The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: sobriquet on 20 Oct 2009 07:03 On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>[..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..] > > >IPR is a figment of your lively imagination. > >All people with any understanding of information technology and a > >tight budget can simply download everything > >for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement. > > And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed > by the state? > > Eric Stevens The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food, clothing, shelter and internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange for money. There are ample opportunities to let robots, machines and computers do all of the work and the few jobs that can't be automated yet can be done by people who are willing to work for a little extra luxury. Such an unconditional free income will ensure that people can always follow their passion and devote time to something they think is worthwhile and that's the best way to motivate people to contribute something to society. Money has lost most of it's relevance and significance now that culture can be digitized for the most part, since there is no sensible way to associate money with information in digital form in a meaningful way (given that the monetary value of an item is a measure for its relative scarcity). Money itself is just as much of a relic of the past as copyright.
From: J. Clarke on 20 Oct 2009 08:32 sobriquet wrote: > On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet >> >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>> [..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..] >> >>> IPR is a figment of your lively imagination. >>> All people with any understanding of information technology and a >>> tight budget can simply download everything >>> for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement. >> >> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed >> by the state? >> >> Eric Stevens > > The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food, > clothing, shelter and > internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange > for money. And where does the money to pay for this unconditional basic income come from? > There are ample opportunities to let robots, machines and computers do > all of the work and > the few jobs that can't be automated yet can be done by people who are > willing to work for > a little extra luxury. So where can I buy a robot plumber or a robot electrician or a robot carpenter or a robot dentist or a robot motorcycle mechanic? Or are you saying that a few people willing to work for a little extra luxury can handle that work for the entire society? > Such an unconditional free income will ensure that people can always > follow their passion > and devote time to something they think is worthwhile and that's the > best way to motivate people > to contribute something to society. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Worked real well for the Soviet Union and China. How old are you, about 19? > Money has lost most of it's relevance and significance now that > culture can be digitized for the most part, since there is no sensible > way to associate money with information in digital form in a > meaningful way (given that the monetary value of an item is a measure > for its relative scarcity). > Money itself is just as much of a relic of the past as copyright. And yet it seems that many companies are making large amounts of it selling digitized products, so perhaps there is something wrong with your hypothesis.
From: sobriquet on 20 Oct 2009 10:14 On 20 okt, 14:32, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>>> [..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..] > > >>> IPR is a figment of your lively imagination. > >>> All people with any understanding of information technology and a > >>> tight budget can simply download everything > >>> for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement. > > >> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed > >> by the state? > > >> Eric Stevens > > > The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food, > > clothing, shelter and > > internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange > > for money. > > And where does the money to pay for this unconditional basic income come > from? If you have robots that can build and maintain themselves from scratch, you don't need any money to finance production costs. Such robots can produce and maintain everything needed to provide free food, housing, clothing, etc. I'm talking about the basics, not a huge mansion with swimming pool and 3 cars on the driveway. More like a room with a bed and a desk so you have a roof over your head and food in the fridge. > > > There are ample opportunities to let robots, machines and computers do > > all of the work and > > the few jobs that can't be automated yet can be done by people who are > > willing to work for > > a little extra luxury. > > So where can I buy a robot plumber or a robot electrician or a robot > carpenter or a robot dentist or a robot motorcycle mechanic? Or are you > saying that a few people willing to work for a little extra luxury can > handle that work for the entire society? Robots are rapidly improving and soon they will be able to do anything a human can do, except more reliably, faster and better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJJQ0zNNOM&fmt=18 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPoANTKo5kA&fmt=18 > > > Such an unconditional free income will ensure that people can always > > follow their passion > > and devote time to something they think is worthwhile and that's the > > best way to motivate people > > to contribute something to society. > > From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Worked > real well for the Soviet Union and China. How old are you, about 19? Nobody is suggesting that private property shouldn't be allowed anymore. I'm not saying that everything is free and that people should be allowed to grab whatever they fancy from any shop. I'm just saying that it's not a crime to duplicate and exchange bitstrings and that people can't claim ownership of bitstrings, no matter how long these bitstrings are. Just like you can't claim ownership of DNA sequences, even if you create them yourself and you are the first person to create it. I'm just saying *intellectual* private property is nonsense. You can't put a bitstring on a CD and put it in a box and sell it. Well, you can do that, and you can include a license, but nobody will take the license serious when they can simply share and exchange the bitstring with other online collectors of bitstrings and the license stipulates that it isn't allowed. > > > Money has lost most of it's relevance and significance now that > > culture can be digitized for the most part, since there is no sensible > > way to associate money with information in digital form in a > > meaningful way (given that the monetary value of an item is a measure > > for its relative scarcity). > > Money itself is just as much of a relic of the past as copyright. > > And yet it seems that many companies are making large amounts of it selling > digitized products, so perhaps there is something wrong with your > hypothesis. If they can, that doesn't detract from the fact that they can't effectively prevent people from accessing their products for free online via p2p networks. That might just mean that there are sufficiently many people interested in the product who have enough cash that they might as well buy it as the most convenient way to obtain it (compared to downloading it online for free which is often more of a hassle and less reliable as far as quality goes). But when a product is commercially available and a significant number of people purchase it, that also means that people are going to share it with others for free on p2p networks, probably mostly people who wouldn't have bought it if they didn't have free access to it via p2p networks. Just like the fact that being able to read books all day at the library for free doesn't imply that nobody will ever buy any books anymore. Same with the internet. You can download virtually everything for free online with a little effort, but that doesn't mean that nobody is going to buy anything anymore. But in the future it's likely that information will no longer be bought and sold but shared freely, just like we are now having a free discussion without any financial transactions taking place to make this discussion possible. We're just exchanging conflicting ideas, opinions and views, but it would be silly to start selling and buying arguments or points of view. Likewise it's equally silly and absurd to sell and buy bitstrings. You can do it, but it is extremely unpractical and it's a can of worms in terms of the problems you create by taking this approach. It's far more sensible to consider all bitstrings to be part of the public domain. Then people can still sell bitstrings, but they can't claim ownership of bitstrings (apart from the bitstrings they have on media which are in their physical possession) as they get distributed. They can only claim authorship and that might entitle them to some recompense for their creative efforts in the form of an allotted share of collected taxes imposed on online information (in proportion to the relative popularity of their creations on the web).
From: Eric Stevens on 20 Oct 2009 18:04 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:54:54 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 20 okt, 06:12, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:52:33 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet >> >> >> >> >> >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 19 okt, 10:26, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >> >> On 18 Oct 2009 18:00:22 GMT, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> >NotMe <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >> >>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >> >> >>: Twibil �<nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>: >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >>: >> >> >> >>: >> >> >> >>: >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. >> >> >>: >> >> >> >>: >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >> >> >>licensable >> >> >>: >> photo isn't ridiculous? >> >> >>: > >> >> >>: >Hmmm. �So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >> >> >>: >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. >> >> >>: >> >> >>: The actual owner HAS set a value. �They demand far more. �It looks >> >> >>: like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. >> >> >> >>Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. �One party asks for more >> >> >>(sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. � The >> >> >>court makes a judgment on what equitable. >> >> >> >"I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll >> >> >screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." >> >> >> >But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. >> >> >> The more you write, the more you sound like a self-righteous thief. >> >> >> Eric Stevens >> >> >You sound like a fascist cockroach. >> >> Calling me names will not alter the situation. >> >> Eric Stevens > >Suggesting people who share and exchange information are thieves isn't >achieving anything either. We are talking about a situation where somebody shared and exchanged information which they had uplifted from the original creator with either asking permission or telling them. This is very different from voluntary sharing and exchange. >So perhaps if you refrain from the thievery accusations, people like >me will refrain from calling you names. If you 'share' any of my images without asking me I will call you a thief. Eric Stevens
From: Eric Stevens on 20 Oct 2009 18:07
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:03:44 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet >> >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >>[..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..] >> >> >IPR is a figment of your lively imagination. >> >All people with any understanding of information technology and a >> >tight budget can simply download everything >> >for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement. >> >> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed >> by the state? >> >> Eric Stevens > >The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food, >clothing, shelter and >internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange >for money. From where does the state get the resources for the "unconditional basic income (for food, clothing, shelter and internet)"? >There are ample opportunities to let robots, machines and computers do >all of the work and >the few jobs that can't be automated yet can be done by people who are >willing to work for >a little extra luxury. Should they be paid, or is it morally acceptable to just take their work product? > >Such an unconditional free income will ensure that people can always >follow their passion >and devote time to something they think is worthwhile and that's the >best way to motivate people >to contribute something to society. > >Money has lost most of it's relevance and significance now that >culture can be digitized for the most part, since there is no sensible >way to associate money with information in digital form in a >meaningful way (given that the monetary value of an item is a measure >for its relative scarcity). >Money itself is just as much of a relic of the past as copyright. Eric Stevens |