[blindlaw] West Publishing

Dennis Clark dennisgclark at sbcglobal.net
Thu Sep 2 04:09:45 UTC 2010 

Hi George,
How about if we merely return copyright law to the copyright system which we 
had in 1790 or even the 1909 act.  Those systems worked very well to 
accomplish the actual purpose of copyright as stated in the U.S. 
Constitution.

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.

Notice that award of copyright is not the goal of the Constitution, but 
rather copyright is simply a mechanism intended to bring about the actual 
goal " to promote the progress of science and useful arts."  Also notice 
that the exclusive right to the work is limited, and it is awarded to only 
the author or inventor.  It is not awarded to a corporation, because a 
corporation is a mere legal entity, and cannot in fact author anything. 
Only people can be authors or inventors, and this fact is still recognized 
during copyright and patent registration where the actual author or inventor 
must be listed.

I would argue that the current copyright system in place since 1978 is doing 
the opposite and is stifling the promotion of the useful arts and sciences. 
The authors of the works today are not making money, but corporations like 
West Publishing are becoming rich even though they author nothing.  How is 
making a publishing corporation rich motivating authors to create more works 
and thereby promoting the useful arts as the Constitution has as its 
objective?

Dennis


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jorge Paez" <jorgeapaez at mac.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] West Publishing


> Sorry if I sound too harsh.
> But you are technically out of line here.
> It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to happen, and furthermore, you have to realize 
> there are individuals within the companies that create the rights.
> Killing the IP system would be destructive not only to the US's heavy 
> capitalist mentality but to the world wide economy, and to business in 
> general.
>
>
> Making money is the essence of business. No money, no business, no gains.
>
> Now granted, there are stretches that go to far, but the idea that ending 
> the IP system would be the solution is impossible to even consider!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jorge Paez
>
>
> ---
> President And CEO:
> Paez Production Networks
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note:
> this message may contain confidential and/or classified information.
> Such information is only revealed to the person to whom this communication 
> is directed to.
> If you have received this message in error, please type "error" in the 
> subject line for the reply message and destroy any and all copies of this 
> message and/or any accompanying media.
>
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:03 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote:
>
>> Good evening James,
>>
>> I don't recall saying that an author shouldn't be paid for her effort, so 
>> I will ignore that question.
>>
>> Why should a publisher be in the business of publishing? Right now they 
>> are in the business to turn a profit (like everyone else).  I don't know 
>> if there would be an economic incentive for publishing companies if 
>> intellectual property rights were abolished.  I don't see the abolition 
>> of the publishing industry as a likelyhood, people will still want to 
>> purchase books (those fancy containers for words and ideas) and someone 
>> will need to produce them. That being said, I don't think that the 
>> abolishment of an industry is necessarily a good reason to keep 
>> intellectual property laws alive. I Suppose the reverse question is valid 
>> here, why do so many authors freely distribute their works online?  Why 
>> does open source software exist?
>>
>> I would be content with a compromise model that would see only private 
>> individuals able to own rights in intellectual property, and not 
>> corporations.  This would see benefit for ownership pass to content 
>> creators, and not corporations... but, I'd still prefer the abolishment 
>> model.
>>
>> I am aware that my suggestions are not practically implementable in a 
>> society / economy predicated on capitalist ideals.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Everett Zufelt
>> http://zufelt.ca
>>
>> Follow me on Twitter
>> http://twitter.com/ezufelt
>>
>> View my LinkedIn Profile
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2010-09-01, at 10:43 PM, James Pepper wrote:
>>
>>> So why is it OK for you to charge for you effort but not an author?
>>> Why should publishers build companies, hire people to make books,
>>> distribut those books, advertise them, warehouse them, why shouldn't 
>>> they
>>> get paid for their effort?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:30 PM, E.J. Zufelt <lists at zufelt.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good evening James,
>>>>
>>>> I am not ok with you taking away all of my assets from "thinking".  I 
>>>> am ok
>>>> with you doing whatever you like with any intellectual property of mine 
>>>> that
>>>> I create and you find a copy of.  Take my articles, take my source 
>>>> code, and
>>>> use them to your benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Should you need my assistance with something, or wish to hire me, I 
>>>> would
>>>> be happy to charge you for my time, something that is finite and which
>>>> cannot be duplicated.  But, once you have paid me for my time, do 
>>>> whatever
>>>> you'd like with the product of my labour.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Everett Zufelt
>>>> http://zufelt.ca
>>>>
>>>> Follow me on Twitter
>>>> http://twitter.com/ezufelt
>>>>
>>>> View my LinkedIn Profile
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2010-09-01, at 10:18 PM, James Pepper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you are ok with me taking away all of your assets that you have
>>>>> accumulated in your lifetime from thinking.  So if you are a lawyer,
>>>>> everything you ever did, all of the cases, all of that effort is free 
>>>>> and
>>>>> you never charged anyone for your work.
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:50 PM, E.J. Zufelt <lists at zufelt.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good evening James,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I am sure you are aware there is a difference between real 
>>>>>> property,
>>>>>> chattel, and intellectual property.  So, feel free to "take away" all 
>>>>>> of
>>>> my
>>>>>> intellectual property, I don't want it, only the benefit of its use
>>>> (which
>>>>>> all can share simultaneously), Please don't take away my real 
>>>>>> property
>>>> or
>>>>>> chattel, I'm not done with it yet... but you can have it when I am.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More seriously, I was wondering if you, or anyone else, can explain 
>>>>>> to
>>>> me
>>>>>> why they think there is actually a benefit to society as a whole to
>>>> having
>>>>>> intellectual content treated as property? I would also be interested 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> hearing why intellectual property should all be in the public domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Everett Zufelt
>>>>>> http://zufelt.ca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow me on Twitter
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/ezufelt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> View my LinkedIn Profile
>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-09-01, at 9:42 PM, James Pepper wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well if you want to give away other people's property then what 
>>>>>>> stops
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> from taking everything you own in the name of fairness.  After all 
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> not using it to the best advantage, I can use it better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, James Pepper <b75205 at gmail.com> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The law for accessibility in documents is Section 508 and you can 
>>>>>>>> lay
>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> your content correctly and still not be accessible.  The problem 
>>>>>>>> here
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> that there is no clear cut solution, whereas with a wheel chair 
>>>>>>>> ramp
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> solution is obvious, you build it, but with accessibility in
>>>> electronic
>>>>>>>> documents all you have to do is prove that the doucment is section 
>>>>>>>> 508
>>>>>>>> compliant and that is that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Section 508 is not accessibility.  We all know this right here on 
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> list.  What is needed is a definition of accessibility that is a 
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> solution and is not a plessy versus ferguson type of situation 
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> claim that accessibility is in existence but it doesn't actually 
>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are in the same boat.  The problem which has not been defined 
>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>> define it here, is that software companies are only concerned with 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> solution as it holds for their own software, they seek out section 
>>>>>>>> 508
>>>>>>>> compliance and that is all they can do.  They do not make their
>>>> content
>>>>>>>> accessible to a wide range of products because you cannot 
>>>>>>>> anticipate
>>>> all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the scenarios and so we are stuck in this situation where a 
>>>>>>>> publisher
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> lay out their content as accessible in section 508 and yet be
>>>> completely
>>>>>>>> inaccessible when it gets to market.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are so many variables that it is a miracle that anything is
>>>>>>>> accessible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you want it to work every time, you will have to pay for it.
>>>> And
>>>>>>>> don't look now but when a company makes its ramps accessible to the
>>>>>> disabled
>>>>>>>> that cost is recouped in the price of their product but you guys 
>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> to give away books for free. Should houses be free for the blind, 
>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>> free cars.   I think we should re-evaluate this free book plan 
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is no incentive to innovate in accessibility.  Why should anyone 
>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>> this if
>>>>>>>> there is no benefit other than a pat on the back to solve this
>>>> problem?
>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>> want your books for free, so does everyone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lists%40zufelt.ca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lists%40zufelt.ca
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> blindlaw:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/b75205%40gmail.com
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindlaw mailing list
>>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>> blindlaw:
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lists%40zufelt.ca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> blindlaw:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jorgeapaez%40mac.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dennisgclark%40sbcglobal.net

More information about the BlindLaw mailing list