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 25 Oct 2009 01:33 On 25 okt, 05:30, "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAMT...(a)aww-faq.org> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 25 okt, 03:24, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> Music and software piracy tracking has almost become an art form > > >> w.. > > > Yeah, sort of like how the Nazis made an art form out of human rights > > violations. > > Ooooh, the NAZI's. I'm invoking Goodwin's Law on this thread. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law > "...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet > discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is > finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" > whatever debate was in progress." > > Though I suppose it'll take more than that to put this thread out of its > misery. > -- > Red Godwin is the most frequently employed cop out by nazis to silence a discussion when the fascism in their opinion is exposed.
From: Alfred Molon on 25 Oct 2009 05:06 In article <4ae26669$0$1624$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer says... > >Do you believe that the thief, > > "Guilty until proven innocent". Guilty because caught in flagrante delicto with the photo on his site. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040-8080, E-series DRLRs forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: Eric Stevens on 25 Oct 2009 05:32 On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:30:01 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 25 okt, 06:11, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >Once somebody has obtained a piece of software (regardless whether >> >they bought >> >it or downloaded it), they can create a duplicate for their friends >> >out of thin air. >> >They might be infringing copyright when people help each other out >> >like that, but it's not >> >theft, as nothing is being taken away, but rather, something is being >> >added (another copy). >> >> Similarly, emptying your bank account and transferring the funds to >> mine would not take anything away from you since only some numbers >> would be changed. >> >> -- >> Ray Fischer � � � � >> rfisc...(a)sonic.net � > >Likewise the government can create money out of thin air. They can >as much of it as they like, which can change the value of your money. >So your money in the bank is just an abstract number and the value >depends on many factors. > >Also, when you have money in the bank, the bank can suddenly go >bankrupt and some or all your money can go up into thin air. >So the moral of the story is that your money is not safe in the bank >and it might be better to invest it in something that is more likely >to retain it's value (like gold). >Money is simply not a very secure investment. It's better to invest in >education, as money can suddenly lose it's value (inflation) or go up >in smoke when the financial system crashes. >They can't take away your ideas .... But you have already made clear that ideas of are no value as, as far as you are concerned, people are free to take them away and make use of them as they see fit. :-( > ... or mental skills so easily (compared >to taking away your property or affecting your financial situation). Eric Stevens
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 07:16 On 25 okt, 10:24, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:23:58 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > > > > > <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 25 okt, 00:59, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:41:53 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [..] > >> >My argument was that copyright is for fascist cockroaches. > >> >People who support copyright are scum, on par with the Nazis because > >> >they disrespect human rights. > > >> As you respect the right of people to own/control the use of their own > >> work? > > >Tell me where I can find something about intellectual property in the > >universal > >declaration of human rights. > > >http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ > > Not very bright, are you? > > Try Article 17 > > " * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as > in association with others. > * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." > That doesn't concern intellectual property. Besides, copyright infringement doesn't involve depriving people of their intellectual property. It just involves reproduction or distribution of information in a fashion that the original creator of the work doesn't agree with. But the act of copyright infringement doesn't involve depriving the original creator of his or her creation. They can keep a copy of their creation in their possession as they publish their creations and regardless of any copyright infringement that ensues, that only affects published copies of the original creation and not the original creation that remains in possession of its creator. > > >> >Human rights will always take precedence over the right of > >> >corporations to make a profit. > >> >The intellectual property mafia is misguided when they think that just > >> >because they have been prostituting artists for so long, it's now > >> >their right. > > >> >Likewise when slavery was legal, the corporations that relied on > >> >slavery would claim that the abolishment of slavery would impair their > >> >ability to make a profit and hence they opposed it, because they > >> >assume that since they have always been exploiting people as slaves, > >> >it's their right and from their point of view it would be unfair to > >> >abolish slavery. > >> >From the point of common sense however, those people who exploit > >> >others as slaves are morally wrong, because their freedom to make a > >> >profit comes at the expense of people who have lost their freedom as > >> >slaves. > >> >Likewise, the freedom of the intellectual property mafia to make a > >> >profit by prostituting artists, comes at the expense of those artists > >> >who become dependent upon the people that exploit them. If artists > >> >would learn to fend for themselves and exploit the power of > >> >information technology to achieve fame and publicity, they might be > >> >way better off without copyright. It's just that it takes a while for > >> >them to appreciate their freedom again, just like the slaves needed > >> >some time to adjust after the abolishment of slavery. > > >> Making a profit is merely becoming better off as a result of your own > >> efforts. Once you cease doing this you have started dying. > > >> Eric Stevens > > >If your profit depends on immoral business practices, like resorting > >to slavery or the exploitation of intellectual property, then becoming > >better off happens to be the result of exploiting other peoples > >efforts. > > So, according to you, someone is guilty of the exploitation of > intellectual property if they wish to control the use of the > intellectual property they have created. That's not a question: that's > a statement. > > Don't tell me that's not what you mean. Up to now you have been > assiduously trying to avoid giving a clear statement of what you mean > but its become quite clear that you do not agree with the creator of > intellectual property having any control over its subsequent use. They might wish to control the universe.. that is irrelevant. Just because they create something, that doesn't imply they must necessarily remain in control over their creation as they reproduce and distribute it. In fact, the only real way to remain in control is not to publish something at all and the next best alternative would be to come up with some kind of protection. If you sell something, it's no longer your property. Alternatively, you can hire people so they work for you and then you can let them use your property and you get to dictate how they can use it, as they work for you. But you can't sell something and expect that you remain in control with respect to what people are or aren't allowed to do with the item you've sold them. Imagine you go to the grocery store in the morning and they try to sell you a bread with a userlicence that stipulates all sorts of crazy limitations regarding how you are allowed to use the bread (e.g. only being allowed to eat the bread in the morning between 8:00 and 10:00 in the morning). Most likely you would buy the bread and simply thrash the licence that came with the bread as soon as you get home and use the bread as you see fit. Or imagine you buy a t-shirt and it comes with a userlicense that stipulates the color of the pants you're supposed to wear in combination with the t-shirt. Does someone who create a t-shirt and sell it have the right to dictate how the owner can use it and is a userlicense the sensible and practical method to dictate such terms and conditions? > > >The freedom to make a profit should never allowed to come at the > >expense of infringing upon the freedom of others, in a country where > >human rights are respected/guaranteed by the government. > > You have come right round in a circle and shoved your head up your own > anus. > > By means of patent and copyright legislation governments DO guarantee > the rights of the inventors/creators to control the use of their > intellectual property and it is only cockroaches such as you who want > to exploit their intellectual property for your own advantage. > > Eric Stevens Yeah, just like they guaranteed the rights of corporations in the past to make a profit by means of slavery. The government is just an extension of corporations and hence it's obvious they are only concerned with corporate interests and they couldn't care less about human rights.
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 07:21
On 25 okt, 10:32, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:30:01 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > > > > > <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 25 okt, 06:11, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >Once somebody has obtained a piece of software (regardless whether > >> >they bought > >> >it or downloaded it), they can create a duplicate for their friends > >> >out of thin air. > >> >They might be infringing copyright when people help each other out > >> >like that, but it's not > >> >theft, as nothing is being taken away, but rather, something is being > >> >added (another copy). > > >> Similarly, emptying your bank account and transferring the funds to > >> mine would not take anything away from you since only some numbers > >> would be changed. > > >> -- > >> Ray Fischer > >> rfisc...(a)sonic.net > > >Likewise the government can create money out of thin air. They can > >as much of it as they like, which can change the value of your money. > >So your money in the bank is just an abstract number and the value > >depends on many factors. > > >Also, when you have money in the bank, the bank can suddenly go > >bankrupt and some or all your money can go up into thin air. > >So the moral of the story is that your money is not safe in the bank > >and it might be better to invest it in something that is more likely > >to retain it's value (like gold). > >Money is simply not a very secure investment. It's better to invest in > >education, as money can suddenly lose it's value (inflation) or go up > >in smoke when the financial system crashes. > >They can't take away your ideas .... > > But you have already made clear that ideas of are no value as, as far > as you are concerned, people are free to take them away and make use > of them as they see fit. :-( Just because ideas don't have a monetary value (at least not in digital form), that doesn't mean they are useless or devoid of any value. If you learn survival skills from Ray Mears or Bear Grylls and you get lost in some remote forest, you might not be able to cash in on your abilities, but they can sure come in handy in staying alive. > > > ... or mental skills so easily (compared > >to taking away your property or affecting your financial situation). > > Eric Stevens- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - |