosts. I think it about time these ghosts be softened a bit (to be sure, that doesn’t imply that they will fall apart into un-patterns altogether, merely, a more dynamic and nebulous, organic, respect might be found).

    you went on, “And yes, using physical preventative force if that’s what it takes – if fair process breaks down, that’s the nature of enforcement. (It always comes back to fairness and love.)”

    But Ian, don’t you see that rather than fulfilling your hope of bringing it back to fairness and love you are bringing it back to violence and tyranny? This is why Jesus says that the greatest should be the least. The king should be the servant of all. Love your enemy; and if he takes your cloak, give him your tunic as well. Or if he strikes you on the cheek, offer your other one too. Harmony, “fairness and love”, is found down here, Ian, not up there. Suffering for the gospel is not so terrible; and the prize (DQ), is totally worth it. “One cannot serve God and Mammon…”

    I had said, “Not until everyone is free to refrain from injustice, and truly free, can we say that we are all even competitors. Where’s your love for these?”, and you replied, “Your rhetoric’s got me there – no idea what you’re talking about. The last sentence sounds like you’re accusing me again.”

    Yes, Ian, I am accusing you. I can do this because I accuse us all. What is needed is to, for the first time ever probably, “establish justice” – as my constitution puts it. We have failed to do that. We have no warrant to the claim “civilized”. Merely, it is a high tech jungle (and that isn’t better than a low tech one). Ian, I accuse you and call you to repentance. Did you get my point about VALUE being the exchange rate in the limit of infinite competition? That isn’t at all controversial. Poor people are not competitive. The system, in fact, is rigged specifically to force them to assent to collaboration in injustice, and to prevent them from submitting to the dictates of their own consciences. Want of savage necessities is the rod. If these were guaranteed to all, they could play in the market “fairly”, that is, in accord with their own consciences. You preclude that order, Ian. As do I. I hate it; “life” is better than this. If I am aggressive in conversation, you should be glad that I haven’t taken to biological violence. 🙂 Again, if justice is to be possible, people must be free to refrain from injustice. Ian, I’m no longer sure what the brittish involvement is in foreign wars, but I know that if I want to eat I have to pay people to around killing other people despite my dissent and disgust. If I want to wear clothes in winter (I do all my breathing and sleeping in Denver, Colorado [though technically I am not permitted to say I live here]), I have to support this private, central bank racket I hate. The only way I can refrain is suicide, Ian. This is why I accuse.

    you said, “Not sure why it’s news that capitalism values money”

    hehehe… you should be more careful. Way more careful. Not only does capitalism not value money, but capitalists are under no obligation to value money!!! Capitalism, ideally, is but a canvass for individuals to go about valuing what they care to value. Capitalism imposes no standard!!!!! It is just the principle that what is exchanged is to be exchanged at its value. Which value, you may now know, is none other than the exchange rate in the limit of infinite competition. That is, Ian, capitalism only values infinite competition!!!!!!! Anything short of that is not capitalism. And anything short of that leaves us in the dark as to what value (fair) is. Do you get this?

    you went on, “my point was that much of the SOPA / PIPA reaction was anti-capitalist,”

    Ian, it is a very common thing for words to be taken by the one threatened by them, and then turned to mean the opposite. This has happened with “liberal”, and this has happened with “capitalism”. The ones touting “capitalism” are the ones who hate it; they have turned its meaning almost inside out. Capitalism is the valuing of infinite competition; while “capitalism” is the valuing of the power to actually direct the market itself. Do you see? The protestors here are far more capitalist than the “capitalists”.

    “Who am I?” I thought you’d recognize my name and email without, but I am the same Tim who joined the MD nov, 1 2010, and left in Jan 2011. I am the Tim who is part of the “Lila Squad” with Mary, and Bo, and Platt, and John, and Tuukka”. Is this enough of an answer?

    Big question here, why should anyone respect as *hard* *law* “national borders” or exclusive IP rights?

    Tim

  14. Ian,

    the other big question is to what (pattern) does an “exclusive IP right” attach, metaphysically? You seem to attach it only to violence.

    Best,
    Tim

  15. I was going to ask for patience as I addressed your latest long screed, then I saw your latest accusatory one-liner. I see now from MoQ-Discuss archives I wouldn’t be the first person to tell you to fuck off. I didn’t recognise who you are – still don’t really, other than your brief appearance on MD.

    You’re telling me you’re frustrated ? How dumb to you take me for ? That’s why I asked you to take a deep breath and engage in rational discussion. Not a matter of being pleasant, and not a matter of winning.

    My most constructive response to your latest – would be to point you to the Lilly quote on respectfulness in the latest post.

    (BTW you seem to continue in the comment thread against this initial post, despite the fact the conversation moved on through several other posts and comments by others.)

  16. what?

    I don’t know what your taking offense at here. I’m happy to fuck off. I take it you can’t tell me to what (pattern) an exclusive IP right is supposed to attach, metaphysically?

    Good luck,
    Tim

  17. Ian,

    P.S. thanks for the copyright infringed electronic copy of Lila you have distributed (and which I have) 😉 The one with this preface:

    Lila: An Inquiry into Morals by Robert M. Pirsig.

    Scanned and OCR’d by [someone else, not Ian], and released 29th August 2005

    Checked and annotated by Ian Glendinning. Up to and including Chapter 9, 7th September 2005
    (**) Yellow are where I have fixed an error. Mainly typos, occasionally paragraph breaks.
    Certain words are repeatedly missed by the OCR (except, accept, concept, etc)
    Dialogue breaks I fixed as per my Bantam Paperback 1992 edition.
    [BPP999] I’ve added Bantam Paperback 1992 edition page numbers.
    (AJBP999) preserved [scanners]’s page numbers (Bantam 1991 Hardback ?)
    Fixed block quotes as indedted text, re-set italics, and fixed actual italics included.

    Ignore …
    Blue / Green are my own highlights for biographical development.
    [Red Text] are my (embedded) working annotations.
    The intent is to tag, remove, and then insert hyperlinks,
    Then to index and to include the “Index to Lila”

    Tim

  18. You really are a dipstick,

    “I take it that …” is highly offensive. If you have any serious questions, please ask and stop jumping to ill considered conclusions, accusations and rhetorical attacks.

    As for circulating copies of copyrighted material. Lila, as more commonly with ZMM itself, has been shared in electronic copies selectively to people who are already understood to own a copyrighted paper-copy (part of membership conditions for Lila Squad and MD), for research purposes – searching and extracting. Normal academic practice, normal copyright use. None of my copies are advertised or publicly accessible on or even through my web-pages, just available to bona fide requests. Those notes are Arlo’s I believe.

    The difference between me and you (read the actual threads) is that I’m not screaming “unfair” about the copyright laws, quite the contrary. If the copyright owner wants to revoke such permission, I’m happy to take the consequences.

    Anyway, at least we now know you are a complete dick. If you want to communicate further please use my email, I’ll be moderating the public comment threads on my site.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.