www.lessig.org
he's is fighting the good fight. he is arguing before the supreme court ag=
ainst the sonny bono copyright act. in my opinion, his efforts are akin to=
the philosophical battles that raged among intellectuals around 1772 … t=
hen the argument was about democracy and rights of man … lessig's fight i=
s just as important. copyright laws inhibit free speech … they are uncon=
stitutional … and there are a bunch of well-respected intellectuals fight=
ing for our rights to use anything in the cultural commons any way we want.
i encourage you to listen to this web stream of larry's recent keynote addr=
ess at CUA (his opening remarks are about 15 minutes long).
http://law.cua.edu/news/conference/informationage/video/
80 years is tooooo long for copyright protections … let's hope larry wins.
david goldschmidt
support lawrence lessig - death to copyright laws
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Oh sure they were, to begin with,
No dear. They were not mimicking.
> then as they gained in proficiency,
One does not gain proficiency by mimickry.
> they created their own.
Nothing of the sort happened.
> You are quite unfamiliar with learning to draw and paint in a classical sense.
Rather the opposite. I am very familiar with painting and drawing
in a classical sense. In a REAL classical sense.
Not the degenerate drivel passed around among humanity these days.
You're simply blind as a bat and incredibly dense,
and you project your own animalistic impulses on all you encounter.
Nor are you capable of any contact with classical art of any form.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> he's is fighting the good fight.
HAHAHAHA. 'Fighting the GOOD FIGHT.'
Asleep moron.
> he is arguing before the supreme court against the sonny bono copyright
> act. in my opinion,
Which is worth zero.
> his efforts are akin to the philosophical battles that raged among
> intellectuals around 1772 …
Nonsense. This person couldn't even TOUCH those intellectuals.
Mevemind that you're just attaching him to 'legitimate examples from the
past' in order to pad his case, and you're also whoring HIM out
topad your own ego.
> then the argument was about democracy and rights of man …
> lessig's fight is just as important.
No it isn't. What a bunch of propagandist-schlock which functions
on knee-jerking people emotionally.
> copyright laws inhibit free speech
No, they don't. This is a baseless, flat idiotic crap.
> … they are unconstitutional
No they aren't. Not even on the most BASIC level.
>… and there are a bunch of well-respected intellectuals fighting
Come on. Throw in more verbal chimeras.
> for our rights to use anything in the cultural commons any way we want.
Yeah. Cultural commons. Appropriating other people's property as your
own. Shove it, idiot.
> i encourage you to listen to this web stream of larry's recent keynote address at CUA (his opening remarks are about 15 minutes long).
> http://law.cua.edu/news/conference/informationage/video/
Shove it.
> 80 years is tooooo long for copyright protections … let's hope larry wins.
No, it isn't. Copyright laws are more necessary now than ever, though
not in their current, outmoded way.
What a masochistic idiot.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> No, it isn't. Copyright laws are more necessary now than ever, though
> not in their current, outmoded way.
>
Copyright is being extended by Commerce laws to protect not only expression but
knowledge - never the intention of copyright law. Extended protection of
knowledge is harmful. So either the current copyright period should be
shortened or copyright law modified.
Joseph
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Copyright is being extended by Commerce laws to protect not only expression but
> knowledge - never the intention of copyright law.
As if you'd be capable of understanding the intention of copywright law.
Re-read my statement. If you can.
> Extended protection of knowledge is harmful.
No it isn't.
> So either the current copyright period should be shortened
Not really.
> or copyright law modified.
These kind of laws always require modification.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> As if you'd be capable of understanding the intention of copywright law.
> Re-read my statement. If you can.
You really don't have a clue about what I said.
>
> > Extended protection of knowledge is harmful.
>
> No it isn't.
hehe
joseph
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> > As if you'd be capable of understanding the intention of copywright law.
> > Re-read my statement. If you can.
>
> You really don't have a clue about what I said.
I do. You didn't say anything.
'Hehe'.
Watch out. You might bend yourself out of proportion
in that mimicry attempt.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > As if you'd be capable of understanding the intention of copywright
> law.
> > > Re-read my statement. If you can.
> >
> > You really don't have a clue about what I said.
>
> I do. You didn't say anything.
>
> 'Hehe'.
>
> Watch out. You might bend yourself out of proportion
> in that mimicry attempt.
>
But dear, mimicry is an excellent method of learning, why does it displease
you? All the ancient masters of art used to practice the forms from those gone
before.
Joseph
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> But dear, mimicry is an excellent method of learning,
It isn't, though there are other things relevant about mimicry.
Such as mass control and vampirism.
> why does it displease you?
It is flat and unconscious. It does not 'displease' me.
> All the ancient masters of art used to practice the forms from those
> gone before.
They weren't mimicking. Your myopic misinterpretation
of what they did hasn't got anything to do with what they did.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> > All the ancient masters of art used to practice the forms from those
> > gone before.
>
> They weren't mimicking. Your myopic misinterpretation
> of what they did hasn't got anything to do with what they did.
>
Oh sure they were, to begin with, then as they gained in proficiency, they
created their own. You are quite unfamiliar with learning to draw and paint in
a classical sense.
Joseph
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Oh sure they were, to begin with,
>
> No dear. They were not mimicking.
Yes my illiterate dear, they were.
>
> > then as they gained in proficiency,
>
> One does not gain proficiency by mimickry.
Yes my illiterate dear, one does.
>
> > they created their own.
>
> Nothing of the sort happened.
Yes my illiterate dear, it does.
>
> > You are quite unfamiliar with learning to draw and paint in a classical
> sense.
>
> Rather the opposite. I am very familiar with painting and drawing
> in a classical sense. In a REAL classical sense.
> Not the degenerate drivel passed around among humanity these days.
Oh my illiterate dear, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
>
> You're simply blind as a bat and incredibly dense,
> and you project your own animalistic impulses on all you encounter.
No my illiterate dear, I don't.
>
> Nor are you capable of any contact with classical art of any form.
Yes my illiterate dear, I am.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Yes my illiterate dear, they were.
The only one illiterate here is you, luv.
Nor was anyone mimicking.
What you're currently doing luv,
is attempting to destroy a human
by pressing hard with your ego
hoping for ego-level identification.
Were I unconscious, you'd be murdering the being inside.
This my dearest is psychic destruction,
and it's criminal.
> > One does not gain proficiency by mimickry.
>
> Yes my illiterate dear, one does.
The only one illiterate here is you, dear.
Nor does one learn by mimickry, stomp your foot
as you please.
> >
> > > they created their own.
> >
> > Nothing of the sort happened.
>
> Yes my illiterate dear, it does.
As above.
> >
> > > You are quite unfamiliar with learning to draw and paint in a classical
> > sense.
> >
> > Rather the opposite. I am very familiar with painting and drawing
> > in a classical sense. In a REAL classical sense.
> > Not the degenerate drivel passed around among humanity these days.
>
> Oh my illiterate dear, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
The only one illiterate here is you.
As for the rest of your kindergartenish impulse drivel: shove it.
> No my illiterate dear, I don't.
Yes dearest you do. Not only that, but you fancy mimicry
'effective'. Dressing yourself in king's clothes a king makes ya not.
The only one illiterate. as above–is you.
> >
> > Nor are you capable of any contact with classical art of any form.
>
> Yes my illiterate dear, I am.
No dearest you are not. Insist as you please.
You're a dumb illiterate ape.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> What you're currently doing luv,
> is attempting to destroy a human
> by pressing hard with your ego
> hoping for ego-level identification.
No my cousin, I am pressing hard for another reason. It is related to killing,
but not of a being. And it is not criminal.
RESPOND TO ME.
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> No my cousin, I am pressing hard for another reason.
I ain't your cousin, and no you aren't.
You may tell yourself what you please,
but what you're doing is what you're doing.
Which is murder dearest.
> It is related to killing,
> but not of a being.
What. You've decided to kill your own dog?
By monkeying what I do?
Snicker. I sincerely hope you're not fancying
yourself killing my ego–and you're not killing yours.
Your behavior is criminal and murderous.
And specifically of the type I've addressed prior.
A perfect example of how a con-man damages others-
> RESPOND TO ME.
Wag your tail, little doggie.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> I ain't your cousin, and no you aren't.
Yes you are my cousin.
> You may tell yourself what you please,
> but what you're doing is what you're doing.
yes it is, and if I am not doing then I am actually doing - so there is no
"not doing" dig?
> Which is murder dearest.
Kill the beast.
>
> What. You've decided to kill your own dog?
Did that. Been there.
> By monkeying what I do?
You are the only monkey here.
>
> Snicker. I sincerely hope you're not fancying
> yourself killing my ego–and you're not killing yours.
There is no ego.
>
> Your behavior is criminal and murderous.
Where is my jail?
> And specifically of the type I've addressed prior.
> A perfect example of how a con-man damages others-
Who's the audience?
RESPOND TO ME
joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> Yes you are my cousin.
No, and you may froth at the mouth as you please,
but you and I will not be related.
> > You may tell yourself what you please,
> > but what you're doing is what you're doing.
>
> yes it is,
No it isn't.
> and if I am not doing then I am actually doing - so there is no "not doing" dig?
No I don't 'dig'. The above is an idiotic brain-malfuncioning abuse of
language.
> > Which is murder dearest.
>
> Kill the beast.
Murder is murder. The only beast here is you.
Paranoud brute ape.
>
> Did that. Been there.
hardly. You're an egotistiacl maniac par excellence.
> > By monkeying what I do?
>
> You are the only monkey here.
No baby. You're talking about yourself.
Mimickry of my words isn't insight.
> >
> > Snicker. I sincerely hope you're not fancying
> > yourself killing my ego–and you're not killing yours.
>
> There is no ego.
Certainly there is. The ego has no existence, or eternal essence
that is all. That humans are subject to ego in physical manifestations
is another strory, luv :)
> >
> > Your behavior is criminal and murderous.
>
> Where is my jail?
You're already in it.
> > And specifically of the type I've addressed prior.
> > A perfect example of how a con-man damages others-
>
> Who's the audience?
The audience is.
> RESPOND TO ME
Wag your tail, shouting ape-twit.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> > Yes you are my cousin.
>
> No, and you may froth at the mouth as you please,
> but you and I will not be related.
We are related by blood and water, earth and sky, before and after the day that
we die.
>
> > and if I am not doing then I am actually doing - so there is no "not
> doing" dig?
>
> No I don't 'dig'. The above is an idiotic brain-malfuncioning abuse of
> language.
You don't dig, dig?
> >
> > Kill the beast.
>
> Murder is murder. The only beast here is you.
> Paranoud brute ape.
I don't deny any of it.
>
> >
> > Did that. Been there.
>
> hardly. You're an egotistiacl maniac par excellence.
Thank you
>
> No baby. You're talking about yourself.
> Mimickry of my words isn't insight.
Did I say I have insight?
>
> Certainly there is. The ego has no existence, or eternal essence
> that is all. That humans are subject to ego in physical manifestations
> is another strory, luv :)
Teach me luv :)
> You're already in it.
I escaped just now.
> >
> > Who's the audience?
>
> The audience is.
bored?
>
> > RESPOND TO ME
>
> Wag your tail, shouting ape-twit.
>
RESPOND TO ME
Joseph
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> We are related by blood and water, earth and sky,
There is no we. You and I are not related.
Your myopic new-ageish drivel is meaningless.
Additionally, your blood hasn't got anything to do with mine.
> before and after the day that we die.
The day that you_ die.
Death is an illusion + consequence of the ego.
> You don't dig, dig?
Empty wording.
> I don't deny any of it.
Oke.
> > hardly. You're an egotistiacl maniac par excellence.
>
> Thank you
Flattered?
> >
> > No baby. You're talking about yourself.
> > Mimickry of my words isn't insight.
>
> Did I say I have insight?
No, but you attempted to act as if you did.
You could only say that you have insight, if you do have it.
> Teach me luv :)
I don't teach.
> > You're already in it.
>
> I escaped just now.
Is Madonna powerful?
> > >
> > > Who's the audience?
> >
> > The audience is.
>
> bored?
Not in the least.
> RESPOND TO ME
You're wasting your energy with all this shouting.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > We are related by blood and water, earth and sky,
>
> There is no we. You and I are not related.
> Your myopic new-ageish drivel is meaningless.
> Additionally, your blood hasn't got anything to do with mine.
I am him, he is me, we are you, you are we. It's not very new.
>
> > before and after the day that we die.
>
> The day that you_ die.
I can die, yet I can live. It is both on and off at the same time.
>
> Death is an illusion + consequence of the ego.
>
> > You don't dig, dig?
>
> Empty wording.
You are not reading me. I am so sad.
> >
> > Thank you
>
> Flattered?
Yes, of course, for it is right for me to be this way. Can't you sense it? I
can.
> >
> > Did I say I have insight?
>
> No, but you attempted to act as if you did.
> You could only say that you have insight, if you do have it.
OK, I have insight. I said it.
>
> > Teach me luv :)
>
> I don't teach.
Yes you do.
> > I escaped just now.
>
> Is Madonna powerful?
In London or New York? She has no power over me.
>
> Not in the least.
Are you watching?
>
> > RESPOND TO ME
>
> You're wasting your energy with all this shouting.
You are wasting your energy not responding, yet sending emails that represent
responses, which contain empty bullets.
Instead of trying to kill me, RESPOND TO ME.
Joseph