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: Jerry Stuckle on 21 Oct 2009 22:11 NotMe wrote: <snip> > > It has become obvious this guy is living in a fantasy land. He obviously has no life outside of his computer; most probably a loner with no friends who has no concept of reality. And he thinks everything should be his for free, no matter what it cost the creator to develop it. I would highly suggest just dropping this. He'll keep on with his fantasies as long as he has an audience. It's the only way he can get the attention he craves. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: NotMe on 21 Oct 2009 22:20 � 2 0 0 8 a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d ; n o p o r t i o n o f t h i s p o s t m a y b e u s e d a n y w h e r e e l s e o r a r c h i v e d w i t h o u t w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18LrMykAG/6AIFe78gkI+GGnaDXwQLCOUl3S3+2GiL0yA== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091021-0, 10/21/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:X2DbXY3ILxZ8KpQVmYlReSz13YI= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4902 rec.photo.digital:34870 "sobriquet" : : Spoken like a corporate fascist who is misguided enough to think that : copyright is the only possible way to ensure people will be motivated to create : new information. : All I'm saying is that information must be free because of the nature : of information technology. Copyright is the most moronic way to ensure there is an : incentive to create new things and taxation on information would be a : far more sensible, fair, practical and effective way. : The only way to exploit the full potential of information technology, : would be to completely abolish copyright in its current form and start : from scratch with a more realistic and practical interpretation of the : notion of authorship and its implications. : Human creativity is 99% parasitism (on the ideas of people long dead : and gone) and 1% inspiration anyway. : The pool of information (knowledge and culture) in the public domain : is necessarily far more useful and vast than all the proprietary information, as the pool of : public domain stuff only grows as things can only go from being : copyrighted to being in the public domain after a limited period. : But even the copyrighted information is freely accessible in most : modern societies. : Usually you can simply walk into a library and read books all day for : free (the real-life equivalent of downloading things online for free). : Only a corporate fascist would accuse such people of being a thief : because they read books for free instead of buying books and : supporting the author. The library (or someone on their behalf) paid for the books and can loan out additional copies to the extent they have purchased additional copies. You'll notice the copy machines have notices outlining the limits that excerpts can be copies. This in the USA I don't know how the process is handled in other countries. I'm still asking how you propose to refresh the pool "of information (knowledge and culture) in the public domain" is to be refreshed when the well spring of new ideas dries up. Basically how many times do you think you'll be entertained by another running of Disney's "Steam Boat Willie"?
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 22:27 On 22 okt, 04:07, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:209e0748-5b2a-4603-a103-bebbade10064(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > On 22 okt, 02:25, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:ac3618ef-1731-4329-9f56-da3c238acbc7(a)h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > > : On 22 okt, 01:15, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > : > "sobriquet" > > : > : > > : > : It used to be effective for that purpose, when there were only > > centralized > > : > publishers who benefited from copyright as a means of protection > > against > > : > unfair competition from other publishers. > > : > > > : > : At this point with decentralized publishing on the web, where > > : > : everybody can publish and distribute things equally effectively, the > > : > : traditional purpose of copyright has been completely > > : > : lost > > : > > > : > I presume you're aware of the adage that one can't sell from an empty > > wagon. > > : > > > : > Once the information wagon is empty where do you propose to source new > > : > information for your free mart? > > : > > : That's why it's important to tax information and to device a fair > > : system of distributing those taxes amongst people who create new things. > > : Copyright is completely ineffective, so by getting rid of it, we > > : improve the situation right away but we might as well maintain > > : copyright until a fair system of taxation is implemented which can > > : replace copyright as a means to ensure that people who come up with > > : new content can earn an income in this fashion so they can devote > > : their time to their creative passion. > > : In practice, there is no copyright on the internet as 99% of the > > : people who exchange information online tend to ignore copyright issues > > : (the bulk of online communication concerns data on filesharing > > : networks). > > : > > : At this point there are so many opportunities to automate work, that > > : nobody should feel forced to work for a living and the government can > > : provide an unconditional income for free. > > : This means that people can devote their time to their hobby or > > : passion, regardless whether or not they earn any money with their > > : activities. Because there is more than enough material wealth and > > : technological ingenuity that the production of basic necessities > > : (food, clothing, shelter and internet) can be fully automated. > > > You've been reading too many utopian space cadet dime novels. Not even > > Ashmoe's wildest works went that far. > > > An aside you've still not answered the question where you propose to > > source > > new information for your free mart? Hint: magic is not a valid response > }You're sorely mistaken if you think the universe revolves around work > > and making a living. > > Life revolves around expenditures of effort and energy for which the various > entities gain a return on their investment. Those with a net gain live > those with a net loss die. > > }Money might disappear in the near future when we have > > nanotechnology or other revolutionary innovations which allow us to > duplicate physical commodities as easily as bitstrings. > > Yea and if pigs had wings etc. > > }This might sound like science fiction to people who don't follow > > technological developments, but if you would have told people 100 > years ago about the technology we have today (like lasers, microwaves, > cellphones, gps, and computers) they would consider these claims > deluded fantasies from people who have been reading too may science > fiction novels. > > You're not talking science fiction but economic fantasy. > > }So 10, 50 or 100 years from now, who knows what amazing new inventions > > the scientists will have concocted? But it's unlikely that money will > play a significant role in the future as society gradually begins to > revolve around information instead of money. > > I was born before the atomic age and can well remember the claims made for > 'unlimited energy' and energy so cheap it would not be metered. > > Wind energy may be free but the gen sets and turbines cost a fortune. > > I repeat: you've still not answered the question where you propose to > source new information for your free mart? Hint: magic is not a valid > response > > Last how do you propose to realistically fund the R&D for these wondrous > nanotechnologies?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - I have answered your question in detail (hint: tax information), but it seems there is a big slab of concrete stuck on your forehead that makes it difficult for you to read the answers people provide to your questions.
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 22:38 On 22 okt, 04:20, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > "sobriquet" > : > : Spoken like a corporate fascist who is misguided enough to think that > : copyright is the only possible way to ensure people will be motivated to > create > : new information. > > : All I'm saying is that information must be free because of the nature > : of information technology. Copyright is the most moronic way to ensure > there is an > : incentive to create new things and taxation on information would be a > : far more sensible, fair, practical and effective way. > > : The only way to exploit the full potential of information technology, > : would be to completely abolish copyright in its current form and start > : from scratch with a more realistic and practical interpretation of the > : notion of authorship and its implications. > > : Human creativity is 99% parasitism (on the ideas of people long dead > : and gone) and 1% inspiration anyway. > > : The pool of information (knowledge and culture) in the public domain > : is necessarily far more useful and vast than all the proprietary > information, as the pool of > : public domain stuff only grows as things can only go from being > : copyrighted to being in the public domain after a limited period. > : But even the copyrighted information is freely accessible in most > : modern societies. > > : Usually you can simply walk into a library and read books all day for > : free (the real-life equivalent of downloading things online for free). > : Only a corporate fascist would accuse such people of being a thief > : because they read books for free instead of buying books and > : supporting the author. > > The library (or someone on their behalf) paid for the books and can loan out > additional copies to the extent they have purchased additional copies. When I download things for free, there is tax on the blank media I buy (at least in the Netherlands where I'm living), to compensate for the fact that it's perfectly legal for me to download most things (movies, books, music, etc..) for personal use for free. So likewise, the creators of all that material are being paid because the tax on blank media is distributed among such rightholders. > > You'll notice the copy machines have notices outlining the limits that > excerpts can be copies. This in the USA I don't know how the process is > handled in other countries. In the Netherlands it's perfectly legal to copy a copyrighted book for free (regardless of whether the copy you obtain is from an acquaintance or the local library). > > I'm still asking how you propose to refresh the pool "of information > (knowledge and culture) in the public domain" is to be refreshed when the > well spring of new ideas dries up. > > Basically how many times do you think you'll be entertained by another > running of Disney's "Steam Boat Willie"? By taxing information and distributing the taxes among people who create new things, exactly like they are already doing (at least where I'm living) to compensate for copyright infringement (that doesn't necessarily conflict with the law, except in case of software which happens to form an exception to the rule that people are allowed to copy things for personal use).
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 22:42
On 22 okt, 04:10, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > [..] > you can duplicate nonsense forever and even with an infinite multiplier it's > still worthless. Same goes for the mindless drivel promulgated by corporate fascists in support of the intellectual property mafia. |