Envisioned idea of the Internet and the birth of the WWW

[larky 40]

 

 

 

"you thought wrong. The envisioned idea of the internet was "to have open and free access to all sorts of information", an idea which never included that which belonged to someone else (e.g. movies/tv shows/services for which the ownership is with the rights holders)

 

Obviously we need to intervene on this.

 

There is no such thing as owning the copies of an original work of your mind or the original abstract idea itself in any legal framework of any country in the world.

 

The above is a fantastic invention of some disturbed minds, a deception which has then been amplified by popular belief and ignorance.  What you probably mean is the concept of copyright, which is a special grant to monopoly rights to distribute and limit access to an original mind work (originally for censorship and control purposes). The intellectual monopoly (also improperly known as intellectual "property", another deceptive definition which is precisely meant to add confusion between a granted by a government monopoly and natural ownership rights) is limited in time and most legal frameworks also specify precise exceptions under which such monopoly is not granted.

 

Assuming that an original work of mind is a property of anybody or any entity is an atrocious monstrosity which has never been (and probably will never be) implemented in any legal framework in the history of humankind.

 

Sorry for the incidental off topic, but as you can imagine if you read the "story" about how AirVPN was born you can understand why we are physically unable to not fix such arguments when we see them in our community forums.

 

Kind regards

 

concept of copyright is to what I was referring, if that's what you want to call it. I thought it was clear enough with the "movies/tv shows/services" which are owned for purposes of distribution or sale by the copyright holders or their licensee's. Sorry if that was not clear. Things that people/services offer for sale and not for free. I was also referring to other products such as those sold by on line retailers (collectively "services" which can include many different products). By the way, an "original work of mind" can be owned by someone, people buy and sell such things all the time, for example, book collectors buy books all the time that are "original work of mind" and they then legally own that "original work of mind" in the form of the book. Although the envisioned idea of the internet was "to have open and free access to all sorts of information", the idea never included that which belonged to someone else (e.g. movies/tv shows/services for which the ownership is with the rights holders.). So despite the wording you posted about "intellectual property", the reality of it is if they can charge money to get access to it and have the rights to it they essentially own it (for profit/distribution).

 

In context with the OP post to which i originally implied that, the "to have open and free access to all sorts of information" means to openly and freely access as in unrestricted access to the 'net', not that it means you have a right to get things which are owned by others and are not free.

 

is there something wrong with the forum or is it me? When I edit a post to correct something, anything I quoted in the post is suddenly un-quoted.

 

"There is no such thing as owning the copies of an original work of your mind or the original abstract idea itself in any legal framework of any country in the world."

 

Hmmm, that's not correct in reality and its a philosophical concept. Its in the laws of just about in every country of the world, the concept is even enshrined in the U.S. constitution. The concept has been around since man first discovered trading or bartering with his neighbors. The concept is today collectively referred to as "right of ownership". The right of ownership can be conveyed by gift, license/contract, purchase, possession in some cases. For example, a movie studio makes a movie, the writers who work on that movie contribute their "original work of mind" and a script is born, the movie is made using that script and by contract or by virtue of the writer being an employee of the studio (employee work product) the movie studio owns that "original work of mind" in the script and the movie.

 

by the way I removed the "you thought wrong" part in my post after thinking about it some earlier this morning. He wasn't wrong with what he posted because that was the envisioned idea "to have open and free access to all sorts of information". The idea just doesn't include things which are not free and if there is a rights holder with the licenses to sell or distribute that item its still not free even though it may appear on sites that offer it for free. Its like saying the idea of a gated community is to have "open and free access to all sorts of property of others" - if a rights holder has the license and rights its their property right to sell and distribute so they essential own it because the right to sell or distribute is legally an ownership right (given to them by license). The idea that "information wants to be free and that includes copyrighted material" is one of legal semantics and concepts in specifics only and not reality for everything.

[serenacat 83]

@larky

Unfortunately I cannot reference an authorative history of the Internet, and it is too big a topic to expand and debate here. The World Wide Web based on HTML as a layer on top of Internet Protocol standards and deployment dates from the late 80s from CERN in Europe as a technology for publishing scientific information in text and diagrams, and has evolved common standards to this day, see https://www.w3.org/

 

I can agree that the current capital investment which makes the Internet widely available for private, corporate and government use is mainly driven by corporate profit seeking. But there is still a major driver from government for broad national productivity and social development in many nations, the USA being notable for control by corporate interests and uneven access and usage by local business and individuals.

 

We need to separate intellectual property / copyright from involvement of the WWW and Internet technology. The printing press and use was beyond the "pirate publishing" on paper in places like Hong Kong, ditto the photocopier, and cassette tape, and video tape, and CDRom. Although "piracy" was a part of the market in all cases.

 

This is the "Off Topic" section, and this sort of text publishing is very cheap on resources, so no harm done with our different viewpoints.

[larky 40]

actually we do not have different main viewpoints. We have the same main viewpoint but are addressing it from different directions. Mine was how the internet today as we know it began. Yours is the use of the internet as we know it today.

 

yes, the World Wide Web we know today as the internet based on HTML as a layer on top of Internet Protocol standards. deployment dates of standards CERN used from the late 80s from CERN in Europe as a technology for publishing scientific information in text and diagrams, but that was still with discreet networks and not the Internet we know today. There are evolved common standards concepts to this day yet even CERN has involvement input from commercial interests and always has. If you look at standards today and explore some you see commercial interests all over them, for example, Microsoft and Google hosts workshops and have a big influence over the standards of the internet we know today and their own personnel have input over what will go and does not go and that is based upon their companies desires.

 

In 1989, while working at CERN, Tim Berners-Lee invented a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. In 1990 Tim Berners-Lee developed the "internet" concept with the first web server and the first web browser (called WorldWideWeb (no spaces) and later renamed Nexus), he is credited with being the creator of the World Wide Web we use today. To make the Internet we know today needed money and resources, those came from the commercial interests and today we have the Internet we know.

[pj 72]

Hi,

 

I split these messages from the "PayPal" thread for clarity since they have nothing to do with the PayPal argument.

 

I was there (I mean, I was at CERN while the WWW protocols were "deployed" and the WWW started to grow outside the initial NeXT web server in 1992) so it's always intriguing to read how those events have been perceived from the outside world and how they are narrated today. I definitely think this argument deserves its own thread.

 

Kind regards

[larky 40]

(i would not call it an 'argument', its just a discussion )

 

 

According to the Internet Society ( https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet/ )

 

 

(excerpts below)

 

"Origins of the Internet"

1961 = "Leonard Kleinrock at MIT published the first paper on packet switching theory in July 1961 and the first book on the subject in 1964. Kleinrock convinced Roberts of the theoretical feasibility of communications using packets rather than circuits, which was a major step along the path towards computer networking."

 

1962 = "The first recorded description of the social interactions that could be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R. Licklider of MIT in August 1962 discussing his “Galactic Network” concept. He envisioned a globally interconnected set of computers through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any site."

1966 = "In late 1966 Roberts went to DARPA to develop the computer network concept and quickly put together his plan for the “ARPANET”, publishing it in 1967. At the conference where he presented the paper, there was also a paper on a packet network concept from the UK by Donald Davies and Roger Scantlebury of NPL.

1968 = "In August 1968, after Roberts and the DARPA funded community had refined the overall structure and specifications for the ARPANET, an RFQ was released by DARPA for the development of one of the key components, the packet switches called Interface Message Processors (IMP’s). The RFQ was won in December 1968 by a group headed by Frank Heart at Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN). As the BBN team worked on the IMP’s with Bob Kahn playing a major role in the overall ARPANET architectural design, the network topology and economics were designed and optimized by Roberts working with Howard Frank and his team at Network Analysis Corporation, and the network measurement system was prepared by Kleinrock’s team at UCLA."

 

(my note = the "DARPA funded community" was the U.S. Military and goverment and those commercial interests and universities who worked on government projects.)

 

1969 = "Due to Kleinrock’s early development of packet switching theory and his focus on analysis, design and measurement, his Network Measurement Center at UCLA was selected to be the first node on the ARPANET. All this came together in September 1969 when BBN installed the first IMP at UCLA and the first host computer was connected. "

1970 = "Computers were added quickly to the ARPANET during the following years, and work proceeded on completing a functionally complete Host-to-Host protocol and other network software. In December 1970 the Network Working Group (NWG) working under S. Crocker finished the initial ARPANET Host-to-Host protocol, called the Network Control Protocol (NCP)."

 

(my note = "Network Control Protocol (NCP)" would later be an idea basis upon which the 'Internet Protocol" was originally based)

 

1972 = "In October 1972, Kahn organized a large, very successful demonstration of the ARPANET at the International Computer Communication Conference (ICCC). This was the first public demonstration of this new network technology to the public. It was also in 1972 that the initial “hot” application, electronic mail, was introduced."

 

The Initial Internetting Concepts

 

"The original ARPANET grew into the Internet. Internet was based on the idea that there would be multiple independent networks of rather arbitrary design, beginning with the ARPANET as the pioneering packet switching network, but soon to include packet satellite networks, ground-based packet radio networks and other networks. The Internet as we now know it embodies a key underlying technical idea, namely that of open architecture networking."

 

(my note = "The original ARPANET grew into the Internet" as it was at that time, which was not what evolved from all this into the Internet we know today. The ARPANET proved the technical idea of "open architecture networking" on wide scale was possible and viable, its that "open architecture networking" concept derived from ARPANET that founded the Internet basis we know today widespread Infrastructure)

 

1985 = "In 1985, Dennis Jennings came from Ireland to spend a year at NSF leading the NSFNET program. He worked with the community to help NSF make a critical decision – that TCP/IP would be mandatory for the NSFNET program. When Steve Wolff took over the NSFNET program in 1986, he recognized the need for a wide area networking infrastructure to support the general academic and research community, along with the need to develop a strategy for establishing such infrastructure on a basis ultimately independent of direct federal funding. Policies and strategies were adopted to achieve that end."

 

(my note = this "TCP/IP" for the NSFNET program was the ancestor forerunner of the TCP/IP Internet Protocol used today)

 

"NSF also elected to support DARPA’s existing Internet organizational infrastructure, hierarchically arranged under the (then) Internet Activities Board (IAB). The public declaration of this choice was the joint authorship by the IAB’s Internet Engineering and Architecture Task Forces and by NSF’s Network Technical Advisory Group of RFC 985 (Requirements for Internet Gateways ), which formally ensured interoperability of DARPA’s and NSF’s pieces of the Internet."

 

 

1994 = "In 1994, a National Research Council report, again chaired by Kleinrock (and with Kahn and Clark as members again), Entitled “Realizing The Information Future: The Internet and Beyond” was released. This report, commissioned by NSF, was the document in which a blueprint for the evolution of the information superhighway was articulated and which has had a lasting affect on the way to think about its evolution. It anticipated the critical issues of intellectual property rights, ethics, pricing, education, architecture and regulation for the Internet.

 

NSF’s privatization policy culminated in April, 1995, with the defunding of the NSFNET Backbone. The funds thereby recovered were (competitively) redistributed to regional networks to buy national-scale Internet connectivity from the now numerous, private, long-haul networks."

 

(my note = with the privatization, thus began the commercial interests involvement so things would build out which became the Internet manifestation we know today. Up until privatization fully kicked in the government was funding. "private, long-haul networks" are the commercial interests, private in the sense that they belong to the commercial interests which were the only ones with the funding and resources to build out into what we know today as the Internet.)

 

"In 1969 a key step was taken by S. Crocker (then at UCLA) in establishing the Request for Comments (or RFC) series of notes. These memos were intended to be an informal fast distribution way to share ideas with other network researchers. At first the RFCs were printed on paper and distributed via snail mail. As the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) came into use, the RFCs were prepared as online files and accessed via FTP. Now, of course, the RFCs are easily accessed via the World Wide Web at dozens of sites around the world. SRI, in its role as Network Information Center, maintained the online directories. Jon Postel acted as RFC Editor as well as managing the centralized administration of required protocol number assignments, roles that he continued to play until his death, October 16, 1998.

 

The effect of the RFCs was to create a positive feedback loop, with ideas or proposals presented in one RFC triggering another RFC with additional ideas, and so on. When some consensus (or a least a consistent set of ideas) had come together a specification document would be prepared. Such a specification would then be used as the base for implementations by the various research teams.

Over time, the RFCs have become more focused on protocol standards (the “official” specifications), though there are still informational RFCs that describe alternate approaches, or provide background information on protocols and engineering issues. The RFCs are now viewed as the “documents of record” in the Internet engineering and standards community."

 

(my note = "standards" of RFC's are the standards used for making the Internet work.)

 

(end excerpts from the Internet Society - below this is other source)

 

There is a difference between the "World Wide Web" and the "Internet", these are:

 

A. The World Wide Web (WWW) is an information space where documents and other web resources are identified by URLs, interlinked by hypertext links, and can be accessed via the Internet. The World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, he created a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept, in 1990 he wrote the first web browser called WorldWideWeb (later renamed Nexus to avoid confusion between the World Wide Web and the web browser), while employed at CERN in Switzerland. The first website in the world, at CERN, was dedicated to the World Wide Web project itself and was hosted on Berners-Lee's NeXT computer. The World Wide Web (WWW) was originally conceived and developed to meet the demand for automatic information-sharing between scientists in universities and institutes around the world. In 1994, Berners-Lee founded the W3C at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It comprised various companies that were willing to create standards and recommendations to improve the quality of the Web. Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. The World Wide Web Consortium decided that its standards should be based on royalty-free technology, so that they easily could be adopted by anyone"

 

(my note = the companies are a combination of various commercial and non-commercial interest entities)

 

B. The Internet is a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols, via which the World Wide Web operates. The Internet beginnings were with ARPANET. Commercial interests built out the internet into what we know today.

 

Although the "World Wide Web (WWW)" and the "Internet" are different things technically today in common usage they have become synonymous in a practical usage manner.

[pj 72]

 

(end excerpts)

 

In 1989, while working at CERN, Tim Berners-Lee invented a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. In 1990 Tim Berners-Lee developed the "internet" concept with the first web server and the first web browser (called WorldWideWeb and later renamed Nexus), he is credited with being the creator of the internet we use today (browsing places, html) (but not as the inventor of the internet).​ The first web site was built at CERN. However, the internet beginnings were with ARPANET even though there was parallel work being conducted. 

 

Hi,

 

where does this piece come from? It doesn't appear from the Internet Society, since it's written below the end of excerpts, apparently.

 

It should be fixed because it fuels a confusion between the Internet and the WWW. As a secondary side note, it does not take into account the difference between internet and the Internet (maybe just a typo or old habits).

(my note = this "TCP/IP" for the NSFNET program was the ancestor forerunner of the TCP/IP Internet Protocol used today)

 

Oh no, both the Transmission Control Program (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP) are the same we rely on today. Remember that NSFNET started operations in 1986 so TCP/IP had been already extensively tested since more than a decade before and enforced as standard suite in ARPANET four years before, in 1982.

 

Kind regards

[larky 40]

 

 

 

yes pj, you are correct.

 

I'm sorry, some of that comes from wikipedia. I had links inserted there but for some reason the forum does not show them in that paragraph. The "(browsing places, html) (but not as the inventor of the internet)" and "However, the internet beginnings were with ARPANET even though there was parallel work being conducted. " parts are mine to distinguish from the use part (Tim Berners-Lee) with the architecture part (ARPANET) in a collective manner from collective sources. I tried to separate it out but i'm having some sort of weird problem with the forum which would not let me post that separate for some reason so I just included it in there. I had links inserted for the wikipedia and other parts but for some reason they do not show up. I'll try to get it straight later.

 

yes, "internet and the Internet" =  typo and old habits

 

later when I get away from my work systems and back to my personal systems i'll try to correct it again.

 

edit: Ok Pj, got it corrected to what I had originally intended to post before the issues I had with the forum and had to greatly shorten it as a result. Does that pretty much clarify it?

[larky 40]

 

@Pj

 

"Oh no, both the Transmission Control Program (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP) are the same we rely on today. Remember that NSFNET started operations in 1986 so TCP/IP had been already extensively tested since more than a decade before and enforced as standard suite in ARPANET four years before, in 1982.

 

 

Kind regards"

 

I was saying that about the "TCP/IP" for the NSFNET program because it was not as wide spread then as what we have today and it was changed. The development of the protocol was originally funded by the United States Department of Defense through DARPA. When the time for privatization during the NSFNET program came along it underwent some changes to remove defense department traces, and that put in for defense department requirements, when government funding was dropped. So although its basically still the same we rely on today in purpose and function, that used with the NSFNET program, and with the ARPANET,  is not the same as what we have today thus its the ancestor forerunner of the TCP/IP Internet Protocol used today.  

[pj 72]

So although its basically still the same we rely on today in purpose and function, that used with the NSFNET program, and with the ARPANET,  is not the same as what we have today thus its the ancestor forerunner of the TCP/IP Internet Protocol used today.  

 

Hi,

 

with ARPANET of course a lot of distinctions must be made, for example during experiments before 1974 or so (for sure before RFC 675 at least), or the major breakthrough in 1977 with TCPv2, but the TCP/IPv4 suite adopted by NSFNET in 1986 is exactly what we use today for the specifications, up to IPv4 (remember that IPv4 was defined definitively and formally in 1983, and I stress again that this is the suite chosen by NSFNET).

 

You can verify yourself and have some fun by connecting to "the Internet" now (I mean right now, today) some machine of the second half of the 80ies with their own TCP/IP stack implementation, for example a VM/CMS or an Amiga or a Unix based one (or even an OS/2 machine if I remember correctly).

 

The systems-oriented implementations of the stack have been refined, debugged and so on, that's obvious, but the specs to be respected are just the same and there's no incompatibility as far as I can see (and the practical and successful experiments with those old TCP/IP stacks support me ). The main revolutions we have had on the subject since 1986 are on protocols at different layers, on the work of ICANN, IANA etc. to optimize the wild growth, not on the core of TCP/IP. Probably the next major shift will be with IPv6.

 

So despite the wording you posted about "intellectual property", the reality of it is if they can charge money to get access to it and have the rights to it they essentially own it (for profit/distribution).

 

This is incidental but in my opinion this is again a wrong approach, the rights with exceptions to a granted monopoly are completely different than the right to own an original work of mind or an idea (and actually the legal frameworks around the world that I know agree with me)! And even under a pragmatic and practical point of view, so we can intermix both subjects, it looks like you raise the issue of the applicability of a granted monopoly in a world where technology makes some laws impossible to be effectively enforced. I mean a law maker can even push and have a law which enforces circles to become squares approved, but in the physical world those circles will remain circles, careless of any law pretending to force them to be squares.

 

By the way let's see the thoughts and opinions of other persons, if they want to jump in, I don't want to get a monopoly on the discussion.

 

Kind regards

pj

[larky 40]

"...where technology makes some laws impossible to be effectively enforced"

 

That's just a matter of wording when it comes down to it. The laws written now were written at a time prior to the technology of today, with the stroke of a pen that can change.

 

"...it looks like you raise the issue of the applicability of a granted monopoly..."

 

Not really, its the same "ownership rights" concept thing that has been just applied differently. "ownership rights" have been around for a long time, wayyy before the internet, wayy before you or I were even born, wayyy before our parents were even born and even wayyy before that. You call it "granted monopoly" but it really isn't, there is just more of trying to enforce an entity "ownership rights" because of the internet so it makes it seem as if there is some sort of "granted monopoly". As I posted before; "Its in the laws of just about in every country of the world, the concept is even enshrined in the U.S. constitution. The concept has been around since man first discovered trading or bartering with his neighbors. The concept is today collectively referred to as "right of ownership". The right of ownership can be conveyed by gift, license/contract, purchase, possession in some cases. For example, a movie studio makes a movie, the writers who work on that movie contribute their "original work of mind" and a script is born, the movie is made using that script and by contract or by virtue of the writer being an employee of the studio (employee work product) the movie studio owns that "original work of mind" in the script and the movie."

[pj 72]

Not really, its the same "ownership rights" concept thing that has been just applied differently. "ownership rights" have been around for a long time,

Let's clarify once and for all the fact that copyright (by definition) is not ownership so that the thread can move on from this junk.

• Ownership of a good implies possession and property, copyright grants the exclusive right to copy (and some derivative rights which have nothing to do with ownership of a good)
• ownership infringement implies theft, unavailability of the stolen item. Copyright infringement does not make the original work unavailable, it implies infringement of the exclusive right to copy a work. In general, it is not possible to make a work unavailable by making copies of it (quite the contrary, actually)
• ownership infringements are treated by law about this specific subject (theft, subtraction etc.). Copyright infringements are treated by totally different law, exactly because copyright infringement can not be treated in any way as a theft
• ownership of something is (in most legal frameworks) an important right, even a constitutional right in some country. Copyright is not a human right in any charter and is not a constitutional right in any constitutional chart
• ownership is perpetual and can be passed over inside the succession assets at the death of the owner, copyright is not perpetual and can not "hic et nunc" be included in the succession assets

Practical example: let's say that your original work of mind can be represented by the number "1001" (yes, numbers can not be copyrighted, but a file is a huge number and the law makers are unable to understand the paradox). In other words, this number is the effect of an original work of mind of yours (let's say a digital piece of music).

 

You have no ownership on the number 1001, but you have the exclusive right to copy it. So, if I write on some other computer or reproduce in some way your number 1001, I have not broken ownership of number 1001 (because there is no such thing, you can't own/possess a number, and, more importantly, when I write "1001" you still have availability of number 1001), but I do have infringed your right to copy, because you are the only one authorized by your country laws to make a copy or authorize anybody else to copy "1001".

 

Now, to re-link one of the cores of the thread, the computers have rendered writing numbers of billions of digits an easy and quick task, just like it's easy to write "1001" on a piece of paper, hence the problem on enforcing and protect the right to copy (according to major labels and other entities, the right to copy is infringed more or less routinely by a billion of persons, i.e more than 1/7th of the human population).

 

Kind regards

[larky 40]

 

Not really, its the same "ownership rights" concept thing that has been just applied differently. "ownership rights" have been around for a long time,

Let's clarify once and for all the fact that copyright (by definition) is not ownership so that the thread can move on from this junk.

• Ownership of a good implies possession and property, copyright grants the exclusive right to copy (and some derivative rights which have nothing to do with ownership of a good)
• ownership infringement implies theft, unavailability of the stolen item. Copyright infringement does not make the original work unavailable, it implies infringement of the exclusive right to copy a work. In general, it is not possible to make a work unavailable by making copies of it (quite the contrary, actually)
• ownership infringements are treated by law about this specific subject (theft, subtraction etc.). Copyright infringements are treated by totally different law, exactly because copyright infringement can not be treated in any way as a theft
• ownership of something is (in most legal frameworks) an important right, even a constitutional right in some country. Copyright is not a human right in any charter and is not a constitutional right in any constitutional chart
• ownership is perpetual and can be passed over inside the succession assets at the death of the owner, copyright is not perpetual and can not "hic et nunc" be included in the succession assets

Practical example: let's say that your original work of mind can be represented by the number "1001" (yes, numbers can not be copyrighted, but a file is a huge number and the law makers are unable to understand the paradox). In other words, this number is the effect of an original work of mind of yours (let's say a digital piece of music).

 

You have no ownership on the number 1001, but you have the exclusive right to copy it. So, if I write on some other computer or reproduce in some way your number 1001, I have not broken ownership of number 1001 (because there is no such thing, you can't own/possess a number, and, more importantly, when I write "1001" you still have availability of number 1001), but I do have infringed your right to copy, because you are the only one authorized by your country laws to make a copy or authorize anybody else to copy "1001".

 

Now, to re-link one of the cores of the thread, the computers have rendered writing numbers of billions of digits an easy and quick task, just like it's easy to write "1001" on a piece of paper, hence the problem on enforcing and protect the right to copy (according to major labels and other entities, the right to copy is infringed more or less routinely by a billion of persons, i.e more than 1/7th of the human population).

 

Kind regards

 

 

Hmmmm...

 

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-ownership/

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html

and...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ("Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution" - my note: - my note: that's an ownership right)

 

"Ownership

The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire".^[20] For example, in English law the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that if a copyrighted work is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a "Work for Hire". Typically, the first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work i.e. the author.^[21][21] But when more than one person creates the work, then a case of joint authorship can be made provided some criteria are met."

 

yes, by definition copyright is ownership.

 

But... you are right about moving on. I have an idea, why don't you delete the posts between you and I concerning copyright from the thread, that way it will be more for the topic as intended. I don't object to you removing my posts in this thread for that reason.

[pj 72]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ("Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution" - my note: - my note: that's an ownership right)

 

"Ownership

The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire".^[20]

 

You will not get saved by this trick. Ownership of the rights to copy a work is NOT an ownership right on the work. Wikipedia correctly mentions ownership of copyright, not ownership of the work.

 

Check you language because the two things are completely different. You clearly meant the second one (which is not copyright) in your first messages, and (incredibly, if you allow me) you still confuse the two things on the above sentence.

 

 

But... you are right, lets move on.

 

If you can't recognize the above, trivial evidence, anything built on wrong assumptions is pointless and a waste of time. Only once you have understood what copyright is you can go deeper on how you can or can't prevent people to rewrite a number and reflect on even more exciting issues.

 

Kind regards

[larky 40]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ("Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution" - my note: - my note: that's an ownership right)

 

"Ownership

The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire".^[20]

 

You will not get saved by this trick. Ownership of the rights to copy a work is NOT an ownership right on the work. Wikipedia correctly mentions ownership of copyright, not ownership of the work.

 

Check you language because the two things are completely different. You clearly meant the second one (which is not copyright) in your first messages, and (incredibly, if you allow me) you still confuse the two things on the above sentence.

 

 

/>

>But... you are right, lets move on.

 

If you can't recognize the above, trivial evidence, anything built on wrong assumptions is pointless and a waste of time. Only once you have understood what copyright is you can go deeper on how you can or can't prevent people to rewrite a number and reflect on even more exciting issues.

 

Kind regards

 

 

that was a little rude I wasn't trying to pull any "trick", just trying to be more complete and cover the spread a little for purposes of discussion.

 

take a look at the other links, maybe this one > https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html >

 

"(a) Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

( Works Made for Hire.—In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright."

 

and all the rest there. That is an ownership right on the work. All you are talking about is "prevent people to rewrite a number" and keeping in that aspect. I'm looking at what really is. You said "that copyright (by definition) is not ownership" yet it is ownership by definition. Clearly you have some very set views and opinions, I do not object to that and am not trying to persuade you otherwise but you pick on just one thing and call it a "trick" and "wrong assumptions" yet ignore the rest in the other links I posted which outline ownership right on the work as without the work there would be no copyright. Your views do not mean its an absolute for the totality of the reality, and neither do mine, yet you are stating it as though its a command from God or something and that's the only thing you will consider. Sorry if I upset you, you seem to have gotten a little upset. Like I said before, I suggest removal of the copyright discussion from this thread.

 

By the way, sounds stupid but how do I PM you, can't find anything that will let me. wanna tell you something concerning the discussion on TCP/IP.

[serenacat 83]

"Ownership of the rights to copy a work is NOT an ownership right on the work."

Tiptoeing into the minefield and crevasses of legalities ...

A "real world" example for me is with intellectual property (copyright) on the work of a musician. If I copy a DVD where rights have been contracted to Big Music, I am infringing on that legal construct. If I record on my mobile phone a live performance and share a copy I am infringing on a right of the artist, which is allowed by such contract, but is a "right" of the original creator and somehow implicit with being in the bar paying (extra) for drinks.

 

"Ownership" seems a very socially defined construct, with change over time, and much social dispute. The entire continent of Australia was claimed as a "possession" of the British Crown and Empire, including all humans with ancestry back 50000 years. Those "subjects" consistently treated "their" land and spirit as "possessing" their tribal/language group over many generations with little tribal expansion conflict or domination.

I dare not even mention by name the parties to conflict over "ownership" and "possession" in the Levant.

[pj 72]

"(a) Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

( Works Made for Hire.—In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright."

 

and all the rest there. That is an ownership right on the work.

 

In the above quote, italic is mine.

 

If you can't see the difference between owning the copyright in the work and owning a work we have a language problem.

 

Owning a right on something is semantically a totally different thing than owning something. In the first case, someone owns some right in something. In the second case, someone owns something. See my previous reply https://airvpn.org/topic/24133-envisioned-idea-of-the-internet-and-the-birth-of-the-www/?do=findComment&comment=66787 for more detailed reasons which are copyright-specific.

 

 

"Ownership of the rights to copy a work is NOT an ownership right on the work."

Tiptoeing into the minefield and crevasses of legalities ...

 

Indeed the legal frameworks on copyright have become quite complex (even because entire law firms got specialized on intellectual monopolies issues: the higher the complexity, the higher they earn money usually), but in this case the matter is very simple. Just consider that the laws pertaining to enforcement of copyright have nothing to do and are completely separated from the laws pertaining to theft, for example. Or, just think about this: a copyright infringement without business purposes is a civil infringement, while theft is a criminal offense.

 

One of the main reasons for which you need a specific set of laws for copyright, another one for patents etc., is that it would be logically flawed to treat a right to a set of monopolies as an ownership of something.

 

The matter would become even ridiculous if the concept of ownership would extend perpetually to an idea.

 

The main purpose of copyright is promoting social progress, not to dictate that an idea is perpetually owned (ownership is perpetual and is also a succession asset) by the first one who claims to have had that idea. Promotion of social progress through copyright, although debatable, is theoretically granted by several limitations and exceptions to copyright: for educational purposes, fair use / fair doctrine, and the important concept (expressed firmly in the Berne convention and clarified by US courts initially and nowadays commonly accepted in every international treaty and in every national legal framework) that copyright can only protect the artist's expression of his/her work and not the ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in it (see for example the references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright ).

 

While I agree with you, serenacat, that ownership of a physical object can be a social construct and that it can be enforced by the party with the strongest army, there's no doubt that copyright has nothing to do with ownership of an idea and the factual info conveyed in it, whatever the construct of ownership of a physical thing is in any given historic period or society.

 

Kind regards

[Arrh 0]

@pj

 

Maybe you need to stop fixing larky absurdities, you got already decommissioned all of them convincingly.

 

Rather I ended up in here fascinated by your suggestion of a "paradox", as you named it. I think you wanna say that in the digital age copyright has been silently assumed to be extended to certain magic numbers. Logically if the assumptions are correct I can see the paradox. But if the conclusion on some premise is "paradoxical", first of all I want to check the premises. So let me check your assumptions. You write:

"numbers can not be copyrighted, but a file is a huge number"

 

Yes, if a file is a number, then all those prosecutions (persecutions?) of guys and gals p2p-ing and torrenting must have silently assumed that the number those guys copied was protected by copyright, but... how come that a file is a number?

[pj 72]

Yes, if a file is a number, then all those prosecutions (persecutions?) of guys and gals p2p-ing and torrenting must have silently assumed that the number those guys copied was protected by copyright, but... how come that a file is a number?

 

 

Hi,

 

a file is in any computer memory an ordered sequence of two different states, an "up" and a "down" state, that you can identify (even physically) with "0" and "1" labels. So the file is unequivocally defined as an ordered sequence of digits or anyway symbols. Then you have a bijection between the set of all the existing files and a subset of the natural numbers, which is evidently the case here. Ergo, the set of files is a numeral system and any file is a number. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system

 

Kind regards

[OmniNegro 155]

As others may have already said while I overlooked, just try getting the original TCP to work with IPv6 at all. Personally, I never bought into IPv6, and found it a sad state at the best of times, but it does get around the problems it was designed to circumvent. I for one still think that UDP and IPv4 is a better combo for most telecommunications Humans do these days. And I can wait for the next standard to replace IPv6 entirely.

[jean claud 45]

 

"you thought wrong. The envisioned idea of the internet was "to have open and free access to all sorts of information", an idea which never included that which belonged to someone else (e.g. movies/tv shows/services for which the ownership is with the rights holders)

 

Obviously we need to intervene on this.

 

There is no such thing as owning the copies of an original work of your mind or the original abstract idea itself in any legal framework of any country in the world.

 

The above is a fantastic invention of some disturbed minds, a deception which has then been amplified by popular belief and ignorance.  What you probably mean is the concept of copyright, which is a special grant to monopoly rights to distribute and limit access to an original mind work (originally for censorship and control purposes). The intellectual monopoly (also improperly known as intellectual "property", another deceptive definition which is precisely meant to add confusion between a granted by a government monopoly and natural ownership rights) is limited in time and most legal frameworks also specify precise exceptions under which such monopoly is not granted.

 

Assuming that an original work of mind is a property of anybody or any entity is an atrocious monstrosity which has never been (and probably will never be) implemented in any legal framework in the history of humankind.

 

Sorry for the incidental off topic, but as you can imagine if you read the "story" about how AirVPN was born you can understand why we are physically unable to not fix such arguments when we see them in our community forums.

 

Kind regards

concept of copyright is to what I was referring, if that's what you want to call it. I thought it was clear enough with the "movies/tv shows/services" which are owned for purposes of distribution or sale by the copyright holders or their licensee's. Sorry if that was not clear. Things that people/services offer for sale and not for free. I was also referring to other products such as those sold by on line retailers (collectively "services" which can include many different products). By the way, an "original work of mind" can be owned by someone, people buy and sell such things all the time, for example, book collectors buy books all the time that are "original work of mind" and they then legally own that "original work of mind" in the form of the book. Although the envisioned idea of the internet was "to have open and free access to all sorts of information", the idea never included that which belonged to someone else (e.g. movies/tv shows/services for which the ownership is with the rights holders.). So despite the wording you posted about "intellectual property", the reality of it is if they can charge money to get access to it and have the rights to it they essentially own it (for profit/distribution).

 

In context with the OP post to which i originally implied that, the "to have open and free access to all sorts of information" means to openly and freely access as in unrestricted access to the 'net', not that it means you have a right to get things which are owned by others and are not free.

 

is there something wrong with the forum or is it me? When I edit a post to correct something, anything I quoted in the post is suddenly un-quoted.

 

"There is no such thing as owning the copies of an original work of your mind or the original abstract idea itself in any legal framework of any country in the world."

 

Hmmm, that's not correct in reality and its a philosophical concept. Its in the laws of just about in every country of the world, the concept is even enshrined in the U.S. constitution. The concept has been around since man first discovered trading or bartering with his neighbors. The concept is today collectively referred to as "right of ownership". The right of ownership can be conveyed by gift, license/contract, purchase, possession in some cases. For example, a movie studio makes a movie, the writers who work on that movie contribute their "original work of mind" and a script is born, the movie is made using that script and by contract or by virtue of the writer being an employee of the studio (employee work product) the movie studio owns that "original work of mind" in the script and the movie.

 

by the way I removed the "you thought wrong" part in my post after thinking about it some earlier this morning. He wasn't wrong with what he posted because that was the envisioned idea "to have open and free access to all sorts of information". The idea just doesn't include things which are not free and if there is a rights holder with the licenses to sell or distribute that item its still not free even though it may appear on sites that offer it for free. Its like saying the idea of a gated community is to have "open and free access to all sorts of property of others" - if a rights holder has the license and rights its their property right to sell and distribute so they essential own it because the right to sell or distribute is legally an ownership right (given to them by license). The idea that "information wants to be free and that includes copyrighted material" is one of legal semantics and concepts in specifics only and not reality for everything.

Art, Sciences,  and all forms of knowledge  should (must) be Open Source it was the libertarian philosophy of Internet at its beginning before it was perverted by merchants now comfortably installed in the place

[larky 40]

@jean claud

 

 

Art, Sciences,  and all forms of knowledge  should (must) be Open Source. it was the libertarian philosophy of Internet at its beginning before it was perverted by merchants now comfortably installed in the place

hmmmm, there was no "libertarian philosophy" of Internet (or the WWW) at its beginning. It was purely technical, scientific, need, and "demand" focused at the beginnings. The beginning of the Internet was based on the idea that there would be multiple independent networks of rather arbitrary design, beginning with the ARPANET as the pioneering packet switching network based upon an open architecture networking. The World Wide Web (WWW) was originally conceived and developed to meet the demand for automatic information-sharing between scientists in universities and institutes around the world. There was never anything in the beginnings of either that was based upon the concept that "Art, Sciences,  and all forms of knowledge  should (must) be Open Source" - that is a philosophical concept that was applied later based upon a, as you put it, "libertarian philosophy" that all that stuff should be, as you put it, "open source". The reality of it is, despite the philosophical argument otherwise, that those things are not automatically "open source" simply because they exist (although some are) on the Internet or WWW and, again despite the philosophical argument otherwise, it is possible for a work of mind to be owned legally and its done legally every day.

 

Even AirVPN exercises legal ownership rights over "work of mind". AirVPN does it by charging money for use of the AirVPN service and having a Terms Of Service. If no one can own a "work of mind", and as you put it "Art, Sciences,  and all forms of knowledge should (must) be Open Source", as the philosophical arguments put forth then why is there an AirVPN service Terms Of Service outlining "LIMITATION OF LIABILITY", "LIMITATION OF DAMAGE", "SEVERABILITY", and "GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION" and a "TERMINATION OF SERVICE" clause in the Terms Of service and why does the Terms Of Service even exist for the AirVPN service and why do they charge money for use of the service when all those are specifically expressed natural possession and legal ownership rights which encompass the "work of mind" for the AirVPN service?

 

Even putting something out there on the Internet (WWW) that is, as you put it "open source", by the creator of that "work of mind" is an act of natural possession and legal ownership rights.

 

Simply because the philosophical arguments put forth these things are not "owned", it does not mean that they are not owned because they are as an act to make it available by the originating source is an expression of ownership form over that "thing" even if its offered for free with no limitations.

 

If you, or anyone here in the AirVPN forums, makes posts those are expression of "original work of mind", yet the AirVPN staff can decide if those posts are suitable for their forum and remove those if they wish and in doing so they are exercising an ownership right because they own the forums. So if an original "work of mind" can not be "owned" then why is the AirVPN staff able to remove posts that are the expression original "work of mind" of the posters? Its because they exercise an ownership right to do so and in doing so exercises an ownership right over that post expression of original work of mind.  

 

(note: this is not intended as a critique of the AirVPN service or the owners/operators of AirVPN, its intended as an example only.)

 

Now, on to this point of "original work of mind". I argued previously counter to pj's argument which was that an "original work of mind" can't be owned. There is a difference between an "idea" and "original work of mind", they are not the same thing. Basically; there is actually no such thing as the term/phrase "original work of mind" but rather its a very uncommon (almost rare) worded expression of an abstract philosophical concept that comes up from time to time and bounced around in some circles collectively implying or affirming the expression of "idea" in some manner or via some medium, and is an 'invented' term used to argue or discuss that sometimes makes its way into other things such as discussions or writing or even in some cases legal formats of some type. An "original work of mind" can be owned, a "work of mind" (or more or correctly "work of the mind" for individuals vs collective) is usually the expression of that minds "idea" into some medium (i.e. written or visual form) and if that medium is owned then the "original work of mind" is also owned. Its the "idea" behind that "original work of mind" that can't be normally owned.

[jean claud 45]

Larky, I agree with you, Internet is born of a military project. The idea was to allow to continue to use a network even if a part of it was destroyed.
Then was created the ancestor of the net: Arpanet. It is a first network created in 1969 to connect American universities.
But then with the hippie movements and libertarian philosophy of the 70s, the internet has become a tool of sharing and hope for internationalist freedom and free knowledge. That's when I was referring to

[Staff 9973]

Even AirVPN exercises legal ownership rights over "work of mind".

 

We do what?! Check your facts please.

 

 

AirVPN does it by charging money for use of the AirVPN service and having a Terms Of Service.

 

 

Are you trolling or what? What does this have to do with "ownership rights on a work of mind" (your words, whatever they mean - since it's plainly not possible to own a work of mind)?

 

You pay to enter and use our service, if you are not eligible for a free access. To say it all, please be informed: there is no copyright (just in case you meant "copyright" with "ownership rights", looking back at your previous messages) not even in our software, which is released under GPLv3, or on the VPN servers, which run tools and script, written by us or not, under GPLv2, GPLv3, BSD licenses, and everything runs in some free and open source OS. What's more, Eddie developers are constantly improving usability of Eddie (the Air client software) with other VPN services.

 

Kind regards