Michael Chapman wrote:
Sorry, ... but: No.
It would be useful if people replied to the points posted,
and not to what they wished people (seeming, regarded as
opponents;-( had said.
Michael
What I wrote was:
Sorry, no. This thread started with a lot of wrong assumptions on
another
Scientific information ought to be public domain.
Anything else is a cheat of the intention of sciece.
Only to the very limited extent that it costs
money to distribute things should there be any charge.
The AES ought to be ashamed of trying to line the organizations
pockets by selling old
On 23/09/2011 09:34, Dave Malham wrote:
..
Anyone with a university login can search and download all IEEE papers
freely via the IEEEXplore facility, even an unpaid external
visiting research fellow such as myself. It would be nice if the AES
provided a similar resource.
Richard - the cost to
Well, what a whole load of freely given information my original posting
provoked! :-[
Dave
PS. A final (please) thought Money is a sign of poverty (in case I get accused of IP theft, this
is a Culture quote from Iain M. Banks)
--
These are my own views and may or may not be shared by
On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
..
The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property',
of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others -
it is a social agreement and not a law of nature.
Well, lets look at that a bit more closely. Many people
RD's analysis was very interesting. But about Informantion wants to be
free: People certainly deserve protection for the value of their
intellectual work. But greed transforms this plausible principle
often enough into abuse.
Let me give an example: Scientific research papers and
...@math.ucla.edu
To: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk; sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
RD's analysis was very interesting. But about Informantion wants to be
free: People certainly deserve protection for the value of their
intellectual work. But greed transforms
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
..
The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property',
of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others -
it is a social agreement and not a law of
Sorry, ... but: No.
It would be useful if people replied to the points posted,
and not to what they wished people (seeming, regarded as
opponents;-( had said.
Michael
On 22/09/2011 15:32, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 22/09/2011
To: richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk; sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent
RD's analysis was very interesting. But about Informantion wants to be
free: People certainly deserve protection for the value of their
intellectual work. But greed transforms this plausible principle
On 22/09/2011 18:38, Robert Greene wrote:
Wonderful! The whole point of science is
to give the information to other people.
Scientists have done and do just this, all the time - primarily to
fellow scientists. On top of their myriad internal channels they have
arXiv (open access),
Richard Dobson wrote:
On 20/09/2011 22:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Interesting choice of words. You say agree, I would say recognise.
Do they put it to a vote? My thoughts (which you appear to equate with
things) are my own, and if I choose to share them with anyone else
that is my choice,
On 21/09/2011 09:38, Michael Chapman wrote:
..
What purpose is that? Who decides what the purpose is?
Unless one rejects inheritance taxes, wealth taxes, etc., etc. one
is left with the fact that one has accepted a situation where one has
'a balance'. Perhaps the worst imaginable situation
On 21/09/2011 17:11, Marc Lavallée wrote:
..
Information wants to be free is a 40 years old aphorism, not a scientific
statement, and it does not come from the free software movement. Its author
said later: Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be
expensive..
More like 27
Le Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:12:47 +0100,
Richard Dobson richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk a écrit :
On 21/09/2011 17:11, Marc Lavallée wrote:
..
Information wants to be free is a 40 years old aphorism, not a
scientific statement, and it does not come from the free software
movement. Its author
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:49:37 - (GMT), Michael Chapman wrote:
The modern day pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the one exception to
the rule that patents are bad to humanity. Why is that? Well, because
it's remained the most sacred, shielded, unquestioned, and especially
for the longest
The modern day pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the one exception to
the rule that patents are bad to humanity. Why is that? Well, because
it's remained the most sacred, shielded, unquestioned, and especially
for the longest time. In part because of the huge and quite possibly
unfounded
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Our economy is really based on IP, in some areas. Think of the
pharmaceutical industry in Britain.
Personally I'm a political pirate, and an economically minded
classical liberal/libertarian minarchist, at the same time. I'd be
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now that I ran out
of my prescribed NSAID, I again took a gram's worth of aspirin
(acetosalicylic acid). As
Oops, I try to send the same message in another format... :-[
Michael Chapman wrote:
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
What she does *not* know is that the oldest, simplest and cheapest
NSAID medication works even better. I mean, today, now
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:15:19PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
I must disagree.
Patents _do_ distort the market.
As does any monopoly, even a temporary one.
I'd very much want to see some changes to patent
law, like for example a patent being cancelled if
within a reasonable time there are
On 20/09/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:15:19PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
..
Intellectual property, just like property of physical
goods, does not exist naturally - it is something
granted by society to individuals in the hope that
society will benefit by
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 09:23:37PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 20/09/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:15:19PM -, Michael Chapman wrote:
..
Intellectual property, just like property of physical
goods, does not exist naturally - it is something
granted by
On 20/09/2011 22:24, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
..
Wow. How far back in time does this arrangement go? Which came first -
the individual, or the society?
That doesn't really matter. If a number of individuals interact
you have a society. Once that happens, things are 'yours' only
because the
On 2011-09-19, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Our economy is really based on IP, in some areas. Think of the
pharmaceutical industry in Britain.
Personally I'm a political pirate, and an economically minded classical
liberal/libertarian minarchist, at the same time. I'd be labelled a
federalist in
25 matches
Mail list logo
