?

Log in

sykotoaster
15 April 2009 @ 04:56 pm
The slippery slope fallacy perpetuates many of societies biggest fears: If we let the government put cameras at intersections, then they'll start putting them in our homes. If we teach sexual education at too young an age, then children will start having sex at younger ages and teen-pregnancy will become rampant. If we don't graduate from high school we will never be able to provide for our families. These are some examples of slippery slope thinking, and in many ways the slippery slope fallacy is actually two fallacies wrapped in one. The either-or fallacy, also know as the "false dilemma" is also committed along side sweeping slippery slope debates, suggesting that if A can cause B, then it certainly will and we don't want B, so we must either eradicate A, or be prepared to face B (when if fact A may cause C, D, or E, not only B).
"A", for this purpose, represents intellectual property laws (IP) and B represents a stable capitalistic economy. Having federal IP laws make the investment in technological innovation worthwhile. Develop an idea, slap it with your name and sell that idea. Make money and build an empire. That is what we do in America and without the ability to patent our ideas into viable commodities, what would be the point in investing in new technology? Without IP laws there would be no copyrighted literature, no patented tools or toys...why, I could re-sing all of Journey's greatest hits and sell them (although no one would buy them) and pocket the money as my own, no strings attached if there were no IP laws.
But the development of these laws is based on a fallacious slipper slope ideology that says, "if my unique, money-making, non-obvious ideas are not protected, then capitalism as we know it cannot stand”.
Immediately, the fallacy becomes apparent; either we protect ideas or capitalism fails.
In 1768 an English mechanic named James Watt developed a new type of steam engine that would revolutionize railroad technology(Boldrin & Levine: "Against Intellectual Monopoly", Jan. 2007). After recieving a patent on his new idea from London he immediately began fighting off inventors nipping at his heels with renovations to his model. Nearly thirty years passed before the patents expired, at which point there was a technological explosion of steam-driven tools and vehicles that would become the driving force of the industrial revolution.
Many of these innovations were probably realized long before Watt's patents expired but remaind undeveloped, essencially putting a halt to the industrial revolution. Patents today work in a similar fashion, blocking innovative technologies from being developed or sold because they, in some way, infringe on an existing patent.
So, the development of new technologies is slowed largely because of these barriers.
A perfect example of a slippery slope argument that actually played out due to IP laws is the sofware industry. In 1981 a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the matter of Diamond v. Diehr, allowed, for the first time, software to be patented.
 
 
sykotoaster
04 April 2009 @ 09:49 am
Put your speakers to your head
Pump this system in your brain
Put it harder, dig it deeper,
Let it soak and make a stain

Get the mirror, pay it forward,
Put a penny in your mouth.
Its so easy and so fancy
And you're getting so worn out.

When you break it, then you'll twist it
and its creepy on the shelf
Every bodys' twitching stupid
you can handle all their wealth.

I love being retarded,
cuz it means I really ain't
If I make to the bedroom
Then I'll use the purest paint.

Sandy Roads
And Open Holes
Makeshift Graves
and I Can't Wait.
 
 
sykotoaster
14 March 2009 @ 01:17 am
 
 
sykotoaster
11 March 2009 @ 01:09 pm
Everything that was ever created by man was first an idea. Necessity is, afterall, the mother of invention and people have figured out ways to use their ideas to make a living. These ideas are called intellectual properties. Defining exactly what constitues intellectual property which can be righted to a creator is tricky because of the factors that must be considered when formulationg a precise definition.
When you buy a home, you exchange money for land and materials. It becomes your property and property is something physical that can be bought and sold. No one can sell your home for you, no one can infringe on your right to own that property, and no one can change or alter your property without your permission.
Now, imagine your dream home. It may not exist, and if it doesn’t the picture you have in your head of this particular home, created in your mind, becomes your intellectual property. If you draw out blueprints and have them copyrighted, this property becomes tangible; something you can physically see and touch. This is how architects make a living - someone buys the physically expressed ideas architects come up with for buildings and structures. No other architect in the U.S. can, lawfully, re-create your design without your permission and if they do you have the right to sue for copyright infringement.
This tells us that intellectual properties are important enough to federally protect. The purpose of creating laws to protect and preserve intellecual property stems from the theory that intellectual property is the basis of economic development in developed and developing countries. Making it possible to own an idea and capitalize on that idea provides insentive for people to devise new technology which can then be traded nationally, or exported to an international market. Therefor, it is necessary to protect ideas from being stolen.
How does one steal an idea? How can an idea be protected and why should it be?
Consider the imagined dream home: it is possible that two, three, maybe dozens of people may come up with the same dream home. The first person to create a physical expression of the home and have it registered with the U.S. Copyright Office would “win” the rights to trade the property born in his/her minds. It is now tangible. Technically, any literary, scientific, or artistic works are automatically copyrighted from the moment of creation, although without registering your idea it is nearly impossible to prove that you had the idea first. To illustrate, you might have an idea in your head to create small notepads with sticky glue on the back of each page, but if you were not the first to create and register a prototype, then you cannot claim to have invented Post-It Notes®.
So, intellectual properties must be expressed in some physical form and, ideally, registered. At this point the word “intellectual” seems like it may as well be dropped, as it only indicates that the property was once only an idea and isn’t that what all things not created by man started as?
You’ve drawn the schematics for your dream home. What makes this home different from other homes, enough so to warrant registering your creation? The answer to this question; it doesn’t matter. Whether unique or not, as long as it is not an exact copy, or obviously a purposeful recreation of an existing design, you can register your blueprints without worry. Cnsider the following analogy; you cannot copyright the plot in a literary work just as you cannot copyright the general idea of a house. A house is just a house and a love story is just a love story until one adds the ingredients to make the story or home unique. This, however, is not the case for all intellectual properties.
Patents, a different but similar form of intellectual property, must be non-obvious in order to be registered as belonging to someone or some corporation.
The nature of patents differs from copyrights because a patent typically is an invention designed to alter or improve some existing product. To illustrate, imagine the dream home you’ve built won’t stand because the cement available today is not suitable to meet the needs of your design. To solve the problem, you labored day and night to create a type of cement that is uniquely designed to your homebuilding. You could have that cement mix patented, which would allow you the rights to use and sell that mixture to other builders that may face the same problem but have yet to solve their problems or patent their solutions.
Intellectual properties are difficult to define because they nearly require case-by-case examination. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines intellectual property as rights resulting from intellectual activity, but this definition is broad and circular.
Intellectual properties are unique ideas that can be expressed physically and righted to the creator(s).
In the latter definition, the genus is intellectual properties and the differentia is the uniqueness of the ideas. And idea expressed physically but is not unique does not count as intellectual property that can be righted to the expressor because some creator already owns the right to that idea.
 
 
sykotoaster
16 February 2009 @ 08:52 pm
Tom Wade
Richard Rodriguez – Hunger for Memory
Reaction Essay
February 17t, 2009

In the 1997 Warner Bros. film “Selena”, Selena’s father acts as her manager as she struggles to compete in the Mexican-American music industry ruled primarily by men. One scene in particular is a cinematic representation of the theme of Richard Rodriguez’s book “Hunger for Memory”. In the scene Selena’s father is trying to talk her out of giving a live press conference in Mexico because her speaking in Spanish is “funny”. He says to her, “We are Mexican-Americans. We have to be more American than Americans, and more Mexican than Mexicans. It’s exhausting!”
Richard Rodriguez describes his childhood as awkward in his autobiography “Hunger for Memory – The Education of Richard Rodriguez”. The summary on the back of the book also uses the adjective to illustrate the double life Rodriguez lives for much of his youth. The telling of his “American story” evokes sympathetic feelings; the book is an insightful commentary on racism and bilingual education as well as a story of self-discovery.
To put Rodriguez’s work into context, ‘awkward’ is a word I think most children would use to describe some part of their childhood and in some cases all of their childhood, but Rodriguez means awkward beyond the pimples of puberty or gawky growth spurts during high school. In the context of his autobiography, Rodriguez is saying that his childhood was spent in an awkward state most of the time, beginning with his first day at an all-white, Catholic private school.
After being asked by the school, Rodriguez’s mother and father start speaking what little English they know to help their children learn the language faster. As Rodriguez learns English, his parents remain largely untutored in the language. Because of this a gap begins to grow between the children in the family and the parents; a language barrier that is increasingly becoming harder to penetrate and Rodriguez experiences feelings of great awkwardness. In chapter 2 he writes, “One Saturday morning I entered the kitchen where my parents were talking in Spanish. I did not realize they were talking in Spanish however until, at the moment they saw me, I heard their voices change to speak English. Those gringo sounds they uttered startled me. Pushed me away. In that moment of trivial misunderstanding and profound insight, I felt my throat twisted by unsounded grief. I turned quickly and left the room. But I had no place to escape to with Spanish.” (pg.20, Bantam mass market reprint-2004)
Rodriguez’s recounts this particular Saturday morning as if he had just walked in on a spouse cheating, or the open casket of a loved one. He is trapped and he has to face the reality of the situation. He must come to terms with the fact that he is becoming assimilated to American culture and dissimilated, not from his heritage as a Mexican but, as a member of his family.
His extended family members and friends of the family notice the separation from the Spanish speaking household and create an even more awkward experience for Rodriguez and his siblings by poking fun and mocking honest efforts to assimilate. In chapter 3 Rodriguez says, “I recount such incidents only because they suggest the fierce power Spanish had for many people I met at home; the way Spanish was associated with closeness”(pg30).
Language is certainly the glue that binds people. Imagine being in a room full of people speaking a language that you didn’t understand. Now, imagine in the room you are able to find one person that speaks your language. Relieved?
Now imagine that all the people in the room are related to you: aunts, uncles, cousins, family friends, grandfathers, mother-in-laws, great grandfather…and none of them speak your language except for your brother or sister. As if a glass wall has been installed in the room and no one really understands why you chose to stand behind it. Out of touch, and separate.
To truly fit in both the English speaking world beyond and the Spanish speaking “private” world, Rodriguez would have had to be “…more Mexican than the Mexicans, and more American than the Americans”.
How awkward.
 
 
 
sykotoaster
10 February 2009 @ 07:30 pm
Tom Wade
Argumentation and Logic
February 11, 2009
Rough Draft for Peer Review


Intellectual Property Laws:


Record companies belonging to the massive Recording Industry Artists of America (RIAA) have taken aim at their consumers and are filing mass lawsuits against anyone whose IP address can be traced and proven to have connected to file-sharing programs and illegally downloaded pirated music.
The idea of suing everyone in America with an IP address and a connection to some file-sharing application is absurd and the lawsuits are in many ways a scare tactic, threatening the youth of tech-suave generations with surmounting debt and a criminal records. However low a blow, the record companies are right in demanding compensation for the hard work that does not get paid for when millions of people are able to download entire albums for free.
This is just example of the scope of the applications for intellectual property laws and their development. The sources I'm using for my reports include a vast array of resource material gathered from all angles relating to intellectual property including: case law studies from the U.S. Supreme Court, a brief from the infamous Napster v. A&M Records case, writings from several law schools, reports directly from the RIAA, and an interesting report from the Journal of Libertarian Studies titled "Against Intellectual Property".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gader-Shafran, Rachel. Intellectual Property Law Dictionary. Law Journal Press, 2004.

This book will be helpful in answering basic questions I might have about particular definitions within U.S. and International Intellectual Property laws and their applications. I have only been able to view pieces of this book on line, but I will be picking it up from the firm Holme Roberts and Owens for temporary use, including photocopying and scanning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinsella, Stephan. "Against Intellectual Property". Journal of Libertarian Studies 15.2 (Spring 2001): 1-53. [6]


An amazingly persuasive book that turns the belief that IP laws are important and turns it on its head. As I read, I am excited to see how many of the case law studies I have actually fit in with Kinsella's arguments against IP laws and enforcement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Levine, David; Michele Boldrin (2008-09-07). Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge University Press. pp. 312. ISBN 978-0521879286. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf.

The book discusses a purely economic view to the hindrances caused in the marketplace by IP laws.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Schneider, Patricia H. "International Trade, Economic Growth and Intellectual Property Rights: A Panel Data Study of Developed and Developing Countries". July 2004.



An intriguing look at IP laws and how they can hinder a countries economic and technological progress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


wipo.int. 2009. World Intellectual Property Organization. 10, Feb. 2009. http://www.wipo.int

The digital headquarters for the World Intellectual Property Organization. The site is user friendly with an easy interface that allows one to search the entire site and easily find data about IP laws, their structure, and applications.

This site is going to help provide a balanced opinion of how necessary IP laws are and why they are important to enforce from people who study and work in this area of law on an international scale.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law, and Use (Second Edition). Geneva 2004.


This book is a guide to understanding the history, aim, and need for IP laws internationally. Additionally the book makes recommendations to improve constitutional laws to best use IP laws and not hinder their own progress or economic development. This book really has every use in this subject matter and that is why I've added it to my collection of resources.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eugene R. Quinn, Jr., Debunking the Intellectual Property Monopoly Myth.

This article (and the entire site, really) is a great starting point to research news and information about property laws and resolves to "debunk" the "myths" proposed by IP opponents.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Time.com. 2009. Time, Inc. 10, Feb. 2009. http://www.time.com


Time.com is a great resource for reading coverage of past cases involving IP laws and large corporations. The information I can gather from international reports regarding IP cases, rumors, and issues will provide something to compare trends in past cases and studies in hopes of finding a pattern or perhas the evolution of an international trend to rid the world of silly IP practices.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


US Const., art. 1, sec. 8.

It seems only logical to include the U.S. Constitution, Title 17 regarding copyrights, IP, trade-secrets, patents and trademark laws. The information in the U.S. Constitution provides a legal definition that can be used for the purpose of argument despite whether those definitions are in question. Cases change laws and the case-law studies included in my resources will show why the debate about intellectual property, and its validity as law, is a particularly hot one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campbell v. City of Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610, 1895.


The plaintiff in this case pleaded that an infringement on a patent was rightfully his to contest because the successors to the patent had passed the specific patent (an improvement to fire-engine pumps) along with several others on to him. Ruling was in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the patent had expired.

This case illustrates the downside to intellectual property laws using a specific example of when one patent had stunted the progress of technological improvements. Had the patent in this case not been expired, perhaps society would have had to wait a longer period of time before the changes could be made to the design of an essential urban device; the fire-engine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor Studios Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Grokster, LTD., et al. (04-480) 545 U.S. 913, 2005.


This case has to do specifically with the distribution of software through peer-to-peer networks. In this case, although the infringers were found and question the court made a ruling based off a previous case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, in which the plaintiffs could not prove that they found specific example in which they knew copyright infringement had occured.
This information is valuable because it shows the difficulty in tackling copyright infringers even with surrmounting evidence against the defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A&M RECORDS, Inc. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004, 2001.

I was actually able to get a hold of the legal brief used in the trial against Napster creator Shawn Fanning. The plaintiff, A&M Records, won the case and the decision put in motion a system for dealing with people who develop and use peer-to-peer networks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
riaa.com. 2009, Recording Industry Artists of America. 10, Feb. 2009.
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<www.riaa.com>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Tom Wade
Argumentation and Logic
February 11, 2009
Rough Draft for Peer Review


Intellectual Property Laws:


Record companies belonging to the massive Recording Industry Artists of America (RIAA) have taken aim at their consumers and are filing mass lawsuits against anyone whose IP address can be traced and proven to have connected to file-sharing programs and illegally downloaded pirated music.
The idea of suing everyone in America with an IP address and a connection to some file-sharing application is absurd and the lawsuits are in many ways a scare tactic, threatening the youth of tech-suave generations with surmounting debt and a criminal records. However low a blow, the record companies are right in demanding compensation for the hard work that does not get paid for when millions of people are able to download entire albums for free.
This is just example of the scope of the applications for intellectual property laws and their development. The sources I'm using for my reports include a vast array of resource material gathered from all angles relating to intellectual property including: case law studies from the U.S. Supreme Court, a brief from the infamous Napster v. A&M Records case, writings from several law schools, reports directly from the RIAA, and an interesting report from the Journal of Libertarian Studies titled "Against Intellectual Property".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gader-Shafran, Rachel. Intellectual Property Law Dictionary. Law Journal Press, 2004.

This book will be helpful in answering basic questions I might have about particular definitions within U.S. and International Intellectual Property laws and their applications. I have only been able to view pieces of this book on line, but I will be picking it up from the firm Holme Roberts and Owens for temporary use, including photocopying and scanning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinsella, Stephan. "Against Intellectual Property". Journal of Libertarian Studies 15.2 (Spring 2001): 1-53. [6]


An amazingly persuasive book that turns the belief that IP laws are important and turns it on its head. As I read, I am excited to see how many of the case law studies I have actually fit in with Kinsella's arguments against IP laws and enforcement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Levine, David; Michele Boldrin (2008-09-07). Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge University Press. pp. 312. ISBN 978-0521879286. http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf.

The book discusses a purely economic view to the hindrances caused in the marketplace by IP laws.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Schneider, Patricia H. "International Trade, Economic Growth and Intellectual Property Rights: A Panel Data Study of Developed and Developing Countries". July 2004.



An intriguing look at IP laws and how they can hinder a countries economic and technological progress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


wipo.int. 2009. World Intellectual Property Organization. 10, Feb. 2009. http://www.wipo.int

The digital headquarters for the World Intellectual Property Organization. The site is user friendly with an easy interface that allows one to search the entire site and easily find data about IP laws, their structure, and applications.

This site is going to help provide a balanced opinion of how necessary IP laws are and why they are important to enforce from people who study and work in this area of law on an international scale.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law, and Use (Second Edition). Geneva 2004.


This book is a guide to understanding the history, aim, and need for IP laws internationally. Additionally the book makes recommendations to improve constitutional laws to best use IP laws and not hinder their own progress or economic development. This book really has every use in this subject matter and that is why I've added it to my collection of resources.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eugene R. Quinn, Jr., Debunking the Intellectual Property Monopoly Myth.

This article (and the entire site, really) is a great starting point to research news and information about property laws and resolves to "debunk" the "myths" proposed by IP opponents.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Time.com. 2009. Time, Inc. 10, Feb. 2009. http://www.time.com


Time.com is a great resource for reading coverage of past cases involving IP laws and large corporations. The information I can gather from international reports regarding IP cases, rumors, and issues will provide something to compare trends in past cases and studies in hopes of finding a pattern or perhas the evolution of an international trend to rid the world of silly IP practices.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


US Const., art. 1, sec. 8.

It seems only logical to include the U.S. Constitution, Title 17 regarding copyrights, IP, trade-secrets, patents and trademark laws. The information in the U.S. Constitution provides a legal definition that can be used for the purpose of argument despite whether those definitions are in question. Cases change laws and the case-law studies included in my resources will show why the debate about intellectual property, and its validity as law, is a particularly hot one.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campbell v. City of Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610, 1895.


The plaintiff in this case pleaded that an infringement on a patent was rightfully his to contest because the successors to the patent had passed the specific patent (an improvement to fire-engine pumps) along with several others on to him. Ruling was in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the patent had expired.

This case illustrates the downside to intellectual property laws using a specific example of when one patent had stunted the progress of technological improvements. Had the patent in this case not been expired, perhaps society would have had to wait a longer period of time before the changes could be made to the design of an essential urban device; the fire-engine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor Studios Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Grokster, LTD., et al. (04-480) 545 U.S. 913, 2005.


This case has to do specifically with the distribution of software through peer-to-peer networks. In this case, although the infringers were found and question the court made a ruling based off a previous case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, in which the plaintiffs could not prove that they found specific example in which they knew copyright infringement had occured.
This information is valuable because it shows the difficulty in tackling copyright infringers even with surrmounting evidence against the defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A&M RECORDS, Inc. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004, 2001.

I was actually able to get a hold of the legal brief used in the trial against Napster creator Shawn Fanning. The plaintiff, A&M Records, won the case and the decision put in motion a system for dealing with people who develop and use peer-to-peer networks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
riaa.com. 2009, Recording Industry Artists of America. 10, Feb. 2009. <www.riaa.com>

This site has great information delivered in almost a propaganda style, but in the RIAA's defense they are simply trying to ward off would-be Shawn Fanning's from developing or using software that makes pirated videos or music available without licensing or royalty agreements.

____________________________________________________
 
 
sykotoaster
25 January 2009 @ 05:02 am
RIAA  
I'm down with artists (even the pathetic ones) getting paid for the time and effort that they put into producing, recording, painting, singing, or writing intellectual property and you should too. Don't illegally down load music.
 
 
sykotoaster
20 January 2009 @ 06:02 pm

OMG. The cutest thing I have ever seen in my life:
 
 
sykotoaster
10 December 2008 @ 06:01 pm
VoicePost
219K 1:07
(no transcription available)
 
 
sykotoaster
09 December 2008 @ 09:56 pm
Main Entry: bitch
Pronunciation: \ˈbich\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce
Date: before 12th century
1: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
3: something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant
4: complaint


lol.