Pornography: The secret history of civilization
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco
From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 17:55 On 28 apr, 23:19, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-28 13:43:25 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > > > > > > On 28 apr, 21:40, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-04-28 10:39:21 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >>> I believe in the universal declaration of human rights and that > >>> clearly grants me the right to share and exchange information freely > >>> (*). > > >> Maybe so, but you are not sharing information, you are stealing > >> intellectual property. > > > I'm ignoring spurious intellectual property claims. > > >>> A nazi cockroach like you obviously fails to respect the universal > >>> declaration of human rights. > > >>> (*)http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19 > > >> You don't seem to understand what you have cited. > > >> There is nothing in Article 19 say it is OK to steal anything. > > > People never take anything away on p2p networks.. they only duplicate > > and exchange bit-strings and hence there is no stealing involved > > whatsoever. > > >> As a matter of fact you seem to have ignored several other Article in > >> your treasured document, try Article 23(3); > >> "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration > >> ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human > >> dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social > >> protection." > >> ...but you don't work, you just steal, so you wouldn't know anything > >> about that. > >> and Article 17(2); > >> "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." > >> I guess you didn't read that one. > > >> So it seems you remain a thief, and violator of your Universal > >> Decloration of rights. > > >> -- > >> Regards, > > >> Savageduck > > > You just keep regurgitating the same old bullshit that has been > > refuted time and again, > > No. This is your document and Decloration of Human Rights you are > violating, not me. My opinion regarding copyright is not in contradiction with the UDHR. It's not that I deny artists rights, it's just that human rights listed higher on the list take precedence in importance. Hence the freedom to exchange information freely (when all bitstrings would belong to the public domain) is more important than the right of artists to make a living based on their creative skills. That doesn't mean that the freedom to exchange information freely detracts in any way from the right of artists to make a living based on their creative skills. It just means that you have to come up with a fair system (e.g. via taxation on information) that ensures that people who contribute valuable new content, should expect to receive a fair financial compensation that allows them to make a living. Valuable new content doesn't imply any monetary value of the content, it might just as well mean that many people find the content useful and hence share and exchange it online. Think of the value of a public library for society, that offers free access to information to anyone, rich and poor and as much as they like. This power can be amplified massively by simply using the internet for what it was designed to do, that is, to share information freely, in order to exploit the full potential of information technology. There is no reason to assume that this necessarily means that nothing will ever be created anymore, as there are obviously myriad alternative ways to ensure there is a financial compensation for people who create new content and we can obviously do it in a far superior way than the current extremely moronic and spastic attempts to extend the misery of outdated business models that are way past their 'best before' date. > > > so you are not just a nazi cockroach, you're also stuck in a loop. > > > There is no intellectual property.. all bit-strings belong to the > > public domain. > > ...er no. > > > > > I'm not denying that people who create new content should be > > financially compensated for their efforts, that's why I'm all in favor > > of taxing information and improving the system (making it more > > transparent and uniform) that is supposed to distribute some or all of > > these taxes amongst people who contribute new content. > > Unfortunately that is not the way it is. Just because something has > been posted in violation of the terms of agreement, does not make the > public domain. That is an entirely diffrent issue. That is the way it is where I'm living. > > > > > Where I live, I pay taxes on information > > Maybe, show us the Netherlands tax code which states that, not your > interpretation of that tax code. "Share" that information with us. There is a tax on blank media like CDRs and DVDRs. http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/ "Voor welke dragers is een vergoeding verschuldigd Per 5 november 2007 gelden de volgende tarieven: Blanco analoge videoband: EUR 0,33 per uur Blanco analoge audioband (cassetteband): EUR 0,23 per uur Blanco digitale MiniDisc: EUR 0,32 per uur Blanco digitale audio CD-R/RW: EUR 0,42 per uur Blanco digitale data CD-R/RW: EUR 0,14 per disc Blanco DVD-R/RW: EUR 0,60 per 4,7 gigabyte Blanco DVD+R/RW: EUR 0,40 per 4,7 gigabyte Blanco DVD-RAM: is vrijgesteld" This tax is intended to compensate for people who download things like music and movies for personal use and is supposed to be distributed amongst 'rightsholders'. There are rumors that they want to abandon this system and criminalize all filesharing, so it seems the war on information waged in the USA is spilling over to Europe. > > > and I'm legally allowed to > > copy things like movies, pictures, music, etc.. for personal use, > > regardless of the legality of the source I obtain it from. > > I believe you are wrong on that point. Again show us the Netherlands > Law which states that, not your interpretation of the Law. http://www.iusmentis.com/p2p-filesharing/ "het downloaden van muziek en films is voor strikt eigen gebruik legaal." Downloading music and movies for strictly personal use is legal. > > > > > You might be living in a fascist police state where people are not > > allowed to do this, but that is your problem, not mine. > > ...er no. > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Apr 2010 23:22 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 28 apr, 19:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >All digital information can be duplicated indefinitely free from >> >additional costs and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is >> >infinite, regardless of the demand. >> >> Thieves and criminals often justify their crimes by insisting that >> their stealing doesn't hurt anyone. >> >> "All [money] can be duplicated indefinitely free from additional costs >> and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is infinite, regardless of >> the demand." >> >> Thus the criminal justifies stealing from the local bank, or justifies >> stealing billions from the government, or stealing the work of >> hundreds of people. >> >> Of course, moral people see the gaping flaws in such an argument. >> The thief expects OTHER people to pay to have the "digital >> information" so he doesn't have to. �If nobody pays for that "digital >> information" then it simply would not exist. �On the upside, we would >> no longer have to listen to the self-serving bullshit of a crook. > >Bullshit. Oooo! Impressive rationalization! > Money has been carefully designed to prevent people from >being able >to duplicate it indefinitely free from additional costs. So your argument is that it's okay to steal whatever you CAN steal? >> >The price of things is a way to indicate it's relative scarcity (based >> >on economic laws of supply and demand) and digital information simply >> >isn't scarce. >> >> But you're not stealing just "digital information". �You're stealing >> very specific information that costs millions of dollars to produce. > >That's irrelevant. The rationalization of the crook - simply ignore any inconvenient fact. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Atheist Chaplain on 28 Apr 2010 23:44 "Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote in message news:qmjgt516chipmdppovpsim7vstb9svkaf0(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:15:50 +1000, "Atheist Chaplain" <abused(a)cia.gov> > wrote: > >> >>Now just sit back and tell me why you hate your father, is it because he >>made you swallow his semen? or because he always went first when you gang >>banged your mother?? > > It is interesting that you would project these thoughts of yours to the > whole world. Are these the kind of thing that you think of all the time, > or > just a few times a day? > > It's rather amazing where people's minds go sometimes. Always revealing > their own crippled and twisted psyche and nobody else's. > Ahh the old "projection" ploy :-) Nym shifting Trolls like yourself tell us a lot more about the human psyche than anything I may throw around as an insult. Where does this constant need for destructive attention come from, are you so un-happy with your lot in life that you have to seek, no CRAVE attention in all its forms even the negative, do you feel so worthless that you must garner any kind of feedback to somehow bolster your flagging ego. I'm sure you will now attempt to turn this back on me as that is one of your more recognizable and successful methods of bolstering your low esteem, by pretending that you are somehow better than those you bait, we all see through this, and contrary to what you probably expect most people actually pity or are reviled by you rather than look up to you. Just be yourself for a change, you never know, people might actually like you for you rather than dislike you for trying to be someone your not. -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi
From: sobriquet on 29 Apr 2010 01:36 On 29 apr, 05:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 28 apr, 19:22, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >All digital information can be duplicated indefinitely free from > >> >additional costs and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is > >> >infinite, regardless of the demand. > > >> Thieves and criminals often justify their crimes by insisting that > >> their stealing doesn't hurt anyone. > > >> "All [money] can be duplicated indefinitely free from additional costs > >> and hence the price must be 0 as the supply is infinite, regardless of > >> the demand." > > >> Thus the criminal justifies stealing from the local bank, or justifies > >> stealing billions from the government, or stealing the work of > >> hundreds of people. > > >> Of course, moral people see the gaping flaws in such an argument. > >> The thief expects OTHER people to pay to have the "digital > >> information" so he doesn't have to. If nobody pays for that "digital > >> information" then it simply would not exist. On the upside, we would > >> no longer have to listen to the self-serving bullshit of a crook. > > >Bullshit. > > Oooo! Impressive rationalization! > > > Money has been carefully designed to prevent people from > >being able > >to duplicate it indefinitely free from additional costs. > > So your argument is that it's okay to steal whatever you CAN steal? Your argument is that rights are only for people or corporations who have the money to back up legal threats, like a typical nazi cockroach. Your imaginary intellectual property claims are spurious and they can safely be ignored. The fact that you talk about 'stealing' when people are sharing information is incontrovertible evidence of the fact that you are a nazi cockroach. If we follow your line of reasoning, people who read books for free at the library are thieves just the same. > > >> >The price of things is a way to indicate it's relative scarcity (based > >> >on economic laws of supply and demand) and digital information simply > >> >isn't scarce. > > >> But you're not stealing just "digital information". You're stealing > >> very specific information that costs millions of dollars to produce. > > >That's irrelevant. > > The rationalization of the crook - simply ignore any inconvenient > fact. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net You're a nazi cockroach who selectively responds to whatever suits your nazi cockroach outlook on things. The discussion is there for everyone to see and everybody can witness your fascist discussion tactics.
From: Twibil on 29 Apr 2010 01:44
On Apr 28, 1:55 pm, D.J. <nocont...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > > > Precisely why the corporations want to have full control over information.. Ah! Just like the governments and the churches then. > They even want to make public libraries illegal. That's new one. KIndly provide a reputable cite. > They dictate what can be taught in universities too. Well, no, that's what we call "a lie". > If there are no corporate grants for that subject it won't be taught. Alas for you; not even close to being true. Ya see, I taught for 12 years at the University of California -and my best buddy there was Assistant to the Chancellor during that same period- so I got to hear all the UC scuttlebutt right from the horse's mouth. That means that I would have at least *heard* about such a startling development if it were it true. And it isn't. |