[HANASHIR:5214] Re: Xerox

[Adrian Durlester <durleste...>]

Oh, Judah, I could not disagree with you more. Issues of copyright CAN be
about money, but it does not ergo follow that they MUST be about money.
Copyright allows an artist to protect more than financial gain from
intellectual property. Copyright can be used, for example, to prevent
someone from so distorting someone else's intellectual property that the
work is no longer derivative but a travesty. Also, many copyright owners
decline royalty payments, or turn them over to charitable foundations. My
interest in my intellectual property may solely be for purposes of
self-satisfaction through recognition of my work which does not gain me
remuneration. I may freely allow my work to be used, but I can be assured
that I will be identified as the creator. (One could argue that it enhances
reputation, thereby producing potential gain, but that is a dubious
argument. Some inventors never kept a dime of their profits from their
inventions.) While copyright law is handled effectively through a system of
monetary remuneration, and that is how it is usually treated by the courts
as an issue, just as with many aspects of our legal system, there is often a
higher ethic driving the more practical sides of justice. The Torah and
Talmud recognize the difficulty of dispensing justice in many cases, and
effectively establish the idea of monetary compensation, which the rabbis
greatly elaborated upon. But it is because it recognizes the practical
difficulty of dispensing justice, not because Gd believes that money can
really repay for injustice done.

I think "moral noodle-whipping" is called for. After all, is that not the
role that Amos, Hosea, Micah, Joel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Obadiah, Habakkuk, et
al filled? The only reason to be afraid of the existence or revelation of a
slippery slope is the self realization that one is already sliding down it!

Yes, the "xerox" issue is a somewhat absurd extension of the principle, and
yes, the term has come into common usage, and Xerox, like Kleenex, probably
benefits from that more than being hurt. But if you had asked the typical
German who helped bring Hitler to power (or the typical American, Brit or
European who watched it happen) if it was likely he would later exterminate
so many so ruthlessly, they would argue that this might be an absurd
extension of his current rhetoric. The same might be argued about Jorg
Haider. No, due vigilance is called for, and is always appropriate. I'd
rather err on the side of being overly protective and over cautious, and
progress, which is a capitalist ideal, be damned.

Did not wise Solomon utilize an absurd extension of justice in order to
bring about true justice? Sometimes it pays to be a little extreme.

Is copyright law perfect? No. Personally, I side with the folks at MP3.com
against the RIAA, because the recording industry has established an
effective monopoly and gouges customer and artists alike for profit. While
the business types see mp3 as a threat to profits, many independent artists
(and even those affiliated with record labels) see it as a tool that finally
gives them back control of their intellectual property, to distribute as
they wish, in the form they wish. It is also proof to me that not all
artists are in it "for the money."

Adrian



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org [mailto:owner-hanashir (at) 
> shamash(dot)org]On
> Behalf Of Judah Cohen
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 9:31 PM
> To: hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org
> Subject: [HANASHIR:5210] Re: Xerox
>
>
> 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 -----------------------+