Note this snip from the email I just got, showing as PARTNERS a penguin holding a KC branding iron. I wonder who that could be?
Does this mean they've agreed to let us be partners under the same terms as last year?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ITEC Conference and Exhibition [email protected] Date: Aug 28, 2007 2:14 PM Subject: HEADLINES FROM Kansas City ITEC - NOVEMBER 7-8, 2007 To: [email protected]
*PARTNERS*
*Latest Trends in IT Solutions*
To learn more about topics covered at this conference, visit our website at www.crossintegration.com.
*CrossIntegration, Inc. is a technology services organization concentrating on mid-market companies with a focus on Content Management Systems (CMS), Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Services, and Data Mining/Warehousing projects.*
*CrossIntegration is available for free on-site seminars at a location of your choice! Topics covered will include:*
-
*Content Management vs. No Content Managementhttp://www.crossintegration.com * -
*Database vs. Data Warehouse http://www.crossintegration.com* -
*Implementing Web 2.0 http://www.crossintegration.com*
*If interested, call 781-821-6620 or email [email protected]*
*Contact CrossTechMedia Events at:* 437 Turnpike Street Canton, MA 02021 Phone: 781-821-6734 Fax: 781-821-6734 [email protected]
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 03:39:31 pm Monty J. Harder wrote:
Note this snip from the email I just got, showing as PARTNERS a penguin holding a KC branding iron. I wonder who that could be?
Well, now, assuming the artiste had the presence of mind to register the trademark, we can negotiate. I would say that we should shoot for about double the fee they want to charge us, and settle for the fee + 50%. Woot! A budget!
On 8/28/07, Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 03:39:31 pm Monty J. Harder wrote:
Note this snip from the email I just got, showing as PARTNERS a penguin holding a KC branding iron. I wonder who that could be?
Well, now, assuming the artiste had the presence of mind to register the trademark, we can negotiate. I would say that we should shoot for about double the fee they want to charge us, and settle for the fee + 50%. Woot! A budget!
Well you don't need to register a trademark since KCLUG is regional to KC. We, would just have to enforce/protect KCLUG(TM) to keep the rights to it. I forget the actually legal terms will look them up and get back.
I didn't need to register the copyright I hold on that logo, which is automatically mine as of the day I published it, and thanks to the MPAA will belong to my children when I'm safely dead. KCLUG has a license from me to use my copyrighted work, but ITEC 2007 does not.
If they give us a free booth and electricity, I'll give my permission, and they won't be violating my copyright. Just have to wait until they've got it in print and it's too much of a PITA to just take off the website.
On 8/28/07, Jonathan Hutchins [email protected] wrote:
Well, now, assuming the artiste had the presence of mind to register the trademark, we can negotiate. I would say that we should shoot for about double the fee they want to charge us, and settle for the fee + 50%. Woot! A budget!
--- "Monty J. Harder" [email protected] wrote:
I didn't need to register the copyright I hold on that logo, which is automatically mine as of the day I published it, and thanks to the MPAA will belong to my children when I'm safely dead.
On the one hand, very good for us that you've got long-term copyright protection on the KCLUG logo.
On the other hand, not very good for the U.S. taxpayer.
Didn't copyright start off as a transaction rather than as an entitlement? I was always given to understand that the copyright holder received government protection for a limited period in exchange for their copyrighted work entering the public domain at the end of that limited period. Or in other words, the copyright holder received life + 25 to control his or her work and receive royalties for its use, and in exchange the taxpayer received the high-quality work after life + 25 to use for free.
The new copyright laws seem to suggest that a person who is born the same day that the copyright holder dies, will die of old age before the copyrighted work enters the public domain. This to me seems more like an entitlement than a transaction: the copyright holder gets free government protection for a nearly unlimited period of time, and when the work finally enters the public domain its value to the taxpayer is nearly exhausted.
I do volunteer page proofreading for "Project Gutenberg" so I am a little upset about the seemly continuous successful attempts to extend copyright protection duration closer and closer to infinity every year. It is almost as bad as the excessive software patent protection duration. Everyone seems to want to create *one* successful work and then let their family/business live off the royalties unto the seventh generation.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
On 8/29/07, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:
I was always given to understand that the copyright holder received government protection for a limited period in exchange for their copyrighted work entering the public domain at the end of that limited period. Or in other words, the copyright holder received life + 25 to control his or her work and receive royalties for its use, and in exchange the taxpayer received the high-quality work after life + 25 to use for free.
Close. The Constitution says 'for limited times' in the language that authorizes copyrights and patents. The first copyright law was an initial term of 14 years that could be renewed for an additional 14 years. There seems to be a good argument for such an arrangement. A work that doesn't sell enough copies to justify additional printings won't warrant renewal, pushing it into the public domain all the sooner, so that anyone who is interested in providing copies would be able to do so without having to worry about licensing fees.
Every time Steamboat Willie gets close to passing out of copyright, Disney buys an extension of the copyright term. (This ignores the fact that there is no commercial value to that particular movie, and the Mickey Mouse character is still protected by trademark law, so no one could make a new movie with him in it without running into trouble.) What I have never been able to understand is how they could get a copyright on an existing work extended, since the Constitutional language is about encouraging authors. How does extending the copyright on something that's already been made encourage making it? The prohibition against ex post facto laws should prevent such shenanigans; you can neither encourage nor discourage past behavior, so Congress isn't supposed to have the power to try doing so.
But I'm too damn logical to be a lawyer.
-
djgoku -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Leo Mauler -
Monty J. Harder