photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 18:59 ***************************************************************************** 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 ****************************************************************************** On 19 jun, 22:47, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:05 +0100, Pete > > > > <available.on.requ...(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. Your logic is that you can ignore my intellectual property claims whenever it suits you and you start accusing me of being an immoral thief when I ignore the spurious intellectual property claims of others in a similar fashion. So you're obviously a hypocrite nazi cockroach who claims some people like photographers or documentary makers have rights, while others like me have no rights whatsoever. > > 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. Using my logic, you can ignore my spurious intellectual property claims and use my usenetpostings as you see fit in a similar fashion to the way I'm ignoring intellectual property claims by others and share their creative output with others as I see fit. All my claims in this thread pertain to intellectual property and more specifically to digital information. The universal declaration of human rights specifically stipulates that everybody is free to share and exchange information regardless of any spurious intellectual property claims. The universal declaration of human rights doesn't state anywhere that people are free to take any plot of land as they see fit to use it as they please. > > 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. So why are you trespassing in this thread when I've specifically prohibited nazi cockroaches from participating in this thread? If photographers have the right to impose terms and conditions of their preference regarding their creative output, I don't see why I shouldn't have the same right to impose terms and conditions of my preference regarding my usenet postings. > > 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. Nobody takes away anything on the internet, people just share information, just like people share information in the local public library. But I guess the local public library is a vile and anarchistic institution that promotes theft in the eyes of a nazi cockroach like you. > > 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. > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida You are obviously a hypocrite nazi cockroach who thinks he can ignore the intellectual property claims by others like me, while proclaiming me to be an immoral thief for ignoring the intellectual property claims of others in a similar fashion.
From: sobriquet on 19 Jun 2010 19:10 On 19 jun, 23:01, "Tim Conway" <tconway_...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > > news:7baq1693kibcm7gouu5d52la6c7sqgjlua(a)4ax.com... > > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:05 +0100, Pete > > <available.on.requ...(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. The freedom to share information doesn't encroach on the rights of others in any way. Everybody is free to publish their pictures or compose usenet postings (freedom of expression), but nobody is free to impose terms and conditions of their preference regarding their creative output, whether their creative output consists of usenet postings, photos or whatever. Because such spurious intellectual property claims would obviously be ignored by anyone with a basic understanding of information technology in the digital age. I can create a bitstring, like 00101101011011111100010000000000000000101011, but I can't expect to impose restrictions on others regarding the use of that bitstring, just because I happen to be the original creator of it. This statement holds for any bitstrings and hence all bitstrings belong to the public domain and nobody has the right to impose restrictions on others regarding the use of particular bitstrings because they happened to be their original creators and claim a particular bitstring as their intellectual property. The only way to retain control regarding access to a particular bitstring is to keep it to yourself after you have created it, because as soon as you put it on the internet, all subsequent intellectual property claims are spurious and can be safely ignored.
From: John McWilliams on 19 Jun 2010 19:19 Your reasoning is so convoluted that I, and I hope others, will no longer attempt to educate you. -- lsmft Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed should be shown in public.
From: Chris Malcolm on 19 Jun 2010 19:25 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> 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, >> > 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, because I have > the right to impose terms and conditions of my preference on the use > of my intellectual property. Where use constitutes reading and replying to your posts, only if the reader grants you the extra rights you seek above those legally inherent in a newsgroup posting. I certainly don't. -- Chris Malcolm Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: George Kerby on 19 Jun 2010 19:26
On 6/19/10 11:53 AM, in article 2010061909533922503-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-19 09:46:24 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > >> >> >> >> On 6/19/10 10:28 AM, in article >> 2010061908283084492-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-06-19 03:41:54 -0700, sobriquet <dohduhdah(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. >> >> Gawdamit! Are those creatures still alive?!? >> >> Looks like rigor mortis had set in... > > He doesn't see much sunlight does he? Just occurred to me that it is one and the same. A Kafkian metamorphosis, of sorts. |