Chavez Dead, Finally
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

#148 Mar 9, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>So? Nothing illegal took place:
He used her property for commercial profit purposes without her permission. Based upon your prior rants all day long about Hugo Chavez I would think that might upset you, you know...theft and all that stuff.

woof

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#149 Mar 9, 2013
Big Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are saying that submitting to rules, e.g. paying for the use of that intellectual property instead of just taking it, is freedom. So when President Obama digs up your guns and takes them away, you will be more free. Genius!
You've gone around the bend, wee man. She chose to allow her property to be used and he agreed to pay for it. There will be no such arrangement with anyone, much less the federal government, where my property is concerned.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#150 Mar 9, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
He used her property for commercial profit purposes without her permission. Based upon your prior rants all day long about Hugo Chavez I would think that might upset you, you know...theft and all that stuff.
woof
Yet she didn't file suit, did she? Obviously she felt she hadn't been injured either financially or in reputation up to that point. Read what she says, Dukie...she's pretty laid back about the whole thing.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#151 Mar 9, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
He used her property for commercial profit purposes without her permission. Based upon your prior rants all day long about Hugo Chavez I would think that might upset you, you know...theft and all that stuff.
woof
IMO, Intellectual property (copyrights) is not real property, I want its protections drastically scaled back.

Patents only exist for 20 years, Copyright goes on far longer.
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

#153 Mar 9, 2013
You cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
Above we have another failure to recognize private property. Typical of a lazy thief aka commie
Read the fifth amendment, moron.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

#154 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, Intellectual property (copyrights) is not real property, I want its protections drastically scaled back.
Patents only exist for 20 years, Copyright goes on far longer.
Well, you're the putz who got cornered using someone's image without their permission.

Its not surprising you feel that way.

woof

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#155 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, Intellectual property (copyrights) is not real property, I want its protections drastically scaled back.
Patents only exist for 20 years, Copyright goes on far longer.
Intellectual property IS real property, it generates income. Copyrights last typically life plus 70 years. Meaning, you cannot make any money or use my intellectual works without my permission, or the permission of my estate.

I don't see any reason to reduce that. It protects the author, the artist, the creator. I wish to hold the rights to my own works, whether to make money publishing, distributing the work, or selling the rights to the work to someone else's portfolio.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#156 Mar 9, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know where you got that "quote" Karl, but I didn't write it.
Anyway, if I was "defending" Chavez it was for his policies related to nationalization of the oil industry and the redistribution of its profits towards health care and education.
Such awful priorities to espouse, I know.
woof
When you have to forcibly take it from someone who earned it to give it to someone who didn't, it is.
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

#157 Mar 9, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Yet she didn't file suit, did she? Obviously she felt she hadn't been injured either financially or in reputation up to that point. Read what she says, Dukie...she's pretty laid back about the whole thing.
Yeah, I know that Georgie. It was her record company that pushed the issue.

The Hyndes are down to earth people, pretty apolitical for the most part. I've played pool with her brother a few times. Good folks.

The fat guy tried to make some sort of a point about that song claiming the lyrics were "anti-capitalist", or some BS, when all it is is a tribute to Akron as it was when she grew up.

woof

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#158 Mar 9, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Intellectual property IS real property, it generates income. Copyrights last typically life plus 70 years. Meaning, you cannot make any money or use my intellectual works without my permission, or the permission of my estate.
I don't see any reason to reduce that. It protects the author, the artist, the creator. I wish to hold the rights to my own works, whether to make money publishing, distributing the work, or selling the rights to the work to someone else's portfolio.
Intellectual property is not real, it cannot be excluded like real property can.

It is not subject to property tax, that's my biggest issue. If it's real property, then it must be hit with property tax.

Life+70 is far from what was intended by the framers, and its continuous extension makes a mockery of the Constitution.

In effect, the property of Hollywood is getting a tax break that no one else gets.

No one would claim that patents should get protection that long, and copyright should not receive any protection longer than patents.
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

#159 Mar 9, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have to forcibly take it from someone who earned it to give it to someone who didn't, it is.
Just how do you think those "rights" originally vested in the hands of white people? By chance? By divine intervention?

And have you read the takings clause?

Because of how America was formed, Americans seem to have an inability to comprehend perspectives that take into account centuries of socio-political interactions, preferring to deal in short term snapshots that can be more easily manipulated to justify a selected agenda. Since the surviving ancestors of our indigenous population have been essentially rendered politically and economically impotent over time, there's never been a chance that they'd ever revolt and successfully demand that what was rightfully theirs be returned.

In contrast, in places like Venezuela or Honduras, that scenario is a reality.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/9806
http://prwatch.org/node/9834

woof

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#160 Mar 9, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're the putz who got cornered using someone's image without their permission.
Its not surprising you feel that way.
woof
Fair Use
Parody

Funny, lawyer, you were OK with the rich beating up on me...

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#161 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Intellectual property is not real, it cannot be excluded like real property can.
It is not subject to property tax, that's my biggest issue. If it's real property, then it must be hit with property tax.
Life+70 is far from what was intended by the framers, and its continuous extension makes a mockery of the Constitution.
In effect, the property of Hollywood is getting a tax break that no one else gets.
No one would claim that patents should get protection that long, and copyright should not receive any protection longer than patents.
The property of a lot of artists, creators, and other intellectual property would disagree, not just those in Hollywood.

http://www.e-lynxx.com/Libraries/New_PPL/Why_...

Yes, it is property. It is the effort of one's mind. As you pointed out, it is not tangible, so it cannot be taxed. However, its profits are. You buy a book I've written and you pay sales tax. I pay income tax on the profits.

When you purchase a book, you own the physical book and the right to obtain my ideas.

When you buy software, you own the RIGHT to use what is in that software package. You do not own the right to disassemble the program and use the code or claim it as your own as you are hindering MY right to make an income off of my intellectual efforts.(As well as financial or physical efforts required--investments, labor, etc.)

When you purchase a CD of music I've recorded, you only own a CD, not the music. You have purchased a right to use the music in a non-profit manner.

All of these things require a long time prior to expiration. I am not as well versed on patent law; however, there is a good difference between patents and copyrights, and I'll quote the US Patent Office:

"In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if:(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States ...

This seems to me to apply more to hard goods, those things that are tangible and that have a useful life, ie can become obsolete or can be "written off the books" through depreciation after manufacture or are novelties such as toys, games, etc.

Big difference there. Music, art, books/literature do not have shelf lives as such. Ideas vs. hard goods need to be treated differently because this. You should not have the right to pirate software or a creative work I've made simply by stripping the code and making a minor modification or a minor edit and claiming it as your own. The life of a creative work by its nature is much longer than a hard good.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#163 Mar 9, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how do you think those "rights" originally vested in the hands of white people? By chance? By divine intervention?
And have you read the takings clause?
Already said I had, and pointed out what it ended with.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#164 Mar 9, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
The property of a lot of artists, creators, and other intellectual property would disagree, not just those in Hollywood.
http://www.e-lynxx.com/Libraries/New_PPL/Why_...
Yes, it is property. It is the effort of one's mind. As you pointed out, it is not tangible, so it cannot be taxed. However, its profits are. You buy a book I've written and you pay sales tax. I pay income tax on the profits.
When you purchase a book, you own the physical book and the right to obtain my ideas.
When you buy software, you own the RIGHT to use what is in that software package. You do not own the right to disassemble the program and use the code or claim it as your own as you are hindering MY right to make an income off of my intellectual efforts.(As well as financial or physical efforts required--investments, labor, etc.)
When you purchase a CD of music I've recorded, you only own a CD, not the music. You have purchased a right to use the music in a non-profit manner.
All of these things require a long time prior to expiration. I am not as well versed on patent law; however, there is a good difference between patents and copyrights, and I'll quote the US Patent Office:
"In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if:(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States ...
This seems to me to apply more to hard goods, those things that are tangible and that have a useful life, ie can become obsolete or can be "written off the books" through depreciation after manufacture or are novelties such as toys, games, etc.
Big difference there. Music, art, books/literature do not have shelf lives as such. Ideas vs. hard goods need to be treated differently because this. You should not have the right to pirate software or a creative work I've made simply by stripping the code and making a minor modification or a minor edit and claiming it as your own. The life of a creative work by its nature is much longer than a hard good.
These debates are always combative, and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

If I have a business, and it owns a building, property tax is paid on the building, and sometimes on inventory.

If I own a farm, I pay tax on the land and the crops.

If I own Star Wars, I am not paying tax on the comparative land where the comparative crops are grown from, even though I am paying tax on the crops.

The idea that one cannot rewrite code is disturbing and has a chilling effect upon progress of technology. The prosecutions of people modifying PS3s disgusted me.

I'm fairly versed in what the terms mean, and I am a dedicated opponent of the current system which reminds me of rent-seeking protectionism, that doesn't produce enough value to society to justify it.
Duke for Mayor

Uniontown, OH

#166 Mar 9, 2013
You cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
No where in the fifth amendment to the constitution of the united states does it say the.gov ernment owns all land and what is under it. Stop sniffing at the rotten ass of dead commies.
You need to do some reading. The government might come and take your house for public use someday, and all you'd be left to fight over is just compensation.

woof
Carl Monday

Columbus, OH

#167 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
These debates are always combative, and we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I have a business, and it owns a building, property tax is paid on the building, and sometimes on inventory.
If I own a farm, I pay tax on the land and the crops.
If I own Star Wars, I am not paying tax on the comparative land where the comparative crops are grown from, even though I am paying tax on the crops.
The idea that one cannot rewrite code is disturbing and has a chilling effect upon progress of technology. The prosecutions of people modifying PS3s disgusted me.
I'm fairly versed in what the terms mean, and I am a dedicated opponent of the current system which reminds me of rent-seeking protectionism, that doesn't produce enough value to society to justify it.
Leech.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#168 Mar 9, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Intellectual property is not real, it cannot be excluded like real property can.
It is not subject to property tax, that's my biggest issue. If it's real property, then it must be hit with property tax.
Life+70 is far from what was intended by the framers, and its continuous extension makes a mockery of the Constitution.
In effect, the property of Hollywood is getting a tax break that no one else gets.
No one would claim that patents should get protection that long, and copyright should not receive any protection longer than patents.
You don't know what the term "real property" means do you Karl?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#169 Mar 9, 2013
Carl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
Leech.
Bob?

Is that you?

I highly doubt you are Mr. Monday, he lives in the Cleveland area, not Columbus.

If you actually are, why is your ego as big as Big Johnson's imaginairy johnson?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#170 Mar 9, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what the term "real property" means do you Karl?
My argument is that with copyright terms being extended whenever anything is at risk of expiration, it has become nearly equivalent to real property and thus should face the property tax.

Being the typical leftist, you oppose any attempt to limit Hollywood, the only business you idiots don't oppose, and the one receiving a nice tax break as its IP is given the status of real property, but not taxed as such.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Muslims beat woman for wearing bikini French ou... 5 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 47
Poll Panty hose vs bare skin What is your preference? 6 hr Seriouslady 153
Pull your pants up. 6 hr Seriouslady 21
For Cat Lovers Only! 6 hr Doc 179
What does anyone know about a guy named Da'Wayn... 6 hr Pam 3
News Dive team wants to raise dam in effort to find ... 7 hr jesse 7
ayfkm? 8 hr cowboy heroes 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages