photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Pete on 19 Jun 2010 18:09 On 2010-06-19 22:01:09 +0100, Tim Conway said: > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:7baq1693kibcm7gouu5d52la6c7sqgjlua(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:05 +0100, Pete >> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-06-19 19:06:12 +0100, sobriquet said: >>> >>>> On 19 jun, 19:44, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 2010-06-19 17:18:53 +0100, tony cooper said: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:28:30 -0700, Savageduck >>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> On 2010-06-19 03:41:54 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>>>> >>>>>>>> ***************************************************************************** >>>>>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge >>>>>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions >>>>>>>> found at: >>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt >>>>> >>>>>>>> ****************************************************************************** >>>>> >>>>>>> Nick Sprakel remains a cyber-thief, no matter how much he protests. >>>>>>> ...and he cannot find his way out of that basement. >>>>>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/THCganja/Various#5244910721929976050> >>>>>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/dohduhdah/Experimenteel#5282010159386521810> >>>>> >>>>>>> I await the nazi name calling so we can invoke Godwin. >>>>> >>>>>> You're pissing into the wind. Sobriquet is devoid of morals and >>>>>> ethics. Like a sociopath, he has no sense of right or wrong. >>>>> >>>>> I agree, especially after reading so many of Sobriquet's posts. >>>>> However, Sobriquet has made me realize that posting any of my images >>>>> for critique automatically invalidates them from having any personal or >>>>> commercial value because he can claim ownership of them at any time. I >>>>> haven't the money, energy, or desire to prove him wrong. Others do have >>>>> those resources so time will tell. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Pete >>>> >>>> All information belongs to the public domain. Otherwise there would be >>>> no freedom for you to publish anything in the first place and >>>> corporations could simply claim ownership of anything you publish as >>>> they have the financial means to exploit the legal system to their >>>> advantage. >>>> >>>> Well, corporations can screw you over anyway, because the pseudo- >>>> democratic government is merely shady extension of corporations, >>>> rather than a neutral organization that is supposed to guarantee human >>>> rights. >>>> >>>> So if your human rights are conflicting with corporate interests, you >>>> can't expect the government to help you protect your human rights. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> While I often disagree with (even dislike) your posts, you make me >>> challenge what I think and "know". It is all too easy to form a dislike >>> for the poster instead of the facing the hard work - choosing to either >>> address or ignore the issues the poster has presented. I.e. avoiding an >>> argumentum ad hominem. I strive to learn, so I say again, time will >>> tell. >> >> Sobriquet's position is that he can appropriate the work of others >> under the misapprehension that his "human rights" allow him to do so. >> >> Using his logic, if you take a plot of land and cultivate it, plant >> seeds in it, fertilize it, water it, weed it, and produce a crop of >> vegetables that he has the right to take those vegetables for his own >> use. >> >> He claims that the photographs or other files are accessible to him on >> the web and that if you didn't want him to have them you would not put >> them up on the web. In the analogy of the vegetable garden, his >> position would be that if you didn't want him to take the vegetable >> you would fence the garden and lock them up. He doesn't see that a >> copyright is the equivalent of a locked fence. >> >> You can be assured, though, if Sobriquet was the gardener, that he >> would squeal like a stuck pig if you took the fruits of his labor. >> >> Human rights are limited by laws, customs, and expectations of ethical >> behavior. Even a savage in a remote jungle where laws do not pertain >> understands that an individual's rights are limited by custom. >> Sobriquet has not even advanced to the level of savage. >> -- > Well said. I like your analogy. Human rights don't necessarily entail > encroachment on the rights of others - even if only implied. It will take me time to absorb your replies, Tony and Tim. I learn slowly, step by step, during that process I can be excessively arrogant (is there any other way to be arrogant?). For a particular reason that has nothing to do with photography, I'm battling to understand human rights issues and it ain't easy for me to get my head around it. As others have pointed out, while I'm still thinking about an issue I have a small chance of resolving it. -- Pete
From: tony cooper on 19 Jun 2010 18:11 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:57:53 -0500, Die Wahrheit <diewahrheit(a)somewherehonest.net> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:47:26 -0400, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >>Using his logic, if you take a plot of land and cultivate it, plant >>seeds in it, fertilize it, water it, weed it, and produce a crop of >>vegetables that he has the right to take those vegetables for his own >>use. > >An illogical and wrong analogy. Your analogy would only be equal if you put >those vegetables out in public view where everyone can use them to make >copies of them using their own resources and energy, without ever harming >nor detracting from your personal benefit of your own original vegetables. >Thereby you retain ownership of your own vegetables and have lost nothing >in the amount of energy or resources in propagating them in the first >place. Your hook here is that taking possession of someone else's vegetables deprives the gardener of the use of the vegetable. The flaw in your logic is that, while taking possession of someone else's photographs without their permission does not deprive them of the photograph, it does deprive them of the rights to use that photograph as they so please. Including, of course, the right to refuse you permission to hijack the photograph. Since you consider "rights" to be of paramount importance, you should see that the analogy is true. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 18:24 On 19 jun, 21:56, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 19 jun, 18:47, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/19/10 11:03 AM, in article > >> 173014e9-e635-46ed-95db-c2107518c...(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, > > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On 19 jun, 16:29, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), in > >>>> <22cf2de5-c6d6-4c72-a8f1-af0b865b3...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > >>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge > >>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions > >>>>> found at: > >>>>>http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt > >>>> Nope. > >>> If you don't agree to my terms and conditions, you shouldn't reply to > >>> my postings. > >>> If you do reply to my postings, that means you acknowledge that you > >>> agree to my terms and conditions. > >>> I've created my usenet postings, so I get to decide under what terms > >>> and conditions people are allowed to read them and/or reply to them. > >> A tough 'kookie' you are, squirt? > > > Nobody is forcing you to read or reply to my usenet postings, but if > > you do, please have the decency to respect my terms and conditions. > > If you are participating in this thread, you have to respect the terms > > and conditions I've specified in my original posting, > > no; no one does........... > > > because I have > > > the right to impose terms and conditions of my preference on the use > > of my intellectual property. > > No you don't. > > Besides which, you used the word "intellectual".... none exists. > > -- > lsmft > > Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your > audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary. At least it's funny to see people who claim people are supposed to adhere to the terms and conditions imposed by others on their intellectual property (like a photographer who claims people can't copy their photo because there is copyright on his work) and subsequently arbitrarily deny this very right to others like me who claim to have copyright on their usenet postings. I'm equally justified to ignore spurious intellectual property claims and share photography documentaries on bittorrent with others, as people are justified to reply to my usenet postings and ignoring my spurious intellectual property claims as they pertain to my usenet postings.
From: Tim Conway on 19 Jun 2010 18:29 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:56323cac-6e9c-4057-992c-9d6e47a98bcd(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On 19 jun, 21:56, John McWilliams <jp...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 19 jun, 18:47, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/19/10 11:03 AM, in article > >> 173014e9-e635-46ed-95db-c2107518c...(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, > > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On 19 jun, 16:29, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), in > >>>> <22cf2de5-c6d6-4c72-a8f1-af0b865b3...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > >>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge > >>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions > >>>>> found at: > >>>>>http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt > >>>> Nope. > >>> If you don't agree to my terms and conditions, you shouldn't reply to > >>> my postings. > >>> If you do reply to my postings, that means you acknowledge that you > >>> agree to my terms and conditions. > >>> I've created my usenet postings, so I get to decide under what terms > >>> and conditions people are allowed to read them and/or reply to them. > >> A tough 'kookie' you are, squirt? > > > Nobody is forcing you to read or reply to my usenet postings, but if > > you do, please have the decency to respect my terms and conditions. > > If you are participating in this thread, you have to respect the terms > > and conditions I've specified in my original posting, > > no; no one does........... > > > because I have > > > the right to impose terms and conditions of my preference on the use > > of my intellectual property. > > No you don't. > > Besides which, you used the word "intellectual".... none exists. > > -- > lsmft > > Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your > audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary. At least it's funny to see people who claim people are supposed to adhere to the terms and conditions imposed by others on their intellectual property (like a photographer who claims people can't copy their photo because there is copyright on his work) and subsequently arbitrarily deny this very right to others like me who claim to have copyright on their usenet postings. I'm equally justified to ignore spurious intellectual property claims and share photography documentaries on bittorrent with others, as people are justified to reply to my usenet postings and ignoring my spurious intellectual property claims as they pertain to my usenet postings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll say it again. One last time. Your freedom to exchange information stops when it comes to using a photo of mine without permission. And the courts agree.
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 18:46
On 19 jun, 21:50, "Frank ess" <fr...(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 19 jun, 20:25, "Intentionally Left Blank" <anonym...(a)not-for- > > mail.invalid> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:a9eeb60a-8a5a-4494-a9e4-fc19cc0c9566(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >>>> So call the cops, TROLL! > > >>> The CIA and FBI have been notified and they are probably > >>> investigating your internet connection right now. > > >>> Soon you'll be in jail for violating intellectual property rights > >>> and there is no internet in jail for sure. > > >> Neither has any jurisdiction, it's not in the CIA's mandate. And > >> as you live in the Nederland's the FBI has no jurisdiction, > >> especially to posters outside the USA. So call Interpol, oh wait > >> they are just bureaucrats with zero powers. > > > Oh well.. people violate intellectual property laws on a massive > > scale anyway, so > > I don't expect much support from the legal system. > > Only major corporations stand a fair chance to exploit the legal > > system to their advantage successfully, but for individuals like me > > it's rather futile to specify terms and conditions regarding my > > intellectual property, as people can violate them as they see fit > > without any significant risk of legal repercussions. > > And without any significant losses or gains in value of any nature. > > I missed the first part of this thread. What are your terms and > conditions? http://groups.google.nl/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/4b2dce1302a2ff13?hl=nl > > Like: > > 1. What's mine is mine. > > 2. What's yours is mine if I like it. > > 3. I get to change horses in the middle of any stream, but you can't. I get to enjoy the same rights that people are claiming to have as photographers. If a photographer has the right to dictate the terms and conditions regarding access to his photos, I have the same right to dictate the terms and conditions regarding access to my usenet postings. Naturally, people ignore my spurious intellectual property claims as they pertain to the usenet postings I've created, but that makes them look like hypocrite nazi scum if they subsequently proclaim I'm immoral because I ignore the intellectual property claims of others likewise. So whenever I post anything here that might be construed as copyright infringement (like a posting regarding photography documentaries that are being exchanged on bittorrent by me or other collectors), I specifically stipulate terms and conditions to my postings that prohibit people from replying to my postings if they disagree with my right to share information freely and thereby ignoring spurious intellectual property claims. > > /Et cetera/? > > I get it. You are an omphaloskeptic, no more, no less. Any law is a farce if it arbitrarily applies to some but not to others. Either everybody has to respect arbitrary intellectual property claims by everybody else, or everybody is free to ignore intellectual property claims. It would be an obvious travesty of justice if only some people are allowed to impose terms and conditions on the use of their creative output (whether they are pictures of usenet postings), while others are not allowed to do so. > > Cheers! > > -- > Frank ess |