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: NotMe on 25 Oct 2009 12:26 � 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-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+U/5uZpl4HplOevog0kNuPvFy52H4BS7LoX+g4OeuSDw== X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091024-0, 10/24/2009), Outbound message Cancel-Lock: sha1:jr9z/cCTtlq2jzIvku1m6GYwoJk= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Xref: news.netfront.net alt.www.webmaster:4999 rec.photo.digital:35570 More on the 'problems' of unauthorized use of IPR http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/24/connecticut.football.player.death/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn Reminds me of the sign on the wall "If he's gonna get you ... he's gonna get you"
From: Red E. Kilowatt on 25 Oct 2009 13:15 sobriquet wrote: > 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. Actually all your name-calling -- including the NAZI references -- is proof of your desperation. -- Red
From: Eric Stevens on 25 Oct 2009 17:04 On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:16:45 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Show me where intellectual property is excluded. The document very clearly refers to 'property' with no qualifications of the term. >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. That's why they sell a license to use ... >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. Just think: a real live nihilist! Eric Stevens
From: Eric Stevens on 25 Oct 2009 17:09 On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:19:33 +0000 (UTC), Adrienne Boswell <arbpen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Gazing into my crystal ball I observed sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> >writing in news:3b66b3ed-5c10-46da-934d-05ffadb1ab64 >@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com: > >> 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. > >Governments can try to create money out of thin air, but it is worthless >on the world market, where it counts. There has always been some sort >of money, whether it is paper, myrrh, salt, silver or gold. > >> >> 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. > >Actually, no. If you are in the United States, your money is protected >up to $250,000.00 by the FDIC. .... and the FDIC is protected by - the US government. .... and the US government is protected by - ???? And that's where we are at now. Right now the value of US currency is going down the toilet. I say this, not as a partisan US voter but, as an outside observer resident on the other side of the world. > >> 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. > >If you have a stock brokerage account, and the brokerage firm goes bust, >then you are protected up to $500,000.00 in securities and $100,000.00 >in cash - if the brokerage is a SIPC member firm. Eric Stevens
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 17:23
On 25 okt, 22:04, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:16:45 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > > > <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >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. > > Show me where intellectual property is excluded. The document very > clearly refers to 'property' with no qualifications of the term. > Show me where slavery is excluded? If people can own intellectual property, they might as well claim ownership of people and insist that the universal declaration of human rights clearly indicates people can own property and it doesn't rule out owning people as property in the same way it doesn't rule out owning intellectual property. But the other clauses of the universal declaration of human rights, rule out such interpretations of 'property', where you understand it as owning people in the same way you can own cattle or owning bitstrings in the same way you can own an apple or bottle of wine. > > > >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. > > That's why they sell a license to use ... > Licenses are futile. People ignore them and they can't be understood by people without a legal background anyway. > > > >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. > > Just think: a real live nihilist! > > Eric Stevens You will obey me while I lead you And eat the garbage that I feed you Until the day that we don't need you Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you Your mind is totally controlled It has been stuffed into my mold And you will do as you are told Until the rights to you are sold |