[HANASHIR:5210] Re: Xerox

[Judah Cohen <jcohen...>]

I wish to draw a line here and say that there IS a limit to copyright 
pettiness--and
in my opinion, this "xerox" silliness crosses it.  "Xerox" may be a
copyrighted trademark, but that does NOT prevent the word from making it
into the common parlance, and nor should it.  Ellen's posting, while
well-meaning, is incorrect--and this in itself is a statement about how it
is possible to interpret such issues past the point of relevance and into
the realm of "moral noodle-whipping."

"xerox"--with a lower-case "X"--is listed as a transitive verb in the
Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary--and as such, any xerographic copier
(Mita, Xerox, or whatever) is eligible for the term.

I lie squarely with Rick on this issue.  Deal with songs; deal with
songbooks; deal with recordings--all these are important.  But let's not try
and create a slippery slope of offenses indicting us all for lack of
"morality" and "respect."

I also disagree with Adrian's last comment.  In matters of copyright,
respect equals money, just as intellectual property equals money (this is
how the laws came to be in the first place).  The US
government has a measure for how much "respect" costs per song per copy
distributed.  Other arrangements can be made under the table--but as far as
the copyright thread on this list is concerned, there seems to be an
insistence on keeping the issue a public one, requiring "above the table"
processes.  Thus, taking money out of the meaning of "copyright" is to me
just a tad too idealistic.

Sory for the tirade.  Just came back from a weekend out.  Now devour me.

Be well, all.
Judah.

PS:  I'm interested:  outside of "Thou shalt not steal," where is
intellectual copyright mentioned in the Torah?

----------
>From: "Adrian Durlester" <durleste (at) home(dot)com>
>To: <hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org>
>Subject: [HANASHIR:5203] Re: Xerox
>Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000, 6:39 PM
>

> Rick:
>
> While I realize this is merely an attempt to be facetious, and argue against
> the pettiness of some things, the fact of the matter is that Ellen has hit
> on an important point. We live in a society where concern for the protection
> on intellectual property and copyright is largely ignored. One whole in the
> dam is sometimes all it takes to start a flood.
>
> Copyright is not some capitalist bourgeoisie plot - the concept goes back to
> the Torah and even further. It is not about money, but about respect.
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org [mailto:owner-hanashir (at) 
>> shamash(dot)org]On
>> Behalf Of Rick Lupert
>> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 5:05 PM
>> To: hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org
>> Subject: [HANASHIR:5201] Re: xerox
>>
>>
>> Yes...yes!  And while we're at it I don't want to see ANYONE using
>> the word 'Kleenex' if what you're really using is a different brand
>> of nose blowing paper.
>>
>> I understand the Kleenexbergs and Xeroxstein families have entire
>> departments devoted to this issue.
>>
>

------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------+