Pornography: The secret history of civilization
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco
From: John McWilliams on 28 Apr 2010 00:48 sobriquet wrote: > My justification to call you guys nazi's for falsely accusing me of > theft is equally justified as your justification to call me a thief > for infringing copyright. They are not parallel. You're free to express your opinion, call us nazis, whatever, but you are simply wrong about your not being a thief. -- lsmft
From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 06:41 On 28 apr, 12:38, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 28 apr, 12:30, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > You do realise that when someone offers a file as a torrent that they don;t > > put > > it on the internet don't you ? In that it stays on their local machine only > > the torrent > > file goes on the 'internet' > > Wrong. They just share it temporarily, but as soon as enough > distributed copies are available, they can stop sharing and the people > downloading can combine their partial copies to obtain a complete > version and as long as new downloaders become available regularly, > there is no need for anyone to share a complete copy as a seeder. A few typos corrected for clarity.
From: whisky-dave on 28 Apr 2010 06:47 "Atheist Chaplain" <abused(a)cia.gov> wrote in message news:4bd7c522$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > Justify it however you like, it is still stealing regardless of the method > used. This isn;t really true. if you loko at the law and when theft became against the law it goes back to biblical times when theft was in Jewish law IIRC . Theft happens when one person takes something belonging to someone else and that person loses it. The important part in theft is that someone has loose something for theft to take place and that something has to be physical. Imagine taking a photo of someone that believes that a photo represents the persons soul. So you've now stolen their soul according to them so you're a thief. If I give a copy of photoshop to my cat , Adobe immediately sees this as theft and that they will loose say �400. The trouble is they haven't lost �400 because they haven't paid for the production of a CD/manual and any other costs involved, they aren't supporting my cat with on-line help either, so I'm not sure how they cost their loses, but they seem to assume everyone that has an illegal copy loses the the full retail price for that product. The interesting thing is just how much do they loose or gain by piracy. One important thing to note is that the company that makes the most profut from software (microsoft) is alos the most pirated.
From: whisky-dave on 28 Apr 2010 07:06 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1497672f-4bf4-4bfa-8fb8-ced35b263ed6(a)j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > You're forgetting one important point. Those people have given permission > for their work to be shared. Others have only given limited permission. > Still others require payment of some sort for any use of their work. Just > because it is on the internet is no ticket - no free access to that > property. Hence, the frequent "terms of use" you see on websites. }So where are people supposed to check if a bitstring happens to be the }intellectual property of somebody? Sometimes they're called read me, or UELA or some license agreement. Nowadays they can be found on-line. }People can manipulate information at home and add or remove spurious }intellectual property claims as they see fit and share the manipulated }content online. They can but that doesn't make it valid. Just liemk you can add a zero to a dollar bill or UK pound but does thatr make it worth 10X more }Or is it just a matter of the people with the most cash who can }exploit the legal system to their advantage, so they can exert some }control over the bitstrings they produce, whereas individual artists }who are struggling to make a living can't expect to remain in control }of their creations once they have made them public? The more you're worth the more control you have, or is that should have. }The public domain is under constant threat from corporate nazi scum }who have been stretching the limits of copyright to ever more absurd }degrees, at the expense of the interests of the general public. If there's money in it, it'll get done. }At this point, people have been brainwashed by so much propaganda, you }can expect people to stop thinking soon, I thought they had. ;-)
From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 07:22
On 28 apr, 13:06, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1497672f-4bf4-4bfa-8fb8-ced35b263ed6(a)j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > You're forgetting one important point. Those people have given permission > > for their work to be shared. Others have only given limited permission. > > Still others require payment of some sort for any use of their work. Just > > because it is on the internet is no ticket - no free access to that > > property. Hence, the frequent "terms of use" you see on websites. > }So where are people supposed to check if a bitstring happens to be the > }intellectual property of somebody? > > Sometimes they're called read me, or UELA or some license agreement. > Nowadays they can be found on-line. Nobody ever reads those.. those are for corporate scum who have money to spend on legal assistance to decipher them. > > }People can manipulate information at home and add or remove spurious > }intellectual property claims as they see fit and share the manipulated > }content online. > > They can but that doesn't make it valid. > Just liemk you can add a zero to a dollar bill or UK pound > but does thatr make it worth 10X more With banknotes, it's easy to tell if people have added one or more zeros. With digital information, there is no easy way to tell if an accompanying copyright notice is genuine or fake. > > }Or is it just a matter of the people with the most cash who can > }exploit the legal system to their advantage, so they can exert some > }control over the bitstrings they produce, whereas individual artists > }who are struggling to make a living can't expect to remain in control > }of their creations once they have made them public? > > The more you're worth the more control you have, or is that should have. I think the worth is also something that has to do with the relative scarcity of an item. A unique oil painting is usually worth more than a digital artwork, regardless of the artistic qualities involved in those works, because of the nature of the medium used to create the artwork. > > }The public domain is under constant threat from corporate nazi scum > }who have been stretching the limits of copyright to ever more absurd > }degrees, at the expense of the interests of the general public. > > If there's money in it, it'll get done. Making money at the expense of the interests of the general public is unethical. > > }At this point, people have been brainwashed by so much propaganda, you > }can expect people to stop thinking soon, > > I thought they had. ;-) Most likely.. it seems they don't have a mind of their own, capable of independent critical thought. |