Cf-community now I think.
"This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Oriel House, 26 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DL, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions." Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com -----Original Message----- From: Denny Valliant To: CF-Talk Sent: Sat Sep 23 22:51:23 2006 Subject: Re: NFL Player Stats Service Hey Joe, On 9/23/06, Joe FitzGerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Same goes for laws. What I'd like to reflect on, is the > >fact that we can help steer the direction these laws go, > >and in fact, probably should. > > > >I think it's pretty shameful how much power "corporations" > >have, I mean, it's pretty blatant that big $$ is doing what > >it can to protect it's interests, in general. And it's doing > >pretty well so far, judging by the state of some things. I disagree with this sentiment completely. Copyright laws are not being pushed or protected by/because of "corporations" -- they're protecting the individual!! And these laws are pushed and protected by those individuals. Photographers, journalists, novelists...the only way they can protect their intellectual property is through our copyright laws. Do they benefit corporations too? Of course. They benefit whomever is creating the intellectual property -- the person/people that actually did the work of creating the information in the first place. I don't disagree that copyright is designed to protect the author. And I'm not advocating an abolishment of it, or some such. But look at the public domain- Now you can have perpetual copyright, pretty much. My comment about "we all gotta eat", or whatever, was an allusion to the fact that people still need to be able to make money off of their ideas and work. But I'm surprised you don't see a gravitation of power to money. Things like (sigh) the DCMA make me wonder. It also bothers me that my technology here in the states is /hobbled!/ because some record company exec wants to "saturate the market". That ain't right. Not really a direct correlation to copyright law, but it's definitely part of what I'm talking about. These laws are critical to the survival and progress of our economic system and our culture. They are an essential part of both and if we're going to take a stance on the issues (which is a fine point) it should be in support of the copyright laws not against it. I support the need for people to "get what's coming to them", but I don't think that the laws, as they stand now, are at an optimum. Law is fluid though, and it's interesting to watch precedents get set, and whatnot. That said, there are most certainly times when people -- or more often -- corporations try to take copyright protections too far. For instance, suggesting that game results for broadcast sporting events -- or even the statistics themselves -- are copyright of the owners of the league is ridiculous (anyone watching the game could compile those statistics). We recently had a ruling related to this in the US that declared the pro sports leagues don't have ownership rights to player and game statistics -- but they do have rights to THEIR version of those statistics. Well, technically, as you stated before, just because you can watch or see something doesn't make it yours. With some stuff, you can't even tell someone you saw something... that knowledge, even while in your head, belongs to someone else. (Have I mentioned that I loved the book "Snow Crash"? ;). How about recording something off TV, say a football game... if it were up to Big Money, you'd have to pay to watch it again, even for "personal use". Just look at what they already have in place. And then you've got stuff like, if you read Alice in Wonderland aloud, you are breaking the law. Is that really the intended spirit? Is that what all those soldiers died for? Add to this whole deal, the fact that the more money you have, the better you'll do in court. Generally. It's sad, but true. I don't have a staff of high $$ lawyers on hand to aggressively do stuff for me. Most o "us" don't. Suggesting that anyone should be able to freely take someone else's hard work is ludicrous -- in this example, someone spent the time to collect/compile the information or they purchased it from someone who did, so they should have protection from other people stealing that information from them. I never suggested such a thing. And using this example, do you really think the people who paid someone to do it for them, would take kindly to those who "did it thyself"? I'd put my money on the poor lone tally-er getting his ass sued anyway. Who do you think will have more lawyers? What constitutes "stealing"? > Copyright laws -- as they exist today -- are good for all of us. Heh. This is a blanket statement that I wouldn't touch with a 40 meter stick. Like I said, it's a mixed bag/balancing act. A lot depends on context, and how the stuff is being applied. Part of the problem is that some stuff looks good on paper, but is pretty hard to get going in "real life". Pointing at the paper, and wanting it to work... well, that's great sentiment. We're in a new age, like it or not. It's a global economy, and a global world. We need to rethink a lot of what is established, if we want to keep up in this fast paced game we play together. Don't get me wrong, this is a game that's been played for hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Yeah, I remember in Oog vs. Mog, in the "quest for fire" case. That one got ugly. =] -denny ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253983 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
