stock photography archive on p2p
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Chris Malcolm on 29 Jan 2010 18:35 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 29 jan, 08:26, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet ?<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet ?<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Who keeps track of ownership of bitstrings? Where can I find out who >> >> >owns the following bitstring? >> >> >> >00101110111101001010000101011010111111010000000000111010011011001000111000 >> >> >> >Can I claim ownership of it and put it on a CDROM, add a manual and >> >> >put it in a box and sell it on eBay? >> >> >> Nope. ?It has to be unique and original and I can promise you that any >> >> bit string of that length has been used already countless times. >> >> >Ah ok.. so what sort of a length did you have in mind for unique and >> >original bitstrings? >> >Who is to decide which bitstrings are unique and original? >> >> Why don't you ask a lawyer? > Surely if people here claim to own certain bitstrings, they should be > able to explain how this system of ownership is supposed to work > exactly? >> >> By the way, photographs run about 10,000,000 bits and up and published >> fiction runs 100,000 bits and up. ?Software runs in the billions of >> bits. >> >> You should be able to figure out something. > No.. I'm still mystified. A bitstring of 100 bits can be shared as > easily as a bitstring of 100,000 bits or 100,000,000 bits. > So I don't see any obvious way how to differentiate between bitstrings > that can be privately owned and controlled and bitstrings that are > supposedly not original or unique enough and hence belong to the > public domain. The question of ownership only arises when ownership is valuable, i.e. the bit string is useful enough to be able to afford lawyers. -- Chris Malcolm
From: Ray Fischer on 29 Jan 2010 23:32 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 29 jan, 08:26, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >Who keeps track of ownership of bitstrings? Where can I find out who >> >> >owns the following bitstring? >> >> >> >00101110111101001010000101011010111111010000000000111010011011001000111000 >> >> >> >Can I claim ownership of it and put it on a CDROM, add a manual and >> >> >put it in a box and sell it on eBay? >> >> >> Nope. �It has to be unique and original and I can promise you that any >> >> bit string of that length has been used already countless times. >> >> >Ah ok.. so what sort of a length did you have in mind for unique and >> >original bitstrings? >> >Who is to decide which bitstrings are unique and original? >> >> Why don't you ask a lawyer? > >Surely if people here claim to own certain bitstrings, they should be >able to explain how this system of ownership is supposed to work >exactly? "Some bitstrings" is not synonymous with "any bitstring". Play with your strawman all you like, but it'll just make you look dishonest. >> By the way, photographs run about 10,000,000 bits and up and published >> fiction runs 100,000 bits and up. �Software runs in the billions of >> bits. >> >> You should be able to figure out something. > >No.. I'm still mystified. Too bad. > A bitstring of 100 bits can be shared as >easily as a bitstring of 100,000 bits or 100,000,000 bits. That's a stupid lie. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 30 Jan 2010 00:12 On 30 jan, 00:35, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 29 jan, 08:26, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet ?<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> sobriquet ?<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >Who keeps track of ownership of bitstrings? Where can I find out who > >> >> >owns the following bitstring? > > >> >> >00101110111101001010000101011010111111010000000000111010011011001000111000 > > >> >> >Can I claim ownership of it and put it on a CDROM, add a manual and > >> >> >put it in a box and sell it on eBay? > > >> >> Nope. ?It has to be unique and original and I can promise you that any > >> >> bit string of that length has been used already countless times. > > >> >Ah ok.. so what sort of a length did you have in mind for unique and > >> >original bitstrings? > >> >Who is to decide which bitstrings are unique and original? > > >> Why don't you ask a lawyer? > > Surely if people here claim to own certain bitstrings, they should be > > able to explain how this system of ownership is supposed to work > > exactly? > > >> By the way, photographs run about 10,000,000 bits and up and published > >> fiction runs 100,000 bits and up. ?Software runs in the billions of > >> bits. > > >> You should be able to figure out something. > > No.. I'm still mystified. A bitstring of 100 bits can be shared as > > easily as a bitstring of 100,000 bits or 100,000,000 bits. > > So I don't see any obvious way how to differentiate between bitstrings > > that can be privately owned and controlled and bitstrings that are > > supposedly not original or unique enough and hence belong to the > > public domain. > > The question of ownership only arises when ownership is valuable, > i.e. the bit string is useful enough to be able to afford lawyers. There is no bitstring valuable enough that they can effectively prevent it from being shared freely on p2p. I don't know of many software packages that are more expensive and advanced than adobe creative suite 4 or autodesk 3ds max. The lawyers just come into play when people share a proprietary bitstring in a moronic way, like on their personal site. > > -- > Chris Malcolm- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
From: sobriquet on 30 Jan 2010 00:28 On 30 jan, 05:32, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 29 jan, 08:26, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >Who keeps track of ownership of bitstrings? Where can I find out who > >> >> >owns the following bitstring? > > >> >> >00101110111101001010000101011010111111010000000000111010011011001000111000 > > >> >> >Can I claim ownership of it and put it on a CDROM, add a manual and > >> >> >put it in a box and sell it on eBay? > > >> >> Nope. It has to be unique and original and I can promise you that any > >> >> bit string of that length has been used already countless times. > > >> >Ah ok.. so what sort of a length did you have in mind for unique and > >> >original bitstrings? > >> >Who is to decide which bitstrings are unique and original? > > >> Why don't you ask a lawyer? > > >Surely if people here claim to own certain bitstrings, they should be > >able to explain how this system of ownership is supposed to work > >exactly? > > "Some bitstrings" is not synonymous with "any bitstring". Play with > your strawman all you like, but it'll just make you look dishonest. What strawman? you're still not clear about what bitstrings are supposed to be allowed as private property and hence there is no reason for me to respect any spurious intellectual property claims. > > >> By the way, photographs run about 10,000,000 bits and up and published > >> fiction runs 100,000 bits and up. Software runs in the billions of > >> bits. > > >> You should be able to figure out something. > > >No.. I'm still mystified. > > Too bad. It's ok.. it's not in my interest to understand copyright.. it's in the interest of people who advocate copyright to come up with a sensible interpretation of it. If people can't understand copyright, they can't respect it. Copyright as you seem to defend it, is simply the right of corporations to impose restrictions on the permissible uses of their products as they see fit, for the sole the interest of maximizing profits and without any regard for the interests of consumers. > > > A bitstring of 100 bits can be shared as > >easily as a bitstring of 100,000 bits or 100,000,000 bits. > > That's a stupid lie. I've regularly shared bitstrings of over 600,000,000,000 bits without significant effort (e.g. this 75 gb stock torrent archive that motivated this discussion). 75 gb = (approximately) 75,000 mb = (approximately) 75,000,000 kb = (approximately) 75,000,000,000 bytes = (approximately) 600,000,000,000 bits > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
From: Pete on 30 Jan 2010 01:28
sobriquet wrote: >I've regularly shared bitstrings of over 600,000,000,000 bits without >significant effort (e.g. this 75 gb stock torrent archive that >motivated this discussion). > > 75 gb = (approximately) > 75,000 mb = (approximately) > 75,000,000 kb = (approximately) > 75,000,000,000 bytes = (approximately) >600,000,000,000 bits Wow, you know less about numbers and their units than you do about bits. I didn't think that was possible. Have you learnt to boil water yet? Pete |