Who Really Owns Your Tattoos?

The article is actually titled “A Lawyer Explains Who Really Owns Your Tattoos

I love it! A lawyer explains! I don’t even want to read all that BS. A lawyer explains…

Years ago I called all the insane derivatives of IP concepts, laws & practices a social decease — “IP Rage” and a rage it is. Yes, it is self-imposed madness, foolishness, stupidity — you name it.

No, I don’t want to read that — it’s not healthy. What I can do it’s maybe play around a little bit with this… how to call it… OK — just another offspring of the monster.

How would they enforce court or non-court judgements and “remedies” on “illegitimate” tattoo carriers? Why not to cut off limbs with someone else “owned” tattoo? Tear off the back skin? Scalp? What else can you come up with IP “owners,” IP enthusiasts, IP lawyers, other pro IP sheeple? Go ahead, don’t be shy, show your creativity.


Posted in humanity | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Copyright Case on Use of the Word “Postcard”!!

Huh?! OK, calm down I am saying addressing myself. Didn’t you say for years such cases are possible? Didn’t you predicted even a better case when two entities charge one another for a patented use of the same idea? Yes, you did, Anatoly. So, why are you so excited? Well… that is not important. What is important that such nonsense does happen.

Of course, this is not a “copyright abuse” case because copyright as such is an abuse of several fundamental concepts, such as “private property,” “creativity,” “authorship,” “human rights,” “civil liberties,” you name it. And, as such, it is an insult to human reason and mind, even to common sense.

Now, meet and enjoy: A Copyright Case on Use of the Word “Postcard”!!



Posted in Events, News | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Despicable “Normality”

U.S. Judge Declines to Dismiss Indictment Against KickAssTorrents Founder On Criminal Copyright Charges

What can I say? The terrible, horrible, scaring, frightening, ugly…. language of the article sounds totally normal. It sounds for me as if some Nazis discuss effectiveness of gas chambers and other means for their “normal” activities.

The businesses-parasites grow on the fertile soil of creativity and poisonous IP related additives.

Creativity which, in fact, equals FREE Communication (inner and outer) nowadays becomes:

  • A direct manufacturing force
  • Major mass motive of life
  • Defining force of civilization
  • Essence of all mainstream social, technological and other specific trends

Any cultural phenomena coming out of that super-powerful force by very nature must circulate freely among people. In free circulation, in free communication to all sorts of audiences culture (let’s use just this general terms)  develops normally and brings the most to the authors and public, businesses and markets.

I do believe that is proven in my book. Still the silliest ever monsters-stereotypes that culture needs “protection” from her free communication with humans are at large hunting down creativity.

IP suppresses creativity individually in authors, and massively in audiences and markets. Monster IP which is represented by speculative concepts, laws, agencies and specific businesses is a killer. A plague of modern world. One of the worst.

Posted in Basic Ideas, Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Another Banal Case of Copyright Infrigement

Polycom is commited to protecting… uuuuh that sounds.

Well, the story is ugly but not the ugliest. In IP related fields much uglier things have happened, done, as a matter of rule, by big guys, either fighting for their monstrous “rights” or infringing or the rights of little guys.

  • So, what is the ugly aspect in the story? It has nothing to do with copying. The ugly thing is that the copier never attributed used code to the authors. It does not make any difference, in my view, whether they didn’t want to attribute or they wanted but couldn’t due to copyright law, for that law does not allow to use any creative work with or without attribution unless a usage openly licensed by the “owner.”
  • Furthermore, it is quite possible that regardless the infringer’s intentions one could not attribute the code to authors for they usually are not attributed to by the hiring company. If that is so, in my view, the “owner” of the code is the first and the worst infringer, thief, pirate even though the law would not agree with me.
  • So, how would things worked ideally out if it wasn’t for monstrous copyright and other IP concepts and laws? We saw how it works every time when IP enforcement tangibly stood in the way of progress (which is its only real effect) and because of that was ignored by big guys up to states.
  • You could not even dream about suites like the one we discuss in China while China was developing their software and related industries. Only after they reached certain point of development they started to take IP seriously. Same in India. Same in the US at certain points in certain industries. I am talking about patents specifically. Just two examples: aviation wouldn’t develop until the State bought out Wright brothers’ aircraft patents and made respective inventions available to all. Another example: A while ago the Silicon Valley run into some technological barriers and, after bouncing their heads against the wall, the major players had to give up their patents so that a pool of available technologies emerged and let them all to make leaps. I don’t remember the article title but do remember a very carefully crafted  phrase. It sounded about the following: It may be that patents do not work quite the way we usually think of them. There are also very telling stories about productive copyright abolishment in music (Metallica, but not them only, is a perfect example).
  • So again, how it supposed to work. The first graders in “Culture vs. Copyright” came to understand that. Your creative work can be used freely on one condition only which is a proper attribution. That makes your name or brand for that matter known (the same effect you count on while investing in marketing). And that exposure is that very tool which turns your work into money.
Posted in Basic Ideas, Principles, The Book, Theory | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yet another case of “abolishing copyright” at work (a dream)

“…So the show was altered, removing any punishable copyright infringement…”

“… it’s … the most ambitious animated series currently on television.”

“…has a clear dialogue with popular culture…”

“Rick and Morty come across on one of their adventures, in the larger social consciousness. And what’s more — the culture has been remarkably responsive.”

So, that is about “Rick and Morty” series and I took out excerpts which pertain, in my view, to the theory and mystery of their latest success so wisely emphasized by Drew Taylor, the article’s author. If I wanted to put it in one formula it would sound as: Removal restrictions for dialogue (copyrights, censorship) is one necessary action to spread the world and thus make a creative work exposed, popular and, consequently, profitable.

The other aspect necessary for a real success is being brilliant, of course.

What Makes ‘Rick and Morty’ TV’s Most Ambitious Animated Series

PS. The sad truth is that my above interpretation is just the opposite to reality. “Removing copyright infringement” means just the compliance with copyright.


Posted in Basic Ideas, Culture, dialogue, humanity, News, On licencing, Theory | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Sartre’s Nausea . . . so to speak

I publish here various culture related materials. Of course, the site is devoted to a book but the book is titled “Culture vs. Copyright.” So, even formally, my culture related posts are quite justified. As for essence, one of the main conclusions in the book is that you cannot “deal with culture” as with material properties. That is plain silly. All I post here is to get you feel that culture is “different.” Maybe, I hope, some pro-copyright, pro-patent, etc. enthusiasts one day will see the problem, at least… The below happened after a Post-Existential Philosophy club meeting a few days ago.

We did “slow reading” this time. Which is, in my view, philosophy reading. I would say “reading” for you cannot “read” philosophy – she requires thinking, discussing, working out, coming back… No, you cannot “read philosophy” – that would be just waist of time. Fiction can or even must be read – there you need to get involved. You stop for moment to think of something and you fall out of the story. Philosophy is just the opposite. So, we did it as slow as possible. Three paragraphs in an hour and half. Three short paragraphs, barely half page of the Diary in Sartre’s Nausea.

What does Sartre say there? In very general terms – things are getting independent and deceiving. They use every opportunity to pretend they are not what they used to be: a door knob turns into undistinguished cold object, a fork wants to be peaked up in some other way it used to be, face of an acquaintance pretends to be not a face and when gets caught turns into some unfamiliar one, a hand pretends to be a white worm… The man whom things play with makes an effort to put them in place and they obey but the effort is needed… And he doesn’t know what’s wrong: whether it’s him who’ve changed or it’s things, actually all things (the phenomenon expands) change their ways?

What’s the point? We don’t know yet where Sartre intents to lead us but he already made us think (it’s actually him plus our slow reading). And thinking I am going to indulge myself with.

First, how relevant is the question who is sick here: the man or the world? The question makes no sense for the man – what’s happening is happening, no matter how to interpret it.

Well, Kant would concur – yes we never know what “thing in itself” is for all we can do is to deal with a phenomenon as it is. But we can experiment, put things in specifically arranged circumstances, make them deal with one another and thus determine what they are.

Does Sartre have anything to answer? I believe he does. If things pretend to be not what they are how then can we conduct an accurate experiment? Furthermore, what will be an output? How to interpret it? Let Kant to think for now – there are other interlocutors.

Aristotle, most probably, wouldn’t pay attention to Satre’s sickness, for for him it would be nothing more than that. But he wouldn’t give Kant so easy time. What is this thing in itself? Something deep inside, what we cannot deal with? No way, what is “inside” is “inner form” which makes thing what it is despite all its fluid appearances and what you translate as “essence.” Your essence is inner form and it is the most definite and certain “thing.” Appearance, yes, of course, may deceive you. No wonder (now he turns Sartre) that man got lost – he doesn’t go after inner form, that is – does not deploy “nus” – his mind while senses can fool you, no questions about that. Uh, this is where the problem is – our hero is not sick, he is just a fool relying entirely on senses.

What else one may rely on? – Sartre goes. Imagination? For imaginary things they are both – your inner form or essence, revered Aristotle or your thing in itself, no less revered Kant. I cannot see them. I cannot deal with them. Thus they are of no use for me. And yes, I don’t know what things are, although they are what I definitely deal with. I don’t know how they are what they are – this is true but this is how it is. I didn’t mistake that hand for a worm, it seemed that but I fixed that. Don’t ask me how – I don’t know, I just relay to the fact as it is, for me. And not for me only, by the way. Many people knew the same guy (whom I could not recognize for a few seconds), called him the same name, shared impressions about him with one another. How it works? I don’t know but it does and I state just that…

Well, you can definitely keep this for a true fact but the only definite aspect in your assertion is that you know something… Even though that something may very well deceive you and actually it does… Uh, here is Descartes, of course.

Wait, Sartre says. I agree – the only certain truth is that I do perceive something. That grants me existence, thank you very much. But please, there is some certainty in all those uncertainties and deception, it sure is. I acknowledge – I don’t know how it works but it does. Do we or do we not understand how it works it doesn’t matter, let’s just be plain honest and recognize the fact: even if and when things pretend to be what they are not we manage to hold them accountable, put them in place and have them reveal what they are…

OK, let’s stop here, for now ;)

Posted in Basic Ideas, dialogue, humanity, Philosophy, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Culture vs. Copyright got into Mountain View, Ca public library!

Culture vs. Copyright in Mountain View public library

Posted in News, The Book | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

On Values, Consciousness & Human Nature / Take 3

Venis-ve-Adonis.E1Why values are perceived as essentially unchangeable (still an assumption)? How they emerge at all? What makes an idea or thing a value? Let’s look at some obviousnesses:

  • A value (positive) is something I want to have, so I see that something of value, of interest, of meaning, I develop a feeling for it. Does that mean I get the thing in my consciousness? That is not clear yet.
  • What if I cannot get what I want? A tension develops between the want and reality, thus the want obtains aspect of time: between past of unsatisfied desire and future of desire to be satisfied. Time! That means the wanted value becomes a fact of consciousness. And as wanted it doesn’t change.
  • What about a case when you want something just to be, to exist as such? That is all the same, even more so, for something “just to be” means you acknowledge its value not for yourself only but for somebody else or even for humanity at large and even forever.
  • What about something becoming a value when disappears? Was it or was it not in my consciousness before that? Maybe not. You had no feelings for it. You didn’t reflect your relations with it. You didn’t reflect your attitude toward it. All these come to exist after it gone!
  • We have actually approached a paradox (which is encouraging): To become a fact of consciousness something must be of value <=> To become something of value something must be being aware of, obviously.
  • What about “shared values?” A shared value is in the analogues paradoxical relationship with human communication: to take seriously or, I believe, even just hear your idea I must value it and vice versa – to value your idea I need to hear it. This relationship allows for thoughtless communication which has always been another mystery for me, thus far.
Posted in Basic Ideas, Culture, dialogue, Ethics, humanity, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Values, Consciousness and Human Nature. Some More

Let’s pick it up where we dropped off last time. At that point human appeared as an entity able to disrupt its own environment without provocation. In other words, humans are “anti-adaptive” creatures, in essence, by nature – their nature.

That means, there are humans inventing new things while other humans are able to acquire those new things, meaning – learn what they are, what they are for, how to operate them, etc. All that is doable by using speech. Another assumption popping up right away is that speech as such is the provocateur of invention.

The substantiating logic seems to be quite reasonable. Human speech allows expression of the same idea in different ways. That backfires on listeners and speakers causing individual differences in understanding of the same thing. This brings up disagreement – in between people and in individual minds, as well. And this is where creativity takes off.

two-emotions.edited-2In a disagreement we deal with a clash of values. What I see as positive you perceive as negative and vice versa. This is how I become aware of my value – you point out that I am mistaken, in your view. Of course, I can do the same service to myself but that doesn’t change the essence: I’d disagree with myself in this case and start thinking. Thus again we run into interdependence of values and facts of consciousness. The fine addition to the previous contemplating is that now we definitely see things of “positive value” and “negative value,” those we consider right and those we consider wrong, all the same – good and bad, adorable and despicable, etc. We don’t only see here neutral things, those we don’t have feeling for, meaningless for that matter. Really, why would one argue about a thing one does not care about?

So, it came to feelings. Can we define value as a thing I have some feeling for? I believe this works. What if I “value” something for being useful? Do I value the thing or its usefulness? Looks like the latter is the right answer. And this adds on another angle to understanding values as eternal and unchangeable. Do we “feel” like that about own feelings?

Now, a few more questions:

What about “competing” values? The question is whether we deal with this phenomenon in situations where a choice is required or values can compete “on their own?”

If a person has a photographic memory would it mean the person has a super broad system of values? This brings up a question of relationship between memory and consciousness… and values.

Why, exactly, different people perceive the same thing differently? Does this necessary depends on different values? Here relationship between perception, consciousness, and values comes up.

Posted in Basic Ideas, dialogue, Human psyche, humanity, Philosophy, Science, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Values, Consciousness and Human Nature

What do we know about consciousness? Let’s do a little summary.

In consciousness we are aware of things. That means, we perceive things in time. That furthermore means we perceive things in time as being the same. That means we perceive things unchangeable, in a way, which perception allows us to register changes. That means we develop sense of time while perceive things as being the same. And that, in turn, means we are aware of ourselves for being able to register changes. That, furthermore, means that we are able to distance ourselves from the things we perceive in time.

This ability of the human consciousness to distance itself in order to perceive things as the same along with all the changes we are trying to approach.

Right at that point we can presume that keeping things “the same” is of value for humans. That is, whatever is acquired by our consciousness obtained the status of value. That is an assumption. The opposite assumption that anything of value is acquired by our consciousness seems even more reasonable. The third assumption that both above ideas are simultaneously right might be valid too.

Let’s put this in a slightly wider context. Human environment, generally speaking, consists of speech, communication, social relationships, tools, tool related activities, art, ideas and something difficult to define which we may call “human things.” And all of these somehow constitute our consciousness.

It is evident that above “components” are not isolated but form kind of “knots” where they support one another and develop. For example: speech-communication-relationship, speech-communication-tool-activity, tool-activity-art-human thing, etc. In any and all of this knots people create something of value and, at the same time, something they are aware of.

Now, let’s draw in some phenomena. We often remember bad things more vividly than good ones. That hints on a notion of “negative value” and questions our assumptions. We often realize that something or somebody was of value after loosing those. A challenge again. We often acquire some social norms which we are not aware of until break them and get punished. That is an issue either. Finally, we can value a thing for its functionality but that does not necessary mean we value the thing itself. This is a fundamental question.

These examples essentially are problem statements but as observations they still are helpful. Even without clear picture of how all above forces and phenomena work together we can see one distinguished aspect: That we can acquire in our consciousness only those things which become disruptive.

Or we can willfully disrupt our perception of a thing, all by our own,  without being provoked. In that case we do thinking.

Or we can willfully disrupt our own perception of the “All things.” In that case we do philosophy.

Now, if we never do that, never disrupt anything in our perception that means we do not think and thus we live like animals, although in human environment.

Furthermore, when we stress on one’s ability or inability to disrupt established values and come up with new ones we may now turn our attention to the person. We can ask what does it mean to be human taking into account all said above.

The answer this time is: One is human if able to willfully disrupt one’s environment.

PS. If we want to talk about adaptation of humans that might make sense in the context of disruption only, maybe as a some kind of secondary feature.

Posted in Basic Ideas, humanity, Philosophy, Theory | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment