back I have been meaning to post about some remarkable research by Eckhard Hoeffner for a while, but only now have time to do partial justice to it. Eckhard identified a nearly perfect natural experiment about the impact of copyright:
In 1815 the German confederation consisted of 39 states with no effective copyright. At that time Great Britain was a monolithic state in which the well enforced copyright had just been extended to 28 years or the life of the author. Germany was a bit larger in population about 27 million against 17 million, but population in England was growing much more rapidly, was concentrated in urban areas and England was a much richer nation. So many more titles were produced in England obviously with all that extra incentive from copyright.
A picture speaks louder than words
Eckhard goes on to analyze how authors fared with and without copyright. The bottom line: the journeyman author - those who produce most of the books - did better without copyright. The big guys at the top? They did better with copyright.
For all the details you can find Eckhard's slides
here, and I am sure more is to come.
[Posted at 06/05/2010 08:09 AM by David K. Levine on Copyright  comments(49)]
Comments Correlation is not causation. Yes, there were more "new released titles" in Germany than in England for each year in the chart. However, there is nothing that suggests copyright or the lack of copyright has anything to do with "new released titles."
What is more bizarre is the sudden spike and then precipitous decline in "new released titles" in Germany around 1845. This spike suggests there was something going on in Germany that was most likely completely unrelated to copyright.
Considering where the two curves were headed at the edge of the chart, it looks as though in the near future, perhaps 10 years past the right edge of the chart, the lines were going to meet. [Comment at 06/07/2010 05:37 AM by Anonymous] There is something weird about this data, I think. While copyright was recognized by some countries during the period mentioned, I seem to recollect that foreign copyright was not recognized, or was notoriously difficult to enforce. What this meant is that dozens of new titles were "pirated" in foreign countries.
If my belief is correct, it would seem like there would be huge opportunities for foreign works in England, just as there was in Germany.
We also know from history that there was a certain antagonism in England toward literary works from the United States as somehow being inferior to domestically produced works. Thus, there was a de facto boycott of most works from the United States even though there was no copyright either on any of those works or most of those works. I suspect a similar situation was true in England for works from most other countries.
Lastly, we know that even today very few works from Germany are translated into English (there is a wealth of literature in German that does not exist in English for reasons I fail to understand). The reverse is generally not true. Vast numbers of works in English from either the U.S. or England are translated into Germany, along with the works of many other countries.
I do not know what this says about Germany; are they more open-minded about where quality literature comes from? Is it that difficult to translate German into English?
Regardless, the greater number of new published titles in Germany during the time frame shown above may have more to do with culture than with copyright. I would not be too hasty claiming this chart is anything other than a chart documenting differences in numbers of new titles. It takes a lot more than a few quotes to be proof of the reasons for those differences.
[Comment at 06/07/2010 11:21 AM by Ayn Rand Was Right] If nothing suggests copyright or the lack of copyright has anything to do with new released titles. For what reason do we have copyright?
Regarding the translations: What have the Germans translated? Obviously not the poor production of british authors. [Comment at 06/10/2010 11:19 PM by Anonymous] If nothing suggests copyright or the lack of copyright has anything to do with new released titles. For what reason do we have copyright?
So Disney's douchebag fatcat CEO can stay rich, of course. [Comment at 06/11/2010 08:11 PM by Suzzle] Anonymous #2:
I think you missed the point. Supposedly the value comparison was between a country with copyright (England) and a country without copyrigh (Germany). A comparison may be meaningless if the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright.
It may be, or may not be, for there is no evidence either way, that English authors were incentivized by copyright. But incentivization is irrelevant in a comparison if you have ignored 90% of the books produced in the world that may not have been copyrighted if you do not believe those books are worth tranlsating into your language or importing into your country.
So you question regarding copyright misses the point being made in the previous comments, which is a relevant point.
[Comment at 06/11/2010 08:57 PM by Anonymous] I think you missed the point. Supposedly the value comparison was between a country with copyright (England) and a country without copyrigh (Germany). A comparison may be meaningless if the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright.
If the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright then copyright is unnecessary to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and should be abolished. [Comment at 06/11/2010 11:45 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax:
During that period of history, in England, you were probably right. Of course, England has changed somewhat. It would be interesting to make the same comparison in the period after the graph above. [Comment at 06/12/2010 09:23 AM by Anonymous] I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period. [Comment at 06/12/2010 07:15 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax:
Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent.
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time. They have historically been someone Anglo-centric. That has changed. There have been other changes as well.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph. It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down. I am suspicious of incomplete data, and that is what we have here.
[Comment at 06/12/2010 08:27 PM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse wrote:
Beeswax:
[insult deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent.
And many things are not time dependent.
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time. They have historically been someone Anglo-centric. That has changed. There have been other changes as well.
Well of course England is Anglo-centric, you dolt.
Regardless, cultural change is irrelevant. We are discussing economics, not culture.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph. It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day
At some point Germany enacted its own copyright. At that point the comparison ceases to be useful.
[Comment at 06/13/2010 02:27 AM by None Of Your Beeswax] I have written a book on this matter (in German) which will be available end of July. Just some comments:
1. In Germany copyright came into force between 1837 and 1845. The "sudden spike and then precipitous decline" took place with the introduction of copyright.
2. During the 17th century and after World War II Great Britain always produced more new titles than Germany. It may be a question of culture, if you compare two different culture, but not GB and Germany. In 17th century German producion was low due to the Thirty Years' War.
3. Regarding translation: During the high time of reprinting (1800) 1-2 % of new novels were translations. 1850 (with copyright) about 50 % of the published novels were translations.
4. Regarding Disney and so on: I think, it is possible to make a list of maybe 100-150 British persons, who had advantages of copyright between 1770 and 1830.
But things are more complicated than just the number of new titles.
[Comment at 06/13/2010 03:58 AM by Eckhard Höffner] Eckhard:
Thank you for your intelligent and reasoned response. Much better than the irrelevant crap of the post just previous to yours by some name-calling jerk. [Comment at 06/13/2010 10:42 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse writes:
Eckhard:
Thank you for your intelligent and reasoned response. [insult aimed at me deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Copyright is evil and it has been proven to be evil. Your namecalling will not change reality. [Comment at 06/14/2010 06:58 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax:
Copyright is neither good nor evil. Things are generally not good or evil.
You, on the other hand, with your foul-mouthed lies, are evil. [Comment at 06/14/2010 08:25 PM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse spewed:
Beeswax:
Copyright is neither good nor evil. Things are generally not good or evil.
But copyright is a policy and those can be evil. And copyright is.
You, on the other hand, [calls me a liar], are [insult deleted].
No, you're evil and you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[Comment at 06/15/2010 09:16 AM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax:
Perhaps policies can be evil. However, you have not proven that copyright is evil. On the other hand, with your vicious, paranoid, hostile attacks on others, you ARE evil...
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
None of Your Beeswasx is evil.
[Comment at 06/15/2010 10:02 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse puerilely and repetitively recriminated:
Beeswax:
Perhaps policies can be evil. However, you have not proven that copyright is evil.
All kinds of evidence and blog posts at this site, and at Techdirt and other sites, have done that.
On the other hand, with your [insult deleted], [insult deleted], [insult deleted] [false accusation deleted], you ARE [insult deleted]...
[insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted].
No, you're evil. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Now, have you quite finished with your temper tantrum, Lonnie? If not, keep stomping your feet and hurling insults and then go cry to Mommy that the big mean Internet won't let you keep your evil monopolies anymore... [Comment at 06/15/2010 08:02 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax Drools:
"All kinds of evidence and blog posts at this site, and at Techdirt and other sites, have done that."
Done what? Proven that copyright is "evil"? lol...You are a sick, sad, individual. Stay in the dark with your potato chips and your zits.
As for you, you have proven yourself paranoid. You attack people without provocation. You describe people in pejorative terms. You take bits and pieces of comments to your own, sick, twisted ends. I think you have proven that...
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
[Comment at 06/16/2010 05:56 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse sputters:
Beeswax [insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
"All kinds of evidence and blog posts at this site, and at Techdirt and other sites, have done that."
Done what? Proven that copyright is "evil"?
Yes.
[insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
As for you, you have proven yourself [vicious insult deleted]. You [false accusation deleted]. You [false accusation deleted]. You take bits and pieces of comments to your own [insult deleted]. I think you have proven that...
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted].
No. No. No. No. No. No. NO! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. [Comment at 06/16/2010 01:11 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax Expectorates:
The only problem is, it was all phlegm, and no content. His evil response mere reiterated his paranoia and lack of anything substantive to say. Once again, his failure to provide any sort of real evidence to support his statements while attempting to stir false controversy is evil...
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
[Comment at 06/16/2010 07:08 PM by Anonymous] I don't understand your behavior. You have made some good points and now, you destroy your own position:
* Regardless, cultural change is irrelevant. We are discussing economics, not culture.
* At some point Germany enacted its own copyright. At that point the comparison ceases to be useful.
None of the copyright apologists can explain the shown really long term development. Copyright seems to have been a fomidable break down. [Comment at 06/17/2010 03:29 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse developed incontinence:
Beeswax [false accusation deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
The only problem is, [false accusation deleted]. His [insult deleted] response mere reiterated his [insult deleted] and [false accusation deleted]. Once again, his [insult deleted] while attempting to [false accusation deleted] is [insult deleted]...
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I don't understand your behavior. You have made some good points and now, you [false accusation deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the copyright apologists can explain the shown really long term development. Copyright seems to have been a fomidable break down.
Ah, progress at last. Now if I could only convince you also of the evils of the patent system! [Comment at 06/17/2010 12:39 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax demonstrates extreme flatulence:
lol...You have confused me with some random anonymous who has wandered into this conversation. I am unsure of whether you did this inadvertently or intentionally. If you provided the confusion intentionally, then you are evil. Of course, you have demonstrated evilness routinely, so...
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil!
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil!
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil!
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil!
[Comment at 06/17/2010 01:01 PM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse futilely frittered away some time:
Beeswax [false accusation deleted]
I did not. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
lol...You have [false accusation deleted]
I have not. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[insult deleted]. [insult deleted]! [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]! [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]! [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true!
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true!
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends. With you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time.
[Comment at 06/18/2010 02:31 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax continues to try to stroke his fragile ego...
Let me see. Just what did we get out of your post? You clearly have OCD. You are clearly paranoid. You clearly think you have "won" something, which indicates you are delusional. And, as previously established...
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
None of your Beeswax is evil.
[Comment at 06/18/2010 07:47 PM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse attacked again:
Beeswax continues to try to [false accusation deleted]...
No, I do not. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Let me see. Just what did we get out of your post? You clearly [vicious insult deleted]. You are clearly [vicious insult deleted]. You clearly think you have "won" something, which indicates you are [vicious insult deleted]. And, as previously established... [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted]. [vicious insult deleted].
No, you're evil and you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time.
[Comment at 06/19/2010 02:59 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax continues to be a churlish child, or, just plain evil.
As noted from his numerous posts, he continues to be pointless, but even in not having a point, there is no point, unlike Oblio.
So, pointless, vain, continuing his paranoid ways, we must continue to conclude that...
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
[Comment at 06/19/2010 03:46 PM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse forgot his Depends again:
Beeswax continues to be a [insult deleted], or, just plain [insult deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
As noted from his numerous posts, he continues to be [insult deleted], but [unintelligible; suspected insult].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
So, [insult deleted], [insult deleted], continuing his [vicious insult deleted] ways, we must continue to conclude that... [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted].
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! You're evil and you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time. [Comment at 06/21/2010 01:21 AM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax's colostomy bag popped, spewing nonsense, as usual...
As has already been unequivocally enumerated...
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
Beeswax, you started the nonsense, you stop it.
[Comment at 06/21/2010 10:13 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse has a real problem letting go:
Beeswax [false accusation deleted]...
As has already been unequivocally enumerated...
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
[insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax, you started the nonsense, you stop it.
No, you started it. I will, however, stop it by getting the last word, just like I always do. The sooner you shut up the sooner that is and the less painful it will be for you. [Comment at 06/22/2010 04:02 AM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax has a real issue with realizing that this discussion was over before it even started...and he lost.
But, we already know that...
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
None of Your Beeswax is evil.
The sooner you stop wasting your life, Beeswax, the sooner we can stop. [Comment at 06/22/2010 05:17 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse keeps beating his head against a wall:
Beeswax [vicious insult deleted]...and he [false accusation deleted].
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
But, we already know that... [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted]. [insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
The sooner you stop [false accusation deleted], [implied threat deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I don't respond well to threats.
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time.
[Comment at 06/23/2010 02:30 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Can some functionality to ignore certain posters be implemented?
Please. [Comment at 06/23/2010 10:57 PM by Kid] It wouldn't do much good, I'm afraid; Lonnie posts most of his posts as "Anonymous" these days, so unless you wanted to miss all anonymous posts (whether from Lonnie or anyone else) you wouldn't be able to use it.
Better to either post to debunk whatever pro-patent nonsense he wrote this time, or else simply ignore him the old-fashioned way. His posts as "Anonymous" are easily enough recognizable to humans: pro-patent, harping on about particular inventors (Tesla for one), harping on about patents being essential to disclosure or nothing would ever get recorded (has he not heard of technical journals, textbooks, encyclopedias, and manuals?), and, frequently, a specific fixation with attacking/debating me (though in that department he's reached a new low with this series of posts; he's now bordering on obsession, and there's no on-topic material at all in the later posts).
[Comment at 06/25/2010 07:49 AM by None Of Your Beeswax] Kid:
All you would do is cause None of Your Beeswax to change his name. [Comment at 06/25/2010 07:55 AM by Anonymous] Beeturd:
there's no on-topic material at all in the later posts
Such an accurate statement about your posts in this thread. Nice summary description! [Comment at 06/25/2010 09:48 AM by Anonymous] Abeefeces blows chunks:
No, you're the lunatic.
Your name calling avails you naught and is no substitute for reasoned discourse.
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Your delusional statements of persecution avail you naught and are no substitute for reasoned discourse.
I don't respond well to threats.
I do not respond at all to threats, yours or anyone else's.
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends:
Yes, you being the laughing stock of this web site. You are better than watching "America's Funniest Home Videos."
[Comment at 06/25/2010 09:52 AM by Anonymous] Alonniemouse spazzed out and made three separate comments in a row all to say essentially the same thing:
Kid:
[implied insult aimed at me deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Bee[insult deleted]:
there's no on-topic material at all in the later posts
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
The lack of on-topic material in the later posts is, of course, your fault. You were the first to stop discussing the actual subject matter and start merely flaming. And all of my off-topic posts have been necessary in self-defense because of those flames; you take potshots at me, I necessarily move to block those shots from hitting and causing damage. You have the freedom not to take potshots; I don't have the freedom not to protect myself when you do. So the onus is entirely on you to stop the chain of off-topic posts. And so far you're failing miserably.
Abee[insult deleted][false accusation deleted]:
Your [false accusation deleted] avails you naught and [implied insult deleted].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Lonnie, your namecalling avails you naught and is no substitute for reasoned discourse.
Your [vicious insult deleted] statements [rest of insult deleted].
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
"I don't respond well to threats."
[false accusation deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
"Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends."
Yes, [vicious insult deleted].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time. [Comment at 06/26/2010 02:09 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Sometimes I wonder whether hiring trolls to sabotage the anti-im efforts would be a good investment for the media conglomerates. They could join all anti-im forums and troll them so hard that there is no more room for any reasonable discussion or organization. This would also have the beneficial side-effect of turning people off that might otherwise be susceptible to anti-monopoly influences. It could keep public support for intellectual monopoly high. Viable strategy? [Comment at 06/26/2010 05:36 PM by Kid] Kid:
I suspect you are correct. You can take one regular poster who makes paranoid and delusional statements and hold that person up as being typical of the anti-IP crowd. The anti-IP crowd looks radical and extremist, and potentially dangerous. That would seem to detract from the credibility of those who suggest reasonable discourse regarding the pros and cons of intellectual property.
[Comment at 06/26/2010 07:01 PM by Anonymous] Beeswax had a severe case of Alzheimer's disease and posted nonsense, again:
The lack of on-topic material in the later posts is, of course, your fault. You were the first to stop discussing the actual subject matter and start merely flaming.
Let us look at the record.
Here is my post from 06/12/2010 at 8:27 PM:
Beeswax:
Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent.
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time. They have historically been someone Anglo-centric. That has changed. There have been other changes as well.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph. It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down. I am suspicious of incomplete data, and that is what we have here.
Zero "flames" in this post. The post is completely on topic regarding the graph.
Your next post began with:
Alonniemouse wrote:
Beeswax:
[insult deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You began this post with a flaming insult, though vague in nature, "Alonniemouse." Nice start.
Then, you claim that my statement Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent. was an insult, when it clearly was not, which makes your comment off-topic comment #1 and flame #2.
Then, you finish up just the beginning of your post with calling my statements nasty, which is off-topic comment #2 and flame #3, and claiming that I made remarks about you, which anyone can clearly see I did not, making that off-topic comment #3 and flame #4.
And all of my off-topic posts have been necessary in self-defense because of those flames;
You started the flames. I merely defended myself from your heinous charges.
you take potshots at me
Only because you shot first.
I necessarily move to block those shots from hitting and causing damage. You have the freedom not to take potshots;
I have all the freedom I need to protect myself from people like you.
So the onus is entirely on you to stop the chain of off-topic posts.
Excuse me? You begin the flames and the off-topic posts and then expect me to stop them? Once you stop posting off-topic posts, then I will stop responding to them, as I have done from the time you began the off-topic posts and flames.
And so far you're failing miserably.
And you are delusional.
[Yet another series of Beeswax off-topic posts deleted.]
Your namecalling avails you naught and is no substitute for reasoned discourse.
lol...Is that the best you can do, copying someone else's comments for your own? Surely you can be more creative than that.
[More Beeswax flames, name calling and off-topic comments deleted.]
Give it up. We both know how this always ends.
Pretty much. You end up looking like a fool. However, you have looked like a fool for most of this series of posts, so you have a head start this time.
[Comment at 06/27/2010 01:04 PM by Anonymous] Kid writes:
Sometimes I wonder whether hiring trolls to sabotage the anti-im efforts would be a good investment for the media conglomerates. They could join all anti-im forums and troll them so hard that there is no more room for any reasonable discussion or organization. This would also have the beneficial side-effect of turning people off that might otherwise be susceptible to anti-monopoly influences. It could keep public support for intellectual monopoly high. Viable strategy?
Lonnie has as much as admitted that he's a patent attorney. But it's entirely possible that he's trolling here of his own volition without being part of any conspiracy. We can at least give him that much benefit of the doubt.
Alonniemouse mewls:
[vicious insult deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax had [vicious insult deleted]
No, you're the senile one. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Here is my post from 06/12/2010 at 8:27 PM:
Beeswax:
[insult deleted]. [off-topic blather about culture deleted] [calls David Levine a liar]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or David are at all true.
Zero "flames" in this post.
Except, of course, for your accusing me of writing nonsense (first deleted insult) and saying you were "suspicious" of the veracity of what David wrote (second deleted insult).
You began this post with a flaming insult, though vague in nature, "Alonniemouse." Nice start.
That's not an insult. That's me reminding everyone that you are Lonnie E. Holder, patent attorney and thoroughly notorious and biased party, trying to pass as "anonymous" but identifying yourself by your mannerisms and pro-ip trolling.
Then, you [false accusation and other insults deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Then, you finish up just the beginning of your post with calling my statements nasty
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
and claiming that I made remarks about you, which [calls me a liar]
No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You [false accusation deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Wrong. In this thread, you personally attacked me before I said anything that might be construed as a personal attack at you. My first post only said:
If the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright then copyright is unnecessary to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and should be abolished.
That's not an insult to you.
My second only said:
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
That's not an insult to you. But you replied to the second with "non sequitur", a false accusation that my logic was faulty though it was not. That is an insult to me. So don't lie again by saying you didn't start the fire, asshole!
"you take potshots at me"
Only because [false accusation deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You lied again. I told you not to do that!
I have all the freedom I need to protect myself from [implied insult deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
"So the onus is entirely on you to stop the chain of off-topic posts."
Excuse me? You [false accusation deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There's that same damn lie again! The one I just proved was a lie!
[threat deleted], as I have done from the time you [false accusation deleted]
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I don't respond well to threats.
What's that, four times now you've repeated the same lie? You started this insult-fest by posting "non sequitur" way back up there. Admit it and get on with your life.
"And so far you're failing miserably."
And you [vicious insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
"Your namecalling avails you naught and is no substitute for reasoned discourse."
lol...[insult deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
"Give it up [misquotes me]. We both know how this always ends."
Pretty much. [vicious insult deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained silently edited quoted material. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
Give it up, Lonnie. We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time.
[Comment at 06/28/2010 04:39 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] Beeswax:
A person does not "admit" they are a patent attorney. They earn the right to call themselves a patent attorney after seven years of school and two rigorous tests of knowledge.
I have never called myself a patent attorney because I am not one. The only person who seems to think I am one is you.
On a separate note, Kid is calling you a troll because of your responses. [Comment at 06/29/2010 05:24 AM by Lonnie E. Holder] Beeswax Expectorates Phlegm:
Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent.
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time. They have historically been someone Anglo-centric. That has changed. There have been other changes as well.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph. It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down. I am suspicious of incomplete data, and that is what we have here.
Zero "flames" in this post. The post is completely on topic regarding the graph.
How did Beeswax treat this portion of my post in his response? Here it is:
[insult deleted]. [off-topic blather about culture deleted] [calls David Levine a liar]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or David are at all true.
Then he follows this paranoid nonsense with the following:
Except, of course, for your accusing me of writing nonsense (first deleted insult) and saying you were "suspicious" of the veracity of what David wrote (second deleted insult).
First, I only accused you of writing a non sequitur, which you did. In fact, here was the exchange that led to the comment:
During that period of history, in England, you were probably right. Of course, England has changed somewhat. It would be interesting to make the same comparison in the period after the graph above.
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
Your claim appears to be that if someone does not need something at one time, then they probably do not need it at another. Logically, this statement is demonstrably false, which means that it is a non sequitur. Just because I do not need food at this moment does not mean I will not need food later. Just because I needed money yesterday does not mean I will need it tomorrow. Past events are not necessarily predictors of future events.
As for calling David Levine a liar, you used that name. I merely challenged the facts, which is perfectly acceptable when having a rational discussion. Only an irrational person could possibly think I called David Levine a liar.
You began this post with a flaming insult, though vague in nature, "Alonniemouse." Nice start.
That's not an insult. That's me reminding everyone that you are Lonnie E. Holder, patent attorney and thoroughly notorious and biased party, trying to pass as "anonymous" but identifying yourself by your mannerisms and pro-ip trolling.
Yes, "Alonniemouse" is an insult. Second, I am anonymous, one of several who post regularly on this site. I am one of several persons whom you have called "Lonnie." Perhaps the hosts could switch the default from "anonymous" to "Lonnie," since you seem to see him everywhere. Are you paranoid, by chance?
Second, I looked up this person on the USPTO and he is most assuredly not a patent attorney. For someone who claims not to have lied, you seem to do so with great regularity, as you have just done by claiming that he is a patent attorney.
Is "Lonnie" notorious? I suspect he would might enjoy being called that. As for biased, I have read the posts that Lonnie has signed. Is he biased? His bias seems to be toward facts. Why would you have a problem with discussing facts?
Then, you claim that my statement Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent. was an insult, when it clearly was not, which makes your comment off-topic comment #1 and flame #2.
Then, you finish up just the beginning of your post with calling my statements nasty, which is off-topic comment #2 and flame #3, and claiming that I made remarks about you, which anyone can clearly see I did not, making that off-topic comment #3 and flame #4.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There is nothing "nasty" in my comments at all. You statement was a non sequitur. I provided your statements again and provided justification for why I called your statement a non sequitur. Instead of alleging "nasty" and "lies" and all sorts of other irrelevant, inappropriate responses, how about explaining how your comment was relevant to the topic at hand. Your comments merely reinforce the accuracy of mine. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
You frequently make mistakes. Your mistake was hiding the issue, which merely confirmed my position regarding your non sequitur. You failed to use any reason at all, instead alleging "nasty" comments and lack of truth. Your stock statement is not reasoning at all, so it cannot, ipso facto, be either reasonable or logical. Above you called someone a patent attorney who is not. Your mistakes are compounding.
Wrong. In this thread, you personally attacked me before I said anything that might be construed as a personal attack at you. My first post only said:
If the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright then copyright is unnecessary to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and should be abolished.
That's not an insult to you.
My second only said:
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
That's not an insult to you. But you replied to the second with "non sequitur", a false accusation that my logic was faulty though it was not. That is an insult to me. So don't lie again by saying you didn't start the fire, asshole!
I am sorry that you take "non sequitur" as personally insulting. It was not intended to be. I notice that you flamed in your last sentence - again.
And all of my off-topic posts have been necessary in self-defense because of those flames;
You started the flames. I merely defended myself from your heinous charges.
you take potshots at me
Only because you shot first.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You lied again. I told you not to do that!
I have supported my statements in detail. My comments will stand up to reasoned, objective scrutiny.
I necessarily move to block those shots from hitting and causing damage. You have the freedom not to take potshots;
I have all the freedom I need to protect myself from people like you.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Nice come back. Did you have to work hard to come up with your comment?
So the onus is entirely on you to stop the chain of off-topic posts.
Excuse me? You begin the flames and the off-topic posts and then expect me to stop them?
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There's that same damn lie again! The one I just proved was a lie!
I have proven that your proof is an exaggeration at best, a lie at worst.
Once you stop posting off-topic posts, then I will stop responding to them, as I have done from the time you began the off-topic posts and flames.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Your comments are failing to sway me.
I don't respond well to threats.
Neither do I, particularly from you.
What's that, four times now you've repeated the same lie? You started this insult-fest by posting "non sequitur" way back up there. Admit it and get on with your life.
I admit that you control to escalate this conversation beyond all reasonable bounds. You should return to your normal activities.
And so far you're failing miserably.
And you are delusional.
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Ah, yes. A new insult. I was getting bored with the old ones.
Your namecalling avails you naught and is no substitute for reasoned discourse.
lol...Is that the best you can do, copying someone else's comments for your own? Surely you can be more creative than that.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
A return to form, I see.
Give it up [misquotes me]. We both know how this always ends.
Did I misquote you? I thought the words above were yours. Is there some other Beeswax impersonating you, heaven forbid?
Pretty much. You end up looking like a fool. However, you have looked like a fool for most of this series of posts, so you have a head start this time.
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained silently edited quoted material. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
Nice threat.
Yes, I did say something about you, this time. However, you seemed to have a need for such a remark, so I gave you one. I am so nice.
As for "silently edited quoted material," I removed that which was irrelevant to this conversation.
Give it up… We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time.
Do you have a need to "win"? You know how you could win? Try using reasoning and logic as opposed to accusations of nasty comments and inferring that someone is lying.
[Comment at 06/29/2010 02:34 PM by Anonymous] Lonnie inexplicably posts twice, though only fills in the name field once:
Beeswax:
A person does not "admit" they are a patent attorney.
They do in contexts where it could constitute an ulterior motive, e.g. if they are making pro-patent posts in a debate about patents. Does the person genuinely believe patents are a good idea, or are they just pushing the viewpoint that enhances their job security? Their credibility in making pro-patent arguments is lessened (and in making anti-patent arguments enhanced -- "statement against own interest" and, furthermore, they have expertise in the subject area) in that case.
[calls me a liar][other nonsense deleted]
No, you're the liar and the troll. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax [false accusation deleted]:
[insult deleted]. [nonsense deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time. They have historically been someone Anglo-centric. That has changed. There have been other changes as well.
Irrelevant.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph.
The graph is to compare a region with copyright and a similar region without. The latter region enacted a copyright law at or shortly after the end date of the graph, so the two graph lines would have ceased to provide a useful comparison between copyright and no-copyright after the end point anyway.
It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down. [implies that David K. Levine is a liar].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
Of course the number of titles available wouldn't have gone down; books don't get unpublished. The rate of growth could have slowed, but the exponential growth of the population would have masked that unless you made it a graph of titles per capita, or preferably of each year's new titles per capita.
Zero "flames" in this post.
A lie. You made false accusations aimed at both myself and David Levine, suggesting that my logic was faulty (it is not) and that Levine's data is doctored (it is not). The latter is the more serious charge but both constitute flames.
Stop flaming.
Then [vicious insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
First, I only accused you of [false accusation deleted], which you did.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Stop lying about me or else.
During that period of history, in England, you were probably right.
Well, there you go then. Ready to concede defeat and shut up now?
Your claim appears to be that if someone does not need something at one time, then they probably do not need it at another.
No, my claim is that if someone does not need copyright at one time, then they probably do not need it at another.
[attacks his straw man and insults me].
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
As for calling David Levine a liar, you [false accusation deleted].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I most certainly did not call David a liar. You did. Repeatedly.
I merely challenged the facts
You called him a liar, liar. Furthermore, "challenging the facts" is the sort of stupid thing creationists and global warming deniers do. The facts are; arguing against the facts is idiotic since you guarantee you'll be wrong.
[vicious insult deleted]
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
That's not an insult. That's me reminding everyone that you are Lonnie E. Holder, patent attorney and thoroughly notorious and biased party, trying to pass as "anonymous" but identifying yourself by your mannerisms and pro-ip trolling.
[calls me a liar repeatedly][vicious insult deleted].
No, you're the liar and the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Second, [calls me a liar]. For someone who claims not to have lied, you [calls me a liar], [calls me a liar].
No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Is "Lonnie" notorious? I suspect he would might enjoy being called that.
Talking about yourself in the third person is a sign of a dangerously unbalanced mind, Lonnie, as is enjoying being called "notorious".
[calls his pro-patent position "facts"]
Incorrect. The correct position is anti-patent, since that is where all the evidence points.
Then, you claim that my statement [insult deleted] was an insult, when it clearly was not, which makes your comment [false accusation deleted].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Then, you finish up just the beginning of your post with calling my statements nasty
Of course, since your falsely accusing me of spouting non sequiturs was nasty.
which is [false accusation deleted], and claiming that I made remarks about you, which [calls me a liar], making that [false accusation deleted].
No! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[calls me a liar]. You statement was a [insult deleted]. I provided your statements again and provided justification for why I called your statement a [insult deleted]. Instead of alleging "nasty" and "lies" and all sorts of other [insult deleted] responses, how about explaining how your comment was relevant to the topic at hand. Your comments merely [implied insult deleted]. Methinks thou doth [implied insult deleted].
No, no, no! You're the liar, and you have provided justification for nothing. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You will shut up about me now or you will face the consequences. How does disbarment sound, for a start? Surely anonymously smearing people on the internet is some kind of ethics violation. I could inform the bar association in whichever state you practice in about this entire exchange and David K. Levine, who you've also smeared by repeatedly accusing of not merely lying but outright academic misconduct (to wit, your repeated sly implications of his having cooked the books), is no doubt as unamused at your antics as I am and, moreover, as site admin has access to the records showing what IPs you're posting through and can thus probably provide strong evidence that your nastiest posts (including all those smearing David), though you've wisely been posting those as "anonymous", are indeed yours, Lonnie.
The possibility of a defamation lawsuit also exists. David, as a practicing academic who you've repeatedly publicly insinuated is fudging his data, particularly has grounds for such a lawsuit. A libel suit started by him would begin with discovery proceedings in which a subpoena would compel your ISP to furnish logs positively associating your real identity with your "anonymous" attack posts. You'd quickly lose (or be forced to settle on his terms) this lawsuit, after which the lawsuit and the evidence used in it could be brought to the bar association ethics committee.
That doesn't seem to me to be a future you'd enjoy living in, Lonnie, so I strongly suggest you at the very least quit insinuating that David is faking his data. Capisce?
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
You frequently [vicious insult deleted]. Your [insult deleted] was [false accusation deleted], which merely confirmed my position regarding your [insult deleted]. You [vicious insult deleted], instead alleging "nasty" comments and lack of truth. Your stock statement is [insult deleted], so it [insult deleted]. Above you [calls me a liar]. Your [vicious insult deleted] are compounding.
No, no, no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
It's humorous that you imply above that my "alleging nasty comments and lack of truth" is somehow wrong ... right in the middle of a bunch of nasty comments and lies. Indeed your whole post is a pack of lies.
Wrong. In this thread, you personally attacked me before I said anything that might be construed as a personal attack at you. My first post only said:
If the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright then copyright is unnecessary to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and should be abolished.
That's not an insult to you.
My second only said:
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
That's not an insult to you. But you replied to the second with "non sequitur", a false accusation that my logic was faulty though it was not. That is an insult to me. So don't lie again by saying you didn't start the fire, asshole!
I am sorry that you take "non sequitur" as personally insulting. It was not intended to be. I notice that you flamed in your last sentence - again.
Even if you didn't have a history of lying your ass off for years, I would be disinclined to believe that you could accuse someone of bad logic accidentally, without actually intending to accuse. What, did a cat walk over your keyboard while you were composing the post and happen to hit the N, then the O, then the N again, then the space, and then the S, the E, the Q, the U, the I, the T, the U again, and then the R? Even if so, did it not occur to you to hit backspace twelve times when you realized what had happened?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. You said it, you intended to say it, and you intended to accuse me of stupidity at best and outright dishonesty at worst.
Apology therefore not accepted. Admit you actually acted maliciously and wrongly and say "sorry" then and then I might consider accepting the apology.
And all of my off-topic posts have been necessary in self-defense because of those flames;
You [false accusation deleted].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
you take potshots at me
Only because [false accusation deleted].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You lied again. I told you not to do that!
I have supported my statements in detail. My comments will stand up to reasoned, objective scrutiny.
A lie. Everything you have said about me has been a lie, and nearly everything you have said about patents.
I necessarily move to block those shots from hitting and causing damage. You have the freedom not to take potshots;
I have all the freedom I need to protect myself from [implied insult deleted].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[implied insult deleted]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
So the onus is entirely on you to stop the chain of off-topic posts.
Excuse me? You [false accusation deleted] then expect me to stop them?
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There's that same damn lie again! The one I just proved was a lie!
[calls me a liar]
[false accusation and threat deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I don't respond well to threats.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Your comments are failing to sway me.
Much for the same reason they'd fail to sway a turnip or a kumquat, I expect.
I don't respond well to threats.
[false accusation deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
What's that, four times now you've repeated the same lie? You started this insult-fest by posting "non sequitur" way back up there. Admit it and get on with your life.
I admit that you [insult deleted]
How disappointing.
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
And so far you're failing miserably.
And you are [vicious insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! You're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No, you're the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Ah, yes. A new insult. I was getting bored with the old ones.
Admission noted for the record, Lonnie.
Your namecalling avails you naught and is no substitute for reasoned discourse.
lol...[insult deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[implied insult deleted], I see.
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Did I misquote you?
Yes, you did, you dishonest son of a bitch.
Pretty much. You [insult deleted]. However, you [insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained silently edited quoted material. That is incorrect. Stop being dishonest.
[false accusation deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Yes, I did say something about you, this time. However, you seemed to have a need for such a remark, so I gave you one. I am so nice.
You are a liar. I have no need to be publicly smeared by you and nothing about you is "nice" by any stretch of the imagination.
As for "silently edited quoted material," I removed that which was irrelevant to this conversation.
You removed your own name in a futile attempt to remain anonymous.
Give it up… We both know how this always ends: with you losing and me getting the last word. By posting to this thread again you are only postponing the inevitable. Quit wasting your time.
Do you have a need to "win"?
You are the one who seems to have a need to "win". You could quit this at any time, yet you keep continuing. If it's not because you feel a need to "win" then why?
You know how you could win? Try [implied vicious false accusation deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I will win the same way I've won all our previous "debates": by being the calm, sane, and reasonable one, correcting your numerous egregious errors and lies and disproving the few things you say that actually have to do with the original topic, while you escalate to ever shriller flamage and unreason and eventually simply give up.
[Comment at 06/29/2010 10:21 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] I deleted massive amounts from this post to try and get it back on topic. Unfortunately, I had to leave some of the nonsense in to address a few factual issues.
Beeswax:
Beeswax says: Lonnie inexplicably posts twice, though only fills in the name field once:
There is nothing inexplicable. One posting is from Lonnie and the other posting is from Anonymous.
Lonnie says: A person does not "admit" they are a patent attorney.
Beeswax says: They do in contexts where it could constitute an ulterior motive,
Beeswax, you are either an attorney or you are not. It is against the law to claim you are an attorney if you are not actually an attorney. The only motive for claiming you are an attorney when you are not an attorney is to get yourself charged with one or more crimes. Merely claiming you are an attorney I think is a misdemeanor in most states, but it can also set the person so claiming up for a charge of fraud as well as possible civil suits.
An interesting question is whether a person who claims another person is an attorney, as Beeswax has done (in spite of Lonnie stating that he is not an attorney - more than once?), has committed a crime. If someone reads these posts and sees Lonnie making a statement and Beeswax claims Lonnie is an attorney, and that person relies on Lonnie's statements because Beeswax baselessly claimed he was one, could Beeswax be guilty of a misdemeanor? Could that also potentially set Beeswax up for a claim of fraud and possible civil suits? Any attorneys in here know the answer to this one?
Here is an interesting little section of comments. First, here is my original comment:
Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent.
As any scientist or engineer will explain, most things in the universe are time dependent. Indeed, it is quite difficult to find something that is not time dependent. I was trying to think of a good example of something that was not time dependent and was hard pressed to do so. My first thought was the so-called "constants" of physics, but researchers believe our physical "constants" were not so "constant" at the beginning of the universe - assuming the big bang theory is correct. It would seem that time is an incredibly important consideration.
Regardless, just how did Beeswax respond to this factual statement?
Beeswax says:
[calls me a liar][other nonsense deleted]
No, you're the liar and the troll. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax [false accusation deleted]:
[insult deleted]. [nonsense deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I am unclear as to the logic that Beeswax used in making his responses.
Regarding the "nonsense deleted:" Time dependent change is pretty much the norm for our universe. Certainly providing appropriate counter facts might make for an interesting, though off-topic, discussion, but to delete what is clearly an appropriate and factual statement and to baseless call that statement "nonsense" seems inappropriate to this discussion.
Beeswax says None of the nasty things
I am having difficulty understanding how is a discussion of universal phenomena a "nasty thing." I would certainly be interested in how a discussion of time and change forms the basis of his or her accusation.
Moving onward…
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time. They have historically been someone Anglo-centric. That has changed. There have been other changes as well.
Beeswax says Irrelevant.
England was very Anglo-centric during that time. Regardless of copyright it was difficult to get English audiences to read non-English literature because it was seen as "inferior." If you have a worldwide publication of 1,000 books, but only 100 are English, and if you consider the other 900 books to be "inferior," the likelihood is that few of those 900 books will be imported into England, copyright or no copyright. On the other hand, if you are in Germany, which was somewhat broader minded, it was much more likely that the non-German books might be translated into German.
Interestingly, that situation still exists to some extent today. Many English-language books are translated into German, but a much smaller number are translated from German to English.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph. It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down. I am suspicious of incomplete data, and that is what we have here.
Beeswax Says: The graph is to compare a region with copyright and a similar region without. The latter region enacted a copyright law at or shortly after the end date of the graph, so the two graph lines would have ceased to provide a useful comparison between copyright and no-copyright after the end point anyway.
Germany had an array of copyright laws during the period of time of the Germany graph. The 1809 Baden Civil Code, in force for the Grand Duchy of Baden from 1 January 1810 to the establishment of the German Civil Code on 1 January 1900, contained copyright provisions calculated from the life of the author.
Web reference: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22d_1809%22
Between 1827 and 1829 Prussia entered into agreement with thirty member states of the German Confederation over copyright protection. In addition to the protections provided in Baden, some of the other states with copyright provisions included Hamburg and Anhalt-Dessau.
Web reference: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22d_1827a%22
The electorate of Hessen adopted a copyright act in 1829.
Web reference: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22d_1829b%22
The Prussian Copyright Act of 1837 was considered the most influential copyright statute in German lands until the copyright of the unified German Reich in 1870 and 1876.
Web reference: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22d_1837a%22
The 1837 directive for reciprocal copyright protection within the German Confederation established a region wide copyright with a minimum of 10 years of protection after publication, that could by prolonged by up to 20 years by request. One comment on the web site (provided below) is that the enactment of copyright in 1837 was an indirect cause of a publishing boom in 1867 when copyright for many editions expired.
Web Reference: http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabe/%22d_1837b%22
It appears that many of the states of the German Confederation indeed had copyright laws during the time of the graph. In fact, rather than the additional data being irrelevant, it might be interesting to see whether the replacement copyright acts in 1870 and then later, in 1910, had any affect on the number of titles published.
Also interesting is that various German states, and then the German Confederation, adopted copyright laws in 1810, 1827-1829, and 1837. Comparing those dates to Eckhard Hoeffner's graph shows that after a brief drop in new titles from 1810 to about 1812, new titles climbed at a phenomenally fast rate until about 1846, when there was a precipitous drop in new titles. Think about this…
Copyright was expanded in 1810. After a brief drop in new titles, new titles began to grow very quickly. Copyright expanded again during the period 1827 to 1829 and new titles continued to grow quickly. Copyright expanded again in 1837 and new titles continued to grow. I find these facts interesting.
Eckhard responded to my original post and also said that there was copyright in the region during the period of the graph. He said that the situation regarding copyright was much more complicated than just the number of new titles (i.e., the graph). He also said his upcoming book would provide additional details.
It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down. I am suspicious of incomplete data, and that is what we have here.
Beeswax says: [implies that David K. Levine is a liar].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
I pretty clearly said that I was suspicious of incomplete data. Stopping the data a full decade before adoption of the 1870 Copyright Act for the German Empire makes me wonder why. Was the data unavailable? Was the data unreliable? Were there other reasons to stop the data at that point? A reasonable and logical person attempting to understand the behavior of data, especially when considering using that information to draw conclusions, should make reasonable inquiry into the nature of the data.
On a separate issue, Beeswax claims that I implied that David K. Levine made false statements. First, and most important, the data is from Eckhard Hoeffner and not David K. Levine. Since I only challenged the data, and not David's statement, there is no possible way that I could have implied anything about David K. Levine. Second, I have never claimed anyone made any false statements, though I would like to hear an interpretation of the interplay of increasing copyright during the period 1810 to 1830 and the phenomenally increasing number of new titles from about 1812 to 1845.
Beeswax says: Of course the number of titles available wouldn't have gone down; books don't get unpublished. The rate of growth could have slowed, but the exponential growth of the population would have masked that unless you made it a graph of titles per capita, or preferably of each year's new titles per capita.
You read something into my post that I did not intend. When I said "available," I meant available for release as a "new" title. The reason I was thinking in that way is because Germany did import many books from other countries that were not "new" in their original country, but would have been "new" in Germany. My comment was consistent with the nature of the graph, but would have been better written as "available as a new publication."
Zero "flames" in this post. The post is completely on topic regarding the graph.
Beeswax says: A lie. You made false accusations aimed at both myself and David Levine, suggesting that my logic was faulty (it is not) and that Levine's data is doctored (it is not). The latter is the more serious charge but both constitute flames.
Stop flaming.
Read what I wrote. I made zero false accusations against David Levine. First, the data is not "Levine's data." The data is Eckhard Hoeffner's. Second, I never said that Levine's data is doctored. Indeed, I never said anything regarding the data provided. What I said was that I wondered why the data stopped where it did; nothing more, nothing less. In general, it is a reasonable thing to challenge data to be sure the data is accurate and can be properly placed into perspective, which is exactly what I did. I even suggested the reason why additional data would have been useful.
Furthermore, in view of the new information regarding copyright in the period, the inquiry is even more important.
Beeswax says (new comment): Stop lying about me or else.
Threats? So, rather than have a discussion regarding the merits of data, your best option is to threaten and bully the person disagreeing with you.
Moving on to the next section, the evidence below shows that you clearly made a non sequitur statement. Either rebut my evidence with factual statements or stop talking about it.
During that period of history, in England, you were probably right. Of course, England has changed somewhat. It would be interesting to make the same comparison in the period after the graph above.
Beeswax says (new comment): Well, there you go then. Ready to concede defeat and shut up now?
Considering the new information noted above, that there was indeed copyright in portions of Germany during the period of the graph, I am only ready to concede that the graph may not show what it purports to show. At the very least, Eckhard Hoeffner may wish to provide additional explanation regarding the nature of the data and how various copyright laws within the German Confederation either affected or did not affect the data in the graph, and why.
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
Your claim appears to be that if someone does not need something at one time, then they probably do not need it at another. Logically, this statement is demonstrably false, which means that it is a non sequitur. Just because I do not need food at this moment does not mean I will not need food later. Just because I needed money yesterday does not mean I will need it tomorrow. Past events are not necessarily predictors of future events.
Beeswax says (new comment): No, my claim is that if someone does not need copyright at one time, then they probably do not need it at another.
As soon as you provide evidence for your statement, then we might well have something to talk about. As it is, your statement is an unsupported assertion.
As for calling David Levine a liar, you used that name. I merely challenged the facts, which is perfectly acceptable when having a rational discussion. Only an irrational person could possibly think I called David Levine a liar.
Beeswax says (new comment): No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax says (new comment): I most certainly did not call David a liar. You did. Repeatedly.
I merely challenged the facts
Beeswax says (new comment): You called him a liar, liar. Furthermore, "challenging the facts" is the sort of stupid thing creationists and global warming deniers do. The facts are; arguing against the facts is idiotic since you guarantee you'll be wrong.
First, the only person around here associating "David," "David Levine," and "David K. Levine" with "liar" is you. The evidence is here and documented for the record.
Second, "challenging the facts" is the sort of intelligent thing that researchers and analysts do. In fact, you personally have challenged whether intellectual property laws are beneficial. Therefore, you have challenged the facts.
Third, I argue against no facts, I provide them. I analyze them. I challenge them. I try to understand the extent to which facts apply.
Moving onward to another topic…
You began this post with a flaming insult, though vague in nature, "Alonniemouse." Nice start.
That's not an insult. That's me reminding everyone that you are Lonnie E. Holder, patent attorney and thoroughly notorious and biased party, trying to pass as "anonymous" but identifying yourself by your mannerisms and pro-ip trolling.
Yes, "Alonniemouse" is an insult. Second, I am anonymous, one of several who post regularly on this site. I am one of several persons whom you have called "Lonnie." Perhaps the hosts could switch the default from "anonymous" to "Lonnie," since you seem to see him everywhere.
Beeswax says (new comment): No, you're the liar and the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There are several problems with this post. First, Beeswax keeps falsely claiming that Lonnie is a patent attorney. Wrong. Second, I challenge whether Lonnie is "notorious."
It is difficult to determine whether one person is posting under multiple names because people can indeed write in similar fashions, especially if they have similar backgrounds and similar beliefs.
There are several people who post to this site that might be considered to write the way Lonnie does (I personally did not think I did, but I will take that as a compliment). I think Beeswax has accused all of them of being Lonnie. I have no issue with Beeswax asking whether I am someone (I will not answer your question), but continuously accusing people of being "Lonnie" is pointless and off-topic. Do you really think it is that difficult to discern whether someone is biases toward or against IP?
As for "trolling," the precise definition of trolling is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. My points in my posts have always tried to get redirected back to Eckhard Goeffner's interesting graph, and what it means. I believe that a review of the record will show that your statements have been inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic.
As for "pro-ip [sic]," I freely admit that I see benefit to limited intellectual property. I freely admit that I think that copyright is excessive. I freely admit that in general I think trademark has been beneficial in protecting businesses from identity theft and people from confusion. I do think trademark dilution needs to be carefully applied to be sure it is not abused. I freely admit that I think patents have been beneficial to society. Would you like me to post this statement with every one of my posts, though the statement is extraneous and off-topic?
Moving onward…
Is "Lonnie" notorious? I suspect he would might enjoy being called that. As for biased, I have read the posts that Lonnie has signed. Is he biased? His bias seems to be toward facts. Why would you have a problem with discussing facts?
Talking about yourself in the third person is a sign of a dangerously unbalanced mind, [irrelevancy deleted], as is enjoying being called "notorious".
[calls his pro-patent position "facts"]
There are a number of people who liked to be called "notorious." I think there was even a famous rapper that had "notorious" in his name. Of course, most people who think of themselves as being notorious generally are not, but sometimes being called notorious leads to good publicity. In any case, your statement regarding enjoying being called "notorious" being a sign of a dangerously unbalanced mind is without basis and intended by you to be inflammatory.
As for "talking about" myself "in the third person," you have yet to show that I have talked about "anonymous" in the third person even once.
Incorrect. The correct position is anti-patent, since that is where all the evidence points.
There is tons of evidence that indicates patents have been beneficial. I have seen links to a lot of that evidence on this site. While you may challenge the evidence, or ask that it be put into perspective, to ignore that evidence merely suggests that any evidence that indicates patents are not beneficial should be similarly ignored.
Then, you claim that my statement Non sequitur. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday, it does not follow that it will rain tomorrow. Many things are time dependent. was an insult, when it clearly was not, which makes your comment off-topic comment #1 and flame #2.
Beeswax says (new comment): No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Then, you finish up just the beginning of your post with calling my statements nasty, which is off-topic comment #2 and flame #3, and claiming that I made remarks about you, which anyone can clearly see I did not, making that off-topic comment #3 and flame #4.
Beeswax says (new comment): Of course, since your falsely accusing me of spouting non sequiturs was nasty.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
A non sequitur is a challenge of logic and reason. You do not respond to a challenge to your reasoning by accusations of lies, insanity or mental defect, you respond with superior reasoning.
There is nothing "nasty" in my comments at all. You statement was a non sequitur. I provided your statements again and provided justification for why I called your statement a non sequitur. Instead of alleging "nasty" and "lies" and all sorts of other irrelevant, inappropriate responses, how about explaining how your comment was relevant to the topic at hand. Your comments merely reinforce the accuracy of mine. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
I challenge your statements by referring to your previous statements. Considering the number of times you have responded to my factual statements with off-topic comments about supposed insults and implying other remarks and intent, I challenge your statement about not making mistakes.
I see you have threatened me, again. Truth will out in spite of your desire to see it suppressed.
Beeswax says (new comment):You will shut up about me now or you will face the consequences. How does disbarment sound, for a start? Surely anonymously smearing people on the internet is some kind of ethics violation. I could inform the bar association in whichever state you practice in about this entire exchange and David K. Levine, who you've also smeared by repeatedly accusing of not merely lying but outright academic misconduct (to wit, your repeated sly implications of his having cooked the books), is no doubt as unamused at your antics as I am and, moreover, as site admin has access to the records showing what IPs you're posting through and can thus probably provide strong evidence that your nastiest posts (including all those smearing David), though you've wisely been posting those as "anonymous", are indeed yours, [irrelevancy deleted].
The possibility of a defamation lawsuit also exists. David, as a practicing academic who you've repeatedly publicly insinuated is fudging his data, particularly has grounds for such a lawsuit. A libel suit started by him would begin with discovery proceedings in which a subpoena would compel your ISP to furnish logs positively associating your real identity with your "anonymous" attack posts. You'd quickly lose (or be forced to settle on his terms) this lawsuit, after which the lawsuit and the evidence used in it could be brought to the bar association ethics committee.
That doesn't seem to me to be a future you'd enjoy living in, [irrelevancy deleted], so I strongly suggest you at the very least quit insinuating that David is faking his data. Capisce?
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
Beeswax, you try to bully and threaten me into relinquishing my first amendment rights. Then, you threaten me with disbarment, which is a joke, as I will explain momentarily. Next, on David Levine's behalf (though he is probably shaking his head in his hands about now) you threaten a lawsuit. Actually, TWO lawsuits. Lastly, you throw the gauntlet with your vague threat that my comments will not be tolerated. Are threats where your calm, cool, intellect leads you? You fail to provide reasoned argument, so you threaten, not once but multiple times?
Beeswax, you cannot disbar a person who is not a member of the bar. Furthermore, even if I was an attorney, which I am not, I believe you will find that ethics committees of bar associations need a bit more than "he claimed I wrote a non sequitur" to take any action.
Let's move on to your comments about David Levine. I have already addressed your serious errors in this area, but since you threw out multiple threats, I have to deal with this issue - again. The data is not David Levine's. Furthermore, there was never an insinuation of anything. Worse, for you, is that Eckhard Höffner already responded to my comment and advised that the data from the graph was indeed incomplete, and the additional data would be explained in his upcoming book.
Moving onward…
You frequently make mistakes. Your mistake was hiding the issue, which merely confirmed my position regarding your non sequitur. You failed to use any reason at all, instead alleging "nasty" comments and lack of truth. Your stock statement is not reasoning at all, so it cannot, ipso facto, be either reasonable or logical. Above you called someone a patent attorney who is not. Your mistakes are compounding.
Beeswax says (new comment):No, no, no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax says (new comment):It's humorous that you imply above that my "alleging nasty comments and lack of truth" is somehow wrong ... right in the middle of a bunch of nasty comments and lies. Indeed your whole post is a pack of lies.
I believe the facts above speak for themselves and do not support your interpretation of our conversations in this thread.
Wrong. In this thread, you personally attacked me before I said anything that might be construed as a personal attack at you. My first post only said:
If the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright then copyright is unnecessary to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and should be abolished.
That's not an insult to you.
My second only said:
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
That's not an insult to you. But you replied to the second with "non sequitur", a false accusation that my logic was faulty though it was not. That is an insult to me. So don't lie again by saying you didn't start the fire, asshole!
This last portion of Beeswax's post is actually from a former post.
Beeswax, I do not care whether you take "non sequitur" as an insult or not. Arguments from positions of logic are not and can never be insults. My logic was sound for calling the non sequitur. I supported my statement, in detail. All you have done is declared that your logic was sound without explaining satisfactorily that it was sound. Name calling as a substitute for logic and reason holds no sway with me, sir or madam.
Beeswax says (new comment):Even if you didn't have a history of lying your ass off for years, I would be disinclined to believe that you could accuse someone of bad logic accidentally, without actually intending to accuse. What, did a cat walk over your keyboard while you were composing the post and happen to hit the N, then the O, then the N again, then the space, and then the S, the E, the Q, the U, the I, the T, the U again, and then the R? Even if so, did it not occur to you to hit backspace twelve times when you realized what had happened?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. You said it, you intended to say it, and you intended to accuse me of stupidity at best and outright dishonesty at worst.
Apology therefore not accepted. Admit you actually acted maliciously and wrongly and say "sorry" then and then I might consider accepting the apology.
And all of my off-topic posts have been necessary in self-defense because of those flames;
I think I did not make myself clear enough. I am sorry that you take offense, but I am not apologizing for sound logic and reason. Furthermore, sound logic and reason are not malicious and wrong. Indeed, I do not apologize for the logic that I used in analyzing your posts and labeling them as I saw them.
I deleted massive amounts of commentary that was way off topic.
Hopefully we can cease the nonsense and get back on to the original topic.
[Comment at 07/08/2010 05:15 PM by Anonymous] Lonnie writes:
[insults deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Lonnie inexplicably posts twice, though only fills in the name field once
There is nothing inexplicable. One posting is from Lonnie and the other posting is from Anonymous.
But both postings are from you. You made the anonymous post, too. It has your style.
A person does not "admit" they are a patent attorney.
They do in contexts where it could constitute an ulterior motive
Beeswax, you are either an attorney or you are not. It is against the law to claim you are an attorney if you are not actually an attorney.
Not relevant. We were discussing an attorney either claiming he was or omitting to do so, not a non-attorney saying anything.
[calls me a liar]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[threats of legal action deleted]
I don't respond well to threats.
[insult deleted]. Just because it rained two days ago and yesterday ...
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
... engineer ... universe ... physics ... big bang theory ...
I'm eagerly awaiting your saying something that's actually relevant.
[calls me a liar][other nonsense deleted]
No, you're the liar and the troll. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Beeswax [false accusation deleted]:
[insult deleted]. [nonsense deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I am unclear as to the logic that Beeswax used in making his responses.
It's quite simple: when someone calls me names, I reply with a statement to the effect that whatever they claimed about me that wasn't nice also wasn't true, as a means of neutralizing it.
You see, when someone reads a statement, they tend to be influenced towards believing it a bit, silly though that is when the statement is unsubstantiated and particularly when it comes from someone of dubious motives or character. But if they promptly read an equal and opposite statement, the effects of the two statements should cancel out. The nifty thing about "none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true" is that it has an omni-negating effect any time you call me names or otherwise insult me, without having any other effects.
It is also structured so as to be laborious to intentionally misquote. A third benefit is that it is such a bulletproof shield that it greatly frustrates the dishonest debate opponent who resorted to namecalling, and visibly so: they start veritably foaming at the mouth and they also start making more mistakes in their anger. This punishes the miscreant, both by being unpleasant for him or her and by their own frustrated reaction giving me the advantage in subsequent rounds. A reasonably intelligent opponent would, of course, swiftly learn not to lace his responses with namecalling...
Regarding the "nonsense deleted:" [false accusation deleted].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
None of the nasty things
I am having difficulty understanding how is a discussion of universal phenomena a "nasty thing."
It is your public insinuations to the effect that I'm an idiot that I characterized as "nasty".
In the future, if I say a thing you are not to bluntly contradict it, nor call it a "non sequitur" or "nonsense", nor otherwise state or imply any negative thing about me. Have I made myself clear?
Basically, if you are considering responding to something I wrote with X, and a hypothetical reader reading your statement of X in this context and believing it could immediately infer from it that I possessed some negative trait, such as stupidity or dishonesty, then you will not say X since a) I don't have that negative trait (or, indeed, any negative trait), b) your statement could mislead some readers into believing otherwise, and c) you have been informed of all of this so cannot plead ignorance, meaning d) your statement of X would not even just be mistaken; it would be a lie.
In this particular case, the culture of England has changed with time.
Not relevant. We were discussing the copyright incentive for writing books. Either it is or it isn't needed. Culture is not relevant because it isn't a question about culture, but rather about economics. Book production is obviously cheap enough not to need subsidizing via copyright. Indeed, was cheap enough a couple centuries ago, and it's only gotten cheaper since then.
There was no market failure in Germany at that time in book production. Therefore no state intervention to correct market failure, such as the enacting of a copyright law, was needed. Furthermore you have provided zero evidence to suggest that such a market failure would occur anywhere now were copyright to be repealed.
Do not reply to this thread again until and unless you actually come up with some actual evidence that there is, or would be, such a market failure. Especially don't waste everyone's time with more pointless vague remarks about "cultural change" that don't point to any specific change and make some specific and plausible hypothesis as to how that change could create such a market failure where none previously existed.
Irrelevant.
England was very Anglo-centric during that time. Regardless of copyright it was difficult to get English audiences to read non-English literature [rest deleted]
Irrelevant. Why are you repeating this after you've been told it's not relevant, Lonnie? The markets in question were the domestic market for English-language books in England and the domestic market for German-language books in Germany. Remarks about the (lack of a) market for German-language books in England clearly have no bearing on the matter.
I also have to wonder why the author of the graph stopped the graph.
I grow tired of repeating myself: they were comparing a market with copyright to an otherwise very similar market without copyright. The graph therefore spans only the period during which the one market had copyright while the other market lacked it.
[implies that David Levine cooked the books]
Absurd! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
The graph is to compare a region with copyright and a similar region without. The latter region enacted a copyright law at or shortly after the end date of the graph, so the two graph lines would have ceased to provide a useful comparison between copyright and no-copyright after the end point anyway.
[calls me a liar]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[large amounts of unintelligible text and long, broken URLs deleted]
???
It appears that [calls me a liar]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[pro-copyright nonsense deleted]
Copyright is evil. None of your bluster, namecalling, accusations, threats, and other silliness will make any difference to the fact that it is a state-granted monopoly provably unnecessary to correct any market failures and thus should be abolished globally.
[further attacks on Levine's blog post deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
It would have been a more powerful argument to have taken the graph all the way to the present day, showing that after the adoption of copyright in Germany that the number of titles available went down.
Of course the result wouldn't have been a drop in the number of titles. A slowing of the rise is what one would expect, unless they started unpublishing things. You might see a drop later, though, during the Nazi regime; those dickheads were quite the fans of book burning as I recall.
[implies that David K. Levine is a liar]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
I pretty clearly said that [implies that David Levine was academically dishonest].
Yes, unfortunately, you did.
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
Were there other reasons to stop the data at that point?
Only the obvious, which I already told you but which you keep ignoring for some reason. (Perhaps because it proves you wrong?)
On a separate issue, Beeswax claims that I implied that David K. Levine made false statements. First, and most important, [calls me a liar].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Second, [calls me a liar again].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Of course the number of titles available wouldn't have gone down; books don't get unpublished. The rate of growth could have slowed, but the exponential growth of the population would have masked that unless you made it a graph of titles per capita, or preferably of each year's new titles per capita.
You [false accusation of some sort of stupidity deleted]
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Zero "flames" in this post. The post is completely on topic regarding the graph.
Beeswax says: A lie. You made false accusations aimed at both myself and David Levine, suggesting that my logic was faulty (it is not) and that Levine's data is doctored (it is not). The latter is the more serious charge but both constitute flames.
Stop flaming.
[rude demand deleted].
I do not take orders from you.
[calls me a liar]. First, [calls me a liar]. Second, [calls me a liar].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
What I said was that I wondered why the data stopped where it did
You implied that the reason was some kind of academic fraud. Don't pretend innocence; I can read between the lines just as easily (in fact more so) as you can slyly imply things there.
You meant your audience to start questioning the honesty of David's blog post. Admit it.
Meanwhile I will restate this:
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about David are at all true.
Stop lying about me or else.
Threats? So, rather than have a discussion regarding the merits of data, your best option is to threaten and bully the person disagreeing with you.
But we aren't having "a discussion regarding the merits of data"; we are having an argument where, alternately, you make nasty and false implications about me and slyly accuse David Levine of lack of academic integrity and then I rebut your accusations only for you to not get the message and stupidly repeat your accusations all over again, necessitating another rebuttal, and so on and so forth.
Moving on to the next section, the evidence below shows that you clearly [false accusation deleted].
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
During that period of history, in England, you were probably right.
[misquotes me]
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect.
Well, there you go then.
Considering the new information noted above, that [calls me a liar], I [refuses to concede and falsely accuses David of academic misconduct again].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or David are at all true.
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
Your claim appears to be that if someone does not need something at one time, then they probably do not need it at another.
[misquotes me and calls me a liar]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect.
No, my claim is that if someone does not need copyright at one time, then they probably do not need it at another.
[calls me a liar]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[falsely accuses me of calling David Levine a liar; calls me a lunatic]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
It is you who has repeatedly insinuated that David Levine's blog post was dishonest. I have been defending him from those accusations. Quit claiming otherwise. This is your second post in a row to falsely accuse me of making the false accusations about David that you have made. There had better not be a third.
I merely challenged the facts
You called him a liar, liar. Furthermore, "challenging the facts" is the sort of stupid thing creationists and global warming deniers do. The facts are; arguing against the facts is idiotic since you guarantee you'll be wrong.
First, [falsely accuses me of falsely accusing David Levine of academic misconduct].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Once again, you are the one making those accusations about David and I am the one defending David. Not the other way around.
The evidence is
that you are the one accusing David and I am the one defending him.
Second, "challenging the facts" is the sort of intelligent thing that researchers and analysts do.
That's nonsense. If X is a fact, then saying not-X is stupid, not intelligent. Unless your goal isn't to get at the truth but instead to mislead others, e.g. because you're a politician or a lobbyist for a special interest.
Indeed, you talk and act like a copyright/patent lobbyist. Is that what you currently do for a living? Unfortunately for the already-tarnished reputation of the profession, a lot of lawyers branch out into lobbying (or directly into politics as an actual candidate!) and aid and abet the evil known as "regulatory capture", of which present-day copyright and patent laws are notorious examples.
On the other hand perhaps you're just a lowly paid astroturfer sent to this blog to disrupt it, if not actually convince anyone here that copyright is good and patents are better (which I expect is a futile task).
I have a bit of sympathy. Your task is surely a thankless one, as well as demeaning and dishonest. Perhaps you should consider telling your handlers "I quit" and finding a more rewarding, productive, and honest line of work? I respect manual laborers far more than I respect those doing the "professional", white-collar sorts of work that basically consists of acting against the public good for special interests -- those in the "doubt is our product" line of work, basically. (I respect professionals of other kinds, though -- doctors, scientists, even the odd lawyer -- so long as they are honest and their work betters society and not just a narrow special interest.)
Get out of that miserable doubt factory, Lonnie, and find yourself a better job, better for you and better for society. It's really not too late.
In fact, you personally have challenged whether intellectual property laws are beneficial. Therefore, you have challenged the facts.
Only in your fantasy land in which "intellectual property laws are beneficial" is a fact. Here in the real world what I have challenged is a myth, not a fact.
Third, I argue against no facts, I provide them.
I have yet to see one.
I analyze them.
The most sophisticated form of analysis I've seen from you thus far has been laughable amateur psychoanalysis of me -- with a wrong diagnosis every single time, without fail. (The correct diagnosis, of course, being "he's perfectly sane -- in fact, more rational than most folks".)
You began this post with a flaming insult, though vague in nature, "Alonniemouse." Nice start.
That's not an insult. That's me reminding everyone that you are Lonnie E. Holder, patent attorney and thoroughly notorious and biased party, trying to pass as "anonymous" but identifying yourself by your mannerisms and pro-ip trolling.
[calls me a liar][other namecalling]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No, you're the liar and the lunatic. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There are several problems with this post. First, [calls me a liar].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Second, I challenge whether Lonnie is "notorious."
On this blog? You're damn tootin' you're notorious.
It is difficult to determine whether one person is posting under multiple names because people can indeed write in similar fashions, especially if they have similar backgrounds and similar beliefs.
Is this meant to suggest that you're but one of a whole army of astroturfer IP lawyer types sent here to destroy the blog?
The evidence to support your latest bit of fearmongering is, I'm afraid, rather lacking. You see, the whole point of sending a large number of astroturfers is to astroturf. There should be a huge volume of pro-IP comments here crafted to look like a groundswell of spontaneous support, probably with lots of normal-looking (but phony) names.
What we have here is a trickle, a volume of posts that suggests only a single person posting them, even more similar than astroturfers' posts would be to each other, all of them either posted as "Anonymous" or posted as "Lonnie E. Holder", plus a small number posted as "Prionpropatentuiq" with a somewhat different style and without quite as strong an obsession with having the last word and with harassing me in particular.
[insults deleted][falsely accuses me of stuff][rudely talks about me as if I wasn't in the room][etc.]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
As for "trolling," the precise definition of trolling is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.
Which makes you three for three: your pro-IP remarks are both inflammatory and extraneous and the only other comments from you are pure-namecalling ones, which are both inflammatory and off-topic. Every single individual post of yours is two of those three things all by itself!
My points in my posts have always tried to get redirected back to
Then why do you spend so much time calling various people liars and throwing all kinds of accusations around instead of discussing the subject matter? In your latest "magnum opus" you have a handful of words about the graph, near the top, that don't also implicitly accuse anyone of anything -- and those are just repetitions of things you wrote in earlier posts, which I'd already responded to, and you're simply ignoring those responses and restating the already-rebutted claims instead; and then the whole rest of your post is pretty much nothing but a long litany of insults and accusations, easily comprising over 85% of the total.
Trust me when I say that it sure doesn't look like you're trying to redirect discussion back to the original topic of the graph.
A review of the record will show that you [false accusation deleted]
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
In response to your few unadulterated remarks about the graph, I have made reasoned replies on the same topic. The large volume of non-graph-related text in my posts is merely a mirror reflection of the large volume in yours; each time you say or insinuate something false and negative about me (or anyone else) I must respond with a rebuttal in self-defense (or in defense of whoever is your intended victim). So whereas the namecalling, insults, etc. in your posts are not only off-topic but 100% optional, the rebuttals of same in my posts are 100% mandatory. I can't in all good conscience leave them out, off-topic or no! On the other hand, you have my word that if you stop with the namecalling and insinuations, the off-topic rebuttals of same will also disappear, since they will no longer be necessary.
So the percentage of off-topic material in these posts is entirely up to you. We shall soon see how much off-topic material you now choose to cause to be posted here.
As for "pro-ip [implied insult deleted]," I freely admit that I see benefit to limited intellectual property.
Well, you're wrong. It's that simple.
I freely admit that in general I think trademark has been beneficial in protecting businesses from identity theft and people from confusion.
Trademark needs to be reined in a bit. A safe harbor for third parties, analogous to those in the CDA for defamation claims and in the DMCA for copyright claims, is needed, and the notion of "dilution" simply must go. The sole test should be "would a consumer in a hurry be likely to mistake product X, allegedly infringing product Y's trademarks, for product Y?" or similarly.
I freely admit that I think patents have been beneficial to society.
They have not, and ample evidence of this has been posted.
Would you like me to post this statement with every one of my posts, though the statement is extraneous and off-topic?
It's more on topic for this blog than your paragraphs upon paragraphs of pure namecalling are.
Is "Lonnie" notorious? I suspect he would might enjoy being called that.
[misquotes me]
Talking about yourself in the third person is a sign of a dangerously unbalanced mind
[misquotes me]
as is enjoying being called "notorious".
There are a number of people who liked to be called "notorious." I think there was even a famous rapper that had "notorious" in his name.
Well, you know what they say about artists.
Keep in mind also that rappers have an image as being dangerous to cultivate. Patent attorneys don't, at least ordinarily.
Oh, and do not misquote me again. Your post contained supposed "quoted material" that did not occur in the post that you followed up to nor summarize material that did. That is incorrect.
Of course, most people who think of themselves as being notorious generally are not, but sometimes being called notorious leads to good publicity.
Being notorious as a blog troll whose viciously insulting, rude, take-no-prisoners attitude shocks and dismays its readers will certainly not lead to good publicity.
In any case, your statement regarding enjoying being called "notorious" being a sign of a dangerously unbalanced mind is [insult deleted].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
As for "talking about" myself "in the third person," you have yet to show that I have talked about "anonymous" in the third person even once.
You said "Lonnie" as if referring to someone other than yourself, Lonnie.
Incorrect. The correct position is anti-patent, since that is where all the evidence points.
[calls me a liar].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Then, you claim that my statement [insult deleted] was an insult, when it clearly was not, which makes your comment [false accusation deleted].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Then, you finish up just the beginning of your post with calling my statements nasty, which is [false accusation deleted], and [calls me a liar], making that [false accusation deleted].
No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Of course, since your falsely accusing me of spouting non sequiturs was nasty.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
A non sequitur is a challenge of logic and reason.
No, a non sequitur is a syllogism whose conclusion would not follow from its premises even if those premises were to prove to be true.
Accusing me of posting one is, at best, accusing me of stupidity and at worst accusing me of being intentionally dishonest.
I am neither stupid nor dishonest.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You do not respond to a challenge to your reasoning by accusations of lies, insanity or mental defect, you respond with superior reasoning.
First of all, I can hardly respond with "superior reasoning" when my reasoning is already perfect and therefore cannot be improved, even in theory. Secondly, I responded to your accusation of lies and/or mental defect with a statement to the effect that I am not a liar and I lack mental defects.
[calls me a liar]. You statement was [false accusation deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I provided your statements again and provided justification
There can never be any justification for making, or insinuating, any claim that I possess any undesirable trait.
Don't let me catch you doing it again! Doing it and then trying to make excuses will FAIL. I will NOT be amused.
I called your statement [false accusation deleted]. Instead of alleging "nasty" and "lies" and all sorts of other [insult deleted], how about explaining how your comment was relevant to the topic at hand.
Instead of posting nasty lies about me, how about actually discussing the graph? My comment about time dependency was relevant. It was your false accusations regarding my honesty and mental fitness that were not!
Your comments merely [false accusation deleted]. Methinks [implied insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
[calls me a liar]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Considering the number of times you have [false accusation deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
[false accusation deleted]. I see you have [false accusation deleted], again. [calls me a liar].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You will shut up about me now or you will face the consequences. How does disbarment sound, for a start? Surely anonymously smearing people on the internet is some kind of ethics violation. I could inform the bar association in whichever state you practice in about this entire exchange and David K. Levine, who you've also smeared by repeatedly accusing of not merely lying but outright academic misconduct (to wit, your repeated sly implications of his having cooked the books), is no doubt as unamused at your antics as I am and, moreover, as site admin has access to the records showing what IPs you're posting through and can thus probably provide strong evidence that your nastiest posts (including all those smearing David), though you've wisely been posting those as "anonymous", are indeed yours
[false accusation deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
The possibility of a defamation lawsuit also exists. David, as a practicing academic who you've repeatedly publicly insinuated is fudging his data, particularly has grounds for such a lawsuit. A libel suit started by him would begin with discovery proceedings in which a subpoena would compel your ISP to furnish logs positively associating your real identity with your "anonymous" attack posts. You'd quickly lose (or be forced to settle on his terms) this lawsuit, after which the lawsuit and the evidence used in it could be brought to the bar association ethics committee.
That doesn't seem to me to be a future you'd enjoy living in
[false accusation deleted]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
I strongly suggest you at the very least quit insinuating that David is faking his data. Capisce?
They were nasty. You accused me, in public, of a "non sequitur". That is incorrect. My logic is impeccable, my reasoning is sound, and I do not make mistakes. Any suggestion to the contrary by you is a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
Beeswax, you [false accusation deleted][some blather about First Amendment rights]. Then, you [insult deleted]. Next, [implied insult deleted]. Actually, TWO lawsuits. Lastly, you [numerous insults deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You have no First Amendment right to libel either me or David, Lonnie. So stop it. Or else.
[appears to be saying he's guilty of practicing without a license]
Probably not something it would be wise for you to say under these circumstances. But, too late now.
Furthermore, [calls me a liar]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You will find that ethics committees of bar associations need a bit more than "he claimed I wrote a non sequitur" to take any action.
Of course, you've furnished a lot more. For starters, your repeated false insinuations that David cooked the books on his scientific data. Then there's all the other insults and accusations you've slung over the years -- there must be thousands of them in which you've impugned the intelligence, mental health, and honesty of pretty much every regular user of this site who's anti-IP (i.e., most of them). You've also slimed several famous authors, including science-fiction writer David Brin; I doubt he's too amused, if he knows about your attempted smear of his name yet. Indeed it's a wonder you're classified as Homo sapiens and not as a member of the phylum Myxomycota, given the sheer quantity of sleaze you've oozed over the years. Your reputation on this blog is mud, and furthermore you have found yourself unable to escape it by posting anonymously, since the stench of your posts is instantly recognizable to many of us regardless of what name, if any, you sign to them.
Perhaps it's time you gave up, Lonnie. Alternatively, you could try posting under a new name, being cogent and rational and non-belligerent, and see where that takes you. You might even go unrecognized that way. If you remained non-belligerent even when your pro-IP remarks were soundly thrashed with evidence and logic.
Let's move on to your comments about David Levine. [calls me a liar]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You are the one accusing David of academic misconduct; I am the one defending him. Remember?
[calls me a liar several times]. Worse, for you, is that [calls me a liar].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
You frequently [vicious insult deleted]. Your [insult deleted] was [false accusation deleted], which merely confirmed my position regarding your [false accusation deleted]. You [false accusation deleted], instead alleging "nasty" comments and lack of truth. Your stock statement is [insult deleted], so [insult deleted]. Above you [calls me a liar]. You [vicious insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
It's humorous that you imply above that my "alleging nasty comments and lack of truth" is somehow wrong ... right in the middle of a bunch of nasty comments and lies. Indeed your whole post is a pack of lies.
I believe [calls me a liar]
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Wrong. In this thread, you personally attacked me before I said anything that might be construed as a personal attack at you. My first post only said:
If the primary driver for publication of new titles is something other than copyright then copyright is unnecessary to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" and should be abolished.
That's not an insult to you.
My second only said:
I see no reason why it should be time-dependent. If authors then and there didn't need a copyright incentive, then authors probably don't need a copyright incentive, period.
That's not an insult to you. But you replied to the second with "non sequitur", a false accusation that my logic was faulty though it was not. That is an insult to me. So don't lie again by saying you didn't start the fire, asshole!
Beeswax, I do not care
Then why keep posting?
Arguments from positions of logic are not and can never be insults.
Too bad all you have in your ammo crate seems to be namecalling, then; maybe you ran out of arguments from positions of logic? Or you just don't care to use them? Or perhaps you never had any, Lonnie?
My logic was sound for calling [insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
There is no "logic" for calling your debate opponent names. You accused me of idiocy at best and outright dishonesty at worst, and you did so without (proximate) provocation. I don't call that logic. I call that being a jerk.
I supported my statement, in detail.
If by that you mean posting thousands of additional lines of namecalling in response when I objected to your initial bit of namecalling, then ... well, I still wouldn't exactly call that "supporting" your statement, though it sure doesn't seem to be a retraction of it either. :P
I'm also dubious about the "in detail" part, seeing as your insults are highly repetitive and quite uncreative. "In detail" would be "and I think you're a flabbermonkey with pustulent zits and a bad case of the oozies!" or something likewise somewhat less boring than your standard-issue "idiot", "liar", "pervert", or "lunatic" type accusations hurled at your opponent.
All you have done is declared that your logic was sound [implied insult deleted].
No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could follow the logic in my arguments. If you are admitting that you could not ...
Name calling as a substitute for logic and reason holds no sway with me, sir or madam.
That's funny, because you sure seem to expect it to hold sway with your audience, to judge by the way you use namecalling as your primary form of argumentation, Lonnie.
Say, speaking of "sir or madam" I'm not 100% sure whether "Lonnie" is a male or female name; we don't get many Lonnies in these parts. If I had to guess I'd say male; you act like a chest-beating testosterone-pissing has-to-have-the-last-word alpha male ape -- in fact, such a good imitation you could probably quit your astroturfing/lobbying job for Big Pharma and become wildly successful with a position with Ringling Bros., or amusing the kiddies at the Central Park Zoo, or something like that.
Even if you didn't have a history of lying your ass off for years, I would be disinclined to believe that you could accuse someone of bad logic accidentally, without actually intending to accuse. What, did a cat walk over your keyboard while you were composing the post and happen to hit the N, then the O, then the N again, then the space, and then the S, the E, the Q, the U, the I, the T, the U again, and then the R? Even if so, did it not occur to you to hit backspace twelve times when you realized what had happened?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. You said it, you intended to say it, and you intended to accuse me of stupidity at best and outright dishonesty at worst. Apology therefore not accepted. Admit you actually acted maliciously and wrongly and say "sorry" then and then I might consider accepting the apology.
And all of my off-topic posts have been necessary in self-defense because of those flames
I think I did not make myself clear enough. I am sorry that you take offense, but I am not apologizing for sound logic and reason.
Of course you're not, since you have no "sound logic and reason" to apologize for anyway.
You'll pardon me also if I don't accept your newest apology for my taking offense. It rings rather hollow, coming as it does near the end of yet another ridiculously long post liberally sprinkled with insults and namecalling of the worst sort. You caused offense and you intended to cause offense. Once again, you must admit that, and admit that it was morally wrong, before I will accept your apology.
Furthermore, sound logic and reason are not malicious and wrong.
No, your namecalling is malicious and wrong.
Indeed, I do not apologize for the logic that I used in analyzing your posts and labeling them as I saw them.
What logic? You've taken perfectly legitimate statements of mine and incorrectly labeled them as being things that are actually physically impossible; I could no more have posted a genuine non sequitur than you could walk on water. I don't see any logic behind your actions at all, unless it's the logic of someone with ulterior and dishonest motives, intending to mislead people about my true nature and on the topic of IP.
[implied insult deleted].
Hopefully we can cease the [implied insult deleted] and get back on to the original topic.
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
If that were truly your wish, you would refrain from including anything in your comments to this thread that was not directly on the topic of the graph in David's blog post.
Since you have shown zero inclination to refrain, and instead seem to greatly enjoy writing comments that are at most 15% about the graph and 85% about your opponent's alleged shortcomings and David Levine's alleged academic misconduct, I conclude that your statement above beginning with the word "hopefully" is a lie.
And once more, for the record:
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me or David are at all true.
[Comment at 07/08/2010 10:46 PM by None Of Your Beeswax] First of all, I want to thank [Comment at 07/08/2010 05:15 PM by Anonymous] for trying, to get back on to the original topic. However, regarding this thread, it is hopeless.
You mention several laws in Germany, for example:
Germany had an array of copyright laws during the period of time of the Germany graph. The 1809 Baden Civil Code, in force for the Grand Duchy of Baden from 1 January 1810 to the establishment of the German Civil Code on 1 January 1900, contained copyright provisions calculated from the life of the author.
But Baden had no printing industry and the printing industry didn't emerge in Baden after 1810. On the other hand, in Württemberg (where reprinting was allowed) printing and publishing was flourishing industry (the center of the trade was in Leipzig, Saxonia).
One point regarding main stream economic thinking is right: from 1770 until 1840, in Germany the authors have written books, because they were paid well.
Nowadays, out of 1000 science publications, maybe 5 or 10 are written due to the remuneration. In Germany, it was the opposite. I think, at least 80 % of the books were written, because of the payment.
The main problem regarding the discussion abut copyright law is, that nearly everybody is trapped in an very old economic theory.
In a nutshell of Adam Smith:
That it was the spirit of monopoly which originally both invented and propagated this doctrine cannot be doubted; and they who first taught it
were by no means such fools as they who believed it.
What e.g. Landes and Posner are writing, is similar to what Pütter (1774) or Luden (1814) wrote. Nothing new -- microeconomic thinking, how an established businessman stays on the top. These are all short term partial equilibrium analysis with lots of maths.
You can say, that the introduction of copyright law gives the industry a push -- but this is a short term push, because the publisher can increase the price. What happens afterwards? Book prise have risen. People are buying fewer books. Publishers ar producing not more, but less new books. If publishers are producing less new books, the bargain power of an author decreases. The typical contract changes. The incentive for the publisher changes, because he is not earning money with publishing activity any more, but monopoly gains from bestsellers. The division between some good earning authors and the rest (payment is the honor, to be published) begins and so on ...
[Comment at 07/18/2010 12:38 AM by Eckhard Höffner] Eckhard Höffner:
First of all, [implied insult deleted].
You mention several laws in Germany, for example:
[elaborately calls myself and David Levine liars].
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me and David are at all true.
The main problem regarding the discussion abut copyright law is, that nearly everybody is trapped in an very old economic theory.
This, though, I agree with. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml points this out as well: the economic theory that assumes that innovation will be underproduced without protectionist "IP" policies is being thoroughly debunked by modern research.
In a nutshell of Adam Smith:
That it was the spirit of monopoly which originally both invented and propagated this doctrine cannot be doubted; and they who first taught it were by no means such fools as they who believed it.
What e.g. Landes and Posner are writing, is similar to what Pütter (1774) or Luden (1814) wrote. Nothing new -- microeconomic thinking, how an established businessman stays on the top. These are all short term partial equilibrium analysis with lots of maths.
You can say, that the introduction of copyright law gives the industry a push -- but this is a short term push, because the publisher can increase the price. What happens afterwards? Book prise have risen. People are buying fewer books. Publishers ar producing not more, but less new books. If publishers are producing less new books, the bargain power of an author decreases. The typical contract changes. The incentive for the publisher changes, because he is not earning money with publishing activity any more, but monopoly gains from bestsellers. The division between some good earning authors and the rest (payment is the honor, to be published) begins and so on ...
This also is borne out by modern research. Copyright and patent industries seem to produce hit-driven product lines: blockbuster movies, platinum albums, blockbuster drugs, ubiquitous software like Windows. Creative industries without "IP", such as clothing and restaurants and open source, produce a broader "long tail" and a more equitable disbursement of funds to innovators along the tail.
In "IP"-monopolized markets, sales volume is heavily hit-driven but revenue to artists (or whatever the innovators are) is even more skewed towards the hits; the hit innovators get a better bargaining position with gatekeepers to negotiate for a larger slice of the pie, which is itself larger for hits than for nonhits, while as Adam Smith noted everyone else loses: the smaller innovators (smaller slices of smaller pies), consumers (higher prices and less variety), and other industries (higher prices = lower total volume = less work generated for transport or telecom industries; electronics companies are forced to cripple products with e.g. Macrovision and HDCP; etc.).
The only reasonable conclusion from all this can be: down with "IP"! Abolish copyright. Abolish patents. Get rid of or greatly curtail legal protection of "trade secrets" and limit the lifespan of employee-signed NDAs and noncompetes to the duration of employment. Narrow trademark law to its original purpose: preventing consumer confusion.
To allow businesses in heavily "IP"-subsidized sectors time to adjust, perhaps phase out copyright and patents by setting an expiry date a few years in the future. All existing copyrights and patents expire on that date. New patents won't issue. New copyrights may be allowed, but again expiring on that same date. After that date, everything is immediately public domain. This allows legacy businesses time to position themselves for an "IP"-free market and experiment a bit with new business models while retaining a temporary stream of royalties to protect against instantly going deeply into the red before they can put new business models in place.
[Comment at 07/18/2010 01:07 AM by None Of Your Beeswax]
Submit Comment
Blog Post
|
