1. 

   Russell Nelson on January 25, 2008 at 2:29 am

   Instead of “content” I say “creative works”. Which …. obviously excludes some “content”, but hey, that’s no skin off my nose.

2. 

   Crosbie Fitch on January 25, 2008 at 5:42 am

   ‘Content’ is surprisingly similar to Huxley’s Soma – in use and meaning.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_%28Brave_New_World%29

   Filler to keep them happy and sedated.

   I prefer ‘art’ – permanent, never consumed.

3. 

   Mike Warot on January 25, 2008 at 11:25 am

   For the same reason I object loudly dares use the term “intellectual property” in my presence. It’s a propaganda term, and should be fought vigorously.

   There are patents for inventions, and trademarks, and copyright for creative endeavors… but they are all fundamentally different beasts.

4. 

   Crosbie Fitch on January 25, 2008 at 11:45 am

   Object loudly to the mercantile privileges of copyright and patent by all means, even the misrepresentation of these unethical monopolies as intellectual property rights, but intellectual property and rights pertaining to it remain valid, natural and wholesome concepts.

5. 

   Alan Kellogg on January 25, 2008 at 8:10 pm

   I am not content with the content our content providers provide us.

   Crosbie Fitch: Intellectual property? I create it, I own it. You want to use it, then until I die you can damn well pay me. I aint into creating out of the goodness of my heart, I’m doing it in an attempt to raise some cash for things I could really use.

   Somebody once asked Sartre why he started writing. He replied, “I had rent to pay.”

6. 

   Alan Kellogg on January 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm

   Make that Mike Warot, not Crosbie Fitch.

Comments are now closed.