Klarinet Archive - Posting 000266.txt from 2009/02

From: Tom Puwalski <tski1128@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Fair Use
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:23:40 -0500

Is it just me or does this whole exchange just seem really stupid?
Copyright infringement suits all boil down to one thing, how much the
copyright holder feels the alleged violator has impacted on them
financially. If you copy a part that you bought for your own use, you
haven't really impacted anyone financially so while it might not be
legal, you most likely wouldn't get sued. Xerox the all the parts to
a commission your middle school band purchased, and sell illegal
copies, you might have a problem. In both cases you would be writing
the lawyer a check up front.
Tom Puwalski, the artist formerly known as Sarge who spent 20 years
in an Army band watching some incredibly ignorant people try real
hard to fake intelligence

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:14 AM, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> At 9:49 PM -0600 2/11/09, Michael Nichols wrote:
>> The first problem is that there is no way to prove A. You can prove
>> "not A" by finding a case, but just because you haven't found a case
>> doesn't mean there isn't one. But if you do find a case (so "not A"
>> is true), then who cares whether A implies B, because it's premise
>> about a universe that doesn't exist.
>
> Yes, and we can discuss forever how many angels dance on the head of
> a pin too. Practically speaking, I'm sure if there was a case, one
> of the copyright facists on the list here would have mentioned it by
> now.
>
>> The problem is that, assuming that you could prove A, your
>> statement A
>> -> B is valid if and only if B is also true. That's because
>>
>> A -> B
>>
>> is equivalent to
>>
>> (not A) or B [you can look this up in any introductory book on
>> symbolic logic if you don't believe me]
>
> [SNIPPED because it is all a carbon copy repetition of things I
> already posted in previous messages!!!!!!]
>
> Yes, if you would read my posts before responding to them, you would
> see that I already stated all this!
>
> At 8:32 PM -0500 2/11/09, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
>> This means, "If A is true then B is true." This is logically
>> equivalent to saying either A is not true or B is true.
>>
>> If this statement is FALSE then A must be true and B must be false.
>
>
>> That means that A -> B is useless to you as a premise for arguing
>> that
>> B is true, because if A is true, you have to prove B is true just to
>> establish that A -> B is even valid as a premise.
>
> A->B is not a premise. It is a statement. For the umpteenth time.
> Read before you respond!
>
> Definite of PREMISE:
> A proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
> A basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
>
> "A" could be considered a PREMISE if we assume that it is true,
> which I do. "A" in your words is "X has never been adjudicated a
> copyright violation".
>
> A->B is NOT a premise. It is a statement. A->B is not a premise. It
> is a statment. A->B is NOT a premise. It is a statement.
>
>> Incidentally, just because you can't prove something is false, that
>> doesn't make it true. Truth and provability are not one and the
>> same.
>> Ever heard of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem?
>
> Yes, and as usual, it is yet another complete irrelevancy. Goedel's
> Theorem says that no set of axioms can be both complete and
> consistent. IRRELEVANT!!!
>
>
> I'll simplify my statement further for you, so we can calculate the
> number of angels on the pin more accurately...
>
> If X has never (to the best of anyone's knowledge that is currently
> active in this discussion on this list) been adjudicated as a
> violation of the law, then X is very likely NOT illegal.
>
> So to prove this wrong you would have to show me some X for which
> nobody currently active in this discussion knows a case, and yet X
> is illegal.
>
> But wait....to determine if X is illegal, it has to be adjudicated.
> Hmmm. Then there must be a case somewhere. Hmmmm. Can't find one.
> Hmmmm.
>
> Gee whiz....
>
> Logic. Sorry. I know it's taxing on the mind.
>
> --
> Jonathan Cohler
> Artistic & General Director
> International Woodwind Festival
> http://iwwf.org/
> cohler@-----.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
> https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------