1. Capitalism is based in private property. Do you not advocate ownership of physical private property? Could you explain that a little more? Why does that not include "processes." In fact, phenomenologically one could make the case that there is no such thing as property beyond undeveloped land. Everything is a process that grew out of the intellectual capital of who ever was investing the Time, Resources and Access to manufacturing that created the product. No matter how I look at it, the idea of patents or the ownership of processes, seems as valid as the ownership of anything. One can make a very good case for the concept of "Land" itself not existing except in the form of a legal process that is constantly changing. We Cherokees know a lot about that.
2. No, same process two different applications but processes travel. A is A no matter whether the word is Angel or Averice. The issue is what the purpose for A happens to be in the writing. The process that I described compared the "software" i.e. pedagogical processes in the case of teachers, inhabited the same economic space as the software that "teaches" a computer what to do and say. I don't understand why you didn't "get" that? 3. You didn't understand what I said. Read it again. You don't make sense. 4. How are you on compound interest? How about we do away with all of that "speculation" and see how well the standard of living of Switzerland fares as a farm and shepherd community again. Speculating on the future of a talent based upon the investment of time, resources and access by the teacher or owner of those three has nothing whatsoever to do with what you said. The process in both cases is "SPECULATION." The teacher takes NO salary and invests all of the Time, Resources and Access into a "form" of living tissue and creates art through the cultivation of growth. The Student paid NOTHING, and risked by investing their time and talent, on a 90% return on their investment. Not a bad return unless you are a thief. You were talking about schools, I was speaking of Teaching little of which is done in the mass environments of classes. About as much as solo voices being developed in chorus. Not much. Karen, I understand the point you made but I read it quite differently. One was able to speculate and build upon what they did while trading in patents and other properties while the other just wanted to do as little as possible and hold onto their original process. Society will always "cheat" those who refuse to share. Now I think that is a proposition that Harry should explore. Cousin REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: patents > REH wrote: > > Private property causes all kinds of problems that communal property > > doesn't as well but we are all capitalists here. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Are we? Please only speak for yourself, Ray. > > > The issue is whether your mind and ideas are private property or not and > > whether you can license their products AND whether those licenses have a > > basis in law. We voice teachers here in the United States cannot sell > > and license our product because of what they call the "Gift of God" clause > > in the law which states that voice is not taught but is a gift of God and > > therefore contracts cannot be entered into between a teacher and student > > for a part of future proceedings from the student's career. What that > > did was stop private scholarships to students for future gains, cut back > > on teacher's investments in their students, increase "scale" group > > education and basically kill all serious vocal art composition in > > America since the students rarely had a teacher willing to invest the > > time, resources and connections that had fed the growth in new > > compositions prior to that court's rulings. In short, you > > don't know of what you speak. > > Absurd -- the issue was patents on software (i.e. algorithms) and you jump > on a whole different topic and then accuse me of not knowing of what I speak. > As usual, Ray, please do your homework before throwing mud at me. > > If anyone here is a "materialist fundamentalist", it is you who wants > to commodify (i.e. "materialize") even immaterial things like voices > and software. > > Selling one's future career's proceedings to a teacher?? > Gosh, I thought the era of slavery was supposed to be over... > (Where is this gonna lead to? Highschool teachers getting > a share in the career's proceedings of all their pupils?) > Please, if a teacher isn't "willing to invest [sic!] the time" > to teach, then perhaps he chose the wrong profession. > > Chris > >
