Wandering Through My Mind

8:41:16 AM PDT
Feeling Intense

According to a Colorado social worker in Arapahoe County and the local police, an 8-year-old boy was the victim of sexual abuse by his father. Their evidence: The fathers 'habit' of buying his son toys and taking him to the movies. The way they figured it, the only reason a father would possibly do this was because he was 'grooming' the boy to cover up sexual abuse. Apparently it never occurred to them that doing things for your kids, buying things for them, doing things with them, is something normal parents do. So, at least according to the state of Colorado, never buy your kids any toys and never—absolutely never—take them to see a movie. I wonder what this social worker and these cops do for—or to—their kids.

I'm thinking that this social worker was smoking some real good dope. By the way, the boy—who was finally returned to his family by a judge who recognized that the state was being run by a bunch of morons—has been plagued by reoccurring nightmares as a result of being 'protected' from his 'terrible' father by the 'caring and compassionate' State of Colorado, who wouldn't let the parents see or speak to the boy for weeks, who placed him with a 'caring' foster family who took away the Pokemon toothbrush and stuffed toys that his mom had packed for him, shut off his shower after five minutes, and most days made him wash their toilets with a washcloth (apparently supplying foster children for indentured servitude is a new service provided by the State of Colorado). This is called 'protecting children from abuse' (sadly, no one was allowed to protect him from the abuse of the State of Colorado and the foster system). This is a truly sad commentary on the totally screwed up state of the legal system in this country.

Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

6:56:27 PM PDT
Feeling Chillin'
Hearing XM Watercolors

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day:

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

Amen!!

Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

9:35:10 PM PDT
Feeling Quiet
Hearing XM Watercolors

The value of art exceeds the mere value of the market place. The value of art is in the direct and indirect contributions to society: The improvement of culture, the advancement of knowledge and the development of technologies which are built on the basis of current art. The problem with pure copyrights is that—while on the one hand it encourages the artist to pursue their craft—it has the unintended consequence of depriving society from the benefits of that craft—benefits that it was intended to promote.

The existence of a copyright on a work restricts the spread of the benefits of that work into the main stream of culture by allowing a single individual (or a small group of individuals) absolute control over the dispersal of that art, therefore effectively holding hostage the social and personal benefits of that art. Copyright allows those who did not create art to control the work of an artist by purchasing or misappropriating an artists work. In doing so, they are not only able to prevent an artist from receiving their due compensation for the efforts but to divert that compensation to themselves, effectively stealing due income from the artist.

Further, it denies artists the the right to benefit from their work if it is (or can be claimed as) derivative of, or similar to, another work of art or science; Worse, it prevents—by threat of punitive action—artists from creating an entirely new work simply because it is (or could be considered) derivative of, or inspired by, the work of another.

Perhaps the worst offense is the withholding of art from society and culture. Art is historical evidence of culture, therefor does not belong to a single individual or group of individuals, or corporations. But the existence of copyrights can result in the loss of art when the distribution of ‘copyrighted’ works of interest is prevented; When copyright owners (particularly corporate copyright owners) refuse to make the art available for non-artistic reasons, or ownership of copyright is tied up in litigation due to bankruptcies and other legal manipulations which make art unavailable to a society which desires that art.

(To be continued in part 4....)

Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

7:43:23 PM PST
Feeling Quiet 'Pure copyright' (my apologies to lawyers, economists, and others who will be quick to point out that the term 'pure copyright' does not actually exist in legal or economic literature—or anywhere else for that matter. 'Pure copyright' and 'pure public-right' are terms of my invention which are intended to simply identify the two most extremely opposite positions of ownership of 'intellectual property') is the theory that a person who creates art is the sole owner and arbiter of the use and distribution of that work. It is an outgrowth of the social/economic beliefs which maintain as self-evident that individuals—not rulers, nor governments, nor any other authority—own the fruits of their labours (these are the same social/economic beliefs which influenced the design of the United States governments).

What are the benefits of 'pure copyright' and who is the recipient of those benefits? The arguments for 'pure copyright' are that both the artist and society benefit in ways that would not be otherwise possible.

The artist is the most obvious beneficiary of a 'pure copyright' approach. The artist can control who uses their work, can demand payment for the use of their work and require the authorities enforce their rights by imposing penalty on those who use the artists work with-out permission or in violation of agreements made with the artist. They alone can choose not to duplicate their work and sell (or not sell) their original work, or choose to duplicate and sell copies of their work to the mass public. In this manner they not only control all aspects of their art, but are also afforded the opportunity to support themselves by the sale and distribution of their work as well as serving to deter others from 'stealing' income from the artist by the unauthorized sale of the artists work (and/or duplicates thereof).

In the same manner, society benefits by the fact that artists—and those who wish to pursue the arts—are encouraged to pursue the arts in earnest rather than as a hobby or a limited outlet of personal expression. It becomes possible for a successful artist to pursue their passions full time, rather than having to work a '9 to 5' in order to support their art. Society has benefited from the work of Leonardo da Vinci in ways nearly too numerous to catalogue, yet much of his work would not have been possible had he had to work as a common laborer to support himself, nor would he been motivated to do much of his work had he not been able to derive immediate and personal benefit from it in the manner of income and the patronage others.

(To be continued in part 3....)


Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

7:19:14 PM PST
Feeling Quiet Forget everything you think you know about copyrights. It’s wrong. Or at least, most of it is wrong. Most of what you have heard about copyrights are myths and legal intimidation spread by corporate vultures and well-meaning but misguided politicians and law-enforcement officials.

How is it wrong? To begin with, copyrights are not all about the rights of the copyright owner. It is also about the rights of society over those of the copyright owner. Copyright law is an exercise in compromise. It is a compromise between the rights of the artist and the rights of society and culture. The entire basis of U.S. Copyright law (and that of most non-socialist/non-dictatorial governments) is that a compromise is necessary between the benefit of the arts to culture and society, and the rights of the artist in order to ensure protection and benefit to both.

The core purpose of copyright law is not difficult to find; it is stated expressly in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power: "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."

This clause is the constitutional basis for the Copyright Act and also the Patent Act. It is the only clause in the grant of powers to Congress that has a stated purpose. Section 8 of Article I gives Congress the power to take such actions as declare war, coin money, raise and support Armies, and provide and maintain a navy. Yet none of these other grants say for what purpose the power is to be exercised. The copyright clause, in contrast, is very specific about its purpose. The exclusive rights that are granted to authors are "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To fully appreciate this clause, one must understand "science" in its eighteenth century meaning. At the time of the writing of the Constitution "science" denoted, broadly, knowledge and learning. So the core purpose of copyright law, as expressly stated in the Constitution is: to promote the progress of knowledge and learning.

("The Purpose of Copyright". Lydia Pallas Loren, Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College.)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic intent of copyright law when it ruled: "The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." [Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 (1932). See also Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)]

When the United States Constitution was drafted, the founding fathers recognized that both lack of copyright and unlimited copyright paradoxically threatened similar dangers to society. In order to fully appreciate the nature and limits of the compromise, one must first consider the harms and the benefits of the conflicting philosophies of 'pure copyright' and 'pure public-right'.

(To be continued in part 2....)


Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

12:46:15 PM PST

Electronic voting has been back in the news again after a long absence. And once again people are being told a fantasy about its' wonders. But like the fable of the Emperors News Clothes, it is a classic case of Political Correctness in action. According to the classic fable, if you didn't go along with the idea that the Emperor was wearing beautiful, finely tailored clothes but instead tried to point out that the man was buck-naked you were called 'common' and looked down upon as someone who just didn't get it.

The problem with  electronic voting, which has made for the strange bed-fellows of high-tech business firms and liberals, lies in the lack of accountability in the systems. The industry cheerleaders are claiming that their systems are fool-proof and manipulation proof, and that no sort of system for verifying the accuracy of the electronic system is required. This is patently foolish and only a fool would believe such a claim. It is understandable that high-tech business loves electronic voting since it is (potentially) a multi-billion dollar market which had yet to be adequately exploited. Since the entire electronic voting system relies entirely on computers, high-tech touch screens, customized software and the network structure to tie all the systems together, there is a fortune to be made.

There are, however, those outside the industry who would like you to believe that these systems are fool-proof and manipulation proof, and will attempt to belittle and humiliate those who challenge that notion, calling them 'common' and looking down upon them as someone who just doesn't get it. Before anyone jumps to the erroneous conclusion that those pushing for these non-verifiable electronics systems are (so-called) 'right-wing' politicians conspiring to help big business and in turn themselves by controlling the election system, look again. More often than not, it is liberal politicians and their liberal appointees who are the cheerleaders for these systems. The problem with verifiable voting systems is that attempts to manipulate the voting process are more readily visible, therefore more readily countered. That is not to say that such manipulation is impossible – after all, consider the vote manipulation that took place in Florida during the last presidential election: Democrats illegally running around with voting machines and blank ballets in their cars, ballets turned in as errors (and reissued to the voter sothey could have a second chance at casting their votes) which were supposed to be discarded as voided ballets suddenly being claimed as legitimate ballets, voters illegally voting several times, those who had no legal right to vote being allowed to do so – including many dead people who seemed to miraculously return to life just long enough to show their support for Al Gore, those who had a legal right to vote being denied that right (members of the Armed Forces voting by mail), and Democrat operatives claiming to have psychic powers and being able to know how a voter meant to vote, even though there was no clear vote showing on a punch card (sorry if this offends some, but if a person is not capable of following the simple instruction of 'Punch the tab completely out' then they do not have the capacity to cast a well reasoned vote and have absolutely no business being in a voting booth. The same holds true if they do not understand the instructions and are unwilling to ask that the instructions be explained). Had an electronic voting system been in place in Florida in 2000, there is little question that the Democratic Party members running the voting booths and the county reporting offices in the disputed counties could have manipulated the votes to ensure an Al Gore victory and no one would have been able to prove otherwise.

The fact is, that there are hundreds - perhaps thousands - of ways to manipulate the vote electronically, and without some sort of hard-copy verification you have no way of knowing if your vote – or any vote, for that matter – has been manipulated.

Before you dismiss such a concept as paranoid and become so high-minded that you suffer from oxygen deprivation, lets consider the concept in a more personal manner. Consider your credit card. What if the bank and merchants decided that you did not actually need your card and account number, nor did you need a copy of your receipt every time you made a credit purchase, nor did they need your signature or other means of verifying the legitimacy of a transaction? After all, the information is all stored on their computers, and they promise that their systems are fool-proof and manipulation proof; If you ever have any questions about your account, what you purchased and how much you owe, all you have to do is call them.

Ask yourself these questions: How do you know that the charges that appear on your bill are legitimate? And what do you do if you know that there are fraudulent charges on your account – how do you prove it since there are no hard copies of any transaction kept anywhere and the only records of any sort are in the hands of those who have a vested interest in lying to you?

Would you accept that concept? If you do you are a fool, and a believer in the Emperors new clothes. If you do not consider the concept acceptable for your personal finances, why would you consider it acceptable for a national election? Are you willing to take the risk of nodding your head and saying, “Yes, those are mighty fine clothes the Emperor is wearing”? Or do you have the integrity to risk saying, “The Emperor is naked and anyone who says different is a fool”?

Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

10:07:48 AM PDT

The computer software industry has discovered that they have a cash-flow problem and it is the fault of the computer using public. Computer users are not upgrading their software. Sure, most people upgrade their virus programs and other utilities–perhaps even purchase the newest version of their favorite print-shop program every few years. But upgrades for the high margin programs--office suites and the like–-where most software publishers make their money are not being made with the frequency that the industry demands of users.

So, if users won't upgrade voluntarily, then another means of extracting money from the computer using public must be devised. The surest means of generating a constant cash flow for software companies is to change the basic model of their business from a one-time license fee to a subscription-based model where the user pays either a monthly/annual fee or a per usage fee: The Coin-Operated Computer.

Although it seems unlikely that the public would accept such a concept, anyone who has observed the computer industry for any length of time knows that such drastic changes have been accomplished in the past and understands that such a transition can be accomplished one small step at a time over the period of several years without the majority of computer users realizing that they have been lead to accept that which was previously unacceptable.

The first step of the process is currently under way: Increased emphasis on "workgroup collaborative" capabilities of software, specifically over the lan and broadband internet. This in and of itself is not a bad thing; The concept has the potential for benefitting business and the acceptance of this concept will be easily accomplished. But the collaborative nature of software will be--at the begining--document-centric. After a short while software publishers will begin promoting application-centric collaborative software. These applications will be designed as "shared applications", designed so that the bulk of the application resides within the server. Individual desktop computers with-in the business will be replaced with lower-cost "network desktops" (essentially advanced versions of the dumb-terminal from years past). These "network desktops" will consist of little more than small hard-drives or ROM cards, and will have nothing more than a basic operating system and a program launcher installed. The cost savings to business will be tremendous--at thebeginning--as the bulk of the software IS departments will be required to maintain will reside on the server, with nothing on individual desktops with which users can create havoc.

The second step--to occur concurrently with the first--is to move the majority of software distribution to the internet and away from the traditional retail outlet. The software industry has already acknowledged this goal. Although many small shareware companies have operated in this manner for several years the larger companies are only just now beginning to move to this distribution model. Until the recent adoption of broadband connections this form of distribution has been unrealistic for larger applications such as Microsoft Office. Microsoft, who recently committed themselves to such a transition has had to slow down their conversion process due to the high number of individual users who still access the internet via dial-up connection. But in the matter of a couple of years expect to see the majority of software distributed via download, with a premium charged to those who wish to receive their software via cd-rom.

The third and final step of the process to the Coin-Operated Computer is for the software companies to combine the first two steps, with themselves operating the servers that store their applications, with all users--business and individual--using "network desktops" to log onto the publishers server to run the applications they need. In this manner, users will prevented from purchasing a a software title to run on their own computers for as long as it suits their needs without any additional fees being collected by the publisher. Instead, the user will have no other option but to pay a subscription fee for the privilage of using a computer to accomplish their work.

And if any of this sounds vaguely familiar, think back to the early days of computers, when--if you needed access to the computer--you had to rent computer time from the likes of IBM.

Wasn't that what the personal computer was supposed to free us from?

Written by ldmartin1959 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own