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: Ray Fischer on 26 Oct 2009 02:30 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 26 okt, 01:58, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 25 okt, 23:39, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Your problem is that you've invested time and effort to produce >> >> >something that >> >> >is devoid of commercial value. >> >> >> If it's devoid of value then you have no excuse or justification for >> >> making copies. >> >> >Did you miss the word 'commercial'? >> >> Wholly irrelevant. �"Value" isn't determined by "commercial". > >Motherly love is valuable You mother's love has no value at all to me. And, judging by what you write, it had no value to you either, or you wouldn't be such an obvious crook. >> >> So are you lying when you claim you have the right to copy it for your >> >> own benefit, or are you lying when you claim it has no value? >> >> >Do you feel an obsessive compulsive urge to express the value of >> >> You're just a slimebag crook. > >Just because bitstrings can be valuable, that doesn't mean people can >claim ownership of them Yes it does, crook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 26 Oct 2009 08:05 On 26 okt, 07:30, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 26 okt, 01:58, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On 25 okt, 23:39, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >Your problem is that you've invested time and effort to produce > >> >> >something that > >> >> >is devoid of commercial value. > > >> >> If it's devoid of value then you have no excuse or justification for > >> >> making copies. > > >> >Did you miss the word 'commercial'? > > >> Wholly irrelevant. "Value" isn't determined by "commercial". > > >Motherly love is valuable > > You mother's love has no value at all to me. Ah, so you think adoption is worthless? > > And, judging by what you write, it had no value to you either, or you > wouldn't be such an obvious crook. > > >> >> So are you lying when you claim you have the right to copy it for your > >> >> own benefit, or are you lying when you claim it has no value? > > >> >Do you feel an obsessive compulsive urge to express the value of > > >> You're just a slimebag crook. > > >Just because bitstrings can be valuable, that doesn't mean people can > >claim ownership of them > > Yes it does, crook. Does not, cockroach! > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net
From: Walter Banks on 26 Oct 2009 15:04 sobriquet wrote: > But that doesn't mean that you can't earn money by allowing people to > share your software freely (if the government would tax information in > order to reward people like you who contribute new content). There are two flaws in this argument. 1) In the model you gave a few posts ago reward would come from relative access. The goal then is to maximize access. Our goal is to supply software to those who appreciate its value enough that they are prepared to pay for teh right to use it. 2) The software doesn't pretend to provide information only the solution to a problem. > But imagine as a programmer to have access to all software ever > produced to be used as you see fit in the creation of new software. > Don't you think that might inspire you to contribute new things to the > shared pool of software? That has been the argument for many FOSS advocates. The results have been mediocre. Much of the current FOSS is technically very old and has restricted new developments by pushing the bar higher for entrepreneurial new software developments. > If you think software is wonderful, how would it affect your life in > practice if all software was available to you for free and you could > use any software you desire as you see fit without every having to > worry about infringing upon copyrights or having the money to buy the > software? Be careful you might get what you are wishing for. The unintended consequences is a society that so devalues software, that it might find themselves with no social incentive to write software. Free software might benefit you but it devalues personal worth for the person who creates it. w..
From: sobriquet on 26 Oct 2009 19:59 On 26 okt, 20:04, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > But that doesn't mean that you can't earn money by allowing people to > > share your software freely (if the government would tax information in > > order to reward people like you who contribute new content). > > There are two flaws in this argument. > > 1) In the model you gave a few posts ago reward would come from > relative access. The goal then is to maximize access. Our goal > is to supply software to those who appreciate its value enough > that they are prepared to pay for teh right to use it. It doesn't have to be. Software could also be rated. So if you produce software that only a very small group is interested in, they can still give your software an excellent rating to indicate they value it very much and the tax scheme could take these ratings into account to avoid too much of a bias towards popular demand. > > 2) The software doesn't pretend to provide information only the > solution to a problem. I have no idea what you mean by that cryptic statement. Does a software package like adobe photoshop provide information? I think it can be used to solve problems just the same. > > > But imagine as a programmer to have access to all software ever > > produced to be used as you see fit in the creation of new software. > > Don't you think that might inspire you to contribute new things to the > > shared pool of software? > > That has been the argument for many FOSS advocates. The results > have been mediocre. Much of the current FOSS is technically > very old and has restricted new developments by pushing the bar > higher for entrepreneurial new software developments. Corporations like Microsoft have been repeatedly convicted for abusing their monopoly position, so that probably plays a role. Also, just because something is commercial software, that doesn't necessarily translate to quality software, as is witnessed by the windows operating system which is quite unstable, unreliable and suffers from a multitude of design flaws. > > > If you think software is wonderful, how would it affect your life in > > practice if all software was available to you for free and you could > > use any software you desire as you see fit without every having to > > worry about infringing upon copyrights or having the money to buy the > > software? > > Be careful you might get what you are wishing for. The unintended > consequences is a society that so devalues software, that it might > find themselves with no social incentive to write software. Nonsense. There is no basis whatsoever for that claim. It might very well be that if the government would ensure there is fair competition between open source and closed source software, by preventing a single corporation from accumulating too much power, so they can abuse this power to eliminate the competition. > > Free software might benefit you but it devalues personal worth > for the person who creates it. People who create open source software would definitely disagree. People who create closed source software will try to prevent the abolishment of copyright because they only think about short term profit instead of the long term consequences. Companies that create software could always provide services like support to help people exploit its full potential and earn money that way. Just like a musician can earn money by performing live for a huge audience, even if they let people share their music for free. > > w..
From: Ray Fischer on 26 Oct 2009 23:21
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 26 okt, 07:30, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 26 okt, 01:58, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On 25 okt, 23:39, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Your problem is that you've invested time and effort to produce >> >> >> >something that >> >> >> >is devoid of commercial value. >> >> >> >> If it's devoid of value then you have no excuse or justification for >> >> >> making copies. >> >> >> >Did you miss the word 'commercial'? >> >> >> Wholly irrelevant. �"Value" isn't determined by "commercial". >> >> >Motherly love is valuable >> >> You mother's love has no value at all to me. > >Ah, so you think adoption is worthless? Are you insane, stupid, or just pathetically desperate to justify your thievery? >> And, judging by what you write, it had no value to you either, or you >> wouldn't be such an obvious crook. >> >> >> >> So are you lying when you claim you have the right to copy it for your >> >> >> own benefit, or are you lying when you claim it has no value? >> >> >> >Do you feel an obsessive compulsive urge to express the value of >> >> >> You're just a slimebag crook. >> >> >Just because bitstrings can be valuable, that doesn't mean people can >> >claim ownership of them >> >> Yes it does, crook. > >Does not, You're lying, crook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |