the adventure of photography
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 7 May 2010 10:19 "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message news:hs10p4$8k0$1(a)qmul... > > "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:520ee61b-b31a-4751-86e1-9eafc216ebc2(a)j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 6 mei, 15:03, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >> I own the magazine and I can scan it in and share it with friends in >> digital >> form. The UDHR grants me the human right to share information in this >> fashion. >> >> No it does not because most of what you call information has been copy >> righted. The photographers or the magazine own the copyright to those >> images. > > }I'm not even gonna bother to respond in detail to your posting, as you > }haven't figured out > }the basics of having a decent usenet discussion, where you properly > }quote your opponent > }in a discussion to clarify who is saying what and who is replying to > }those statements. > > Which you have not done and I have. > > > > }Besides, all the points you raise have been answered repeatedly in > }this discussion, > }so I'm not gonna reiterate them over and over until they gradually > }seep through your > }thick scull. > > }I don't even have a credit card, > Not trustworthy enough to have one is that it ?. > }but if I had, my credit card details > }are not information that I own in the sense that I can deny other > }people the use of these details. > > So this information please supply it under according to you my human > rights. > This is what yuo quote above. > > "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this > right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to > seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > regardless of frontiers." > > Now only a lying Nazi cockroach would deni everyone the information > such as yuor bank account details. > > } All I can do is keep the details > }secret and if they somehow get disclosed, I can contact the creditcard > }company to block my card until I obtain a new card with new details, > }so I can keep them secret again. > > I thought only fascist Nazi cockroaches denied information to others > because they didn't believe in human rights. > > }The system of creditcard details doesn't work by people owning the > }details of their creditcard, it merely works by people keeping them to > }themselves instead of disclosing them and threatening people who > }attempt to use it. > > You've said al this is informatiion and it belongs in the public domain. He is blatently trying to justify acts which are clearly morally wrong and possible criminal. > You do NOT own bank notes, in the UK they are a form of voucher > that in theory if you take them to the bank of England (or any bank) > then they can exchange that note for a quantity of gold. > The bit where it says "I promised to pay the bearer" is the indication. > > It is a criminal offence to destroy bank notes or attempt to alter them > for the purpose of fraud, bank notes are also serialised i.e have unique > identification numbers on them unlike coins. The Bank of Engand would be thrilled if millions of bank note holders took them and tore them up. > > You do realise you just can;t keep printing money while the value > remains the same don't you ? > Probably not, but that's how it is. Same with diamonds really the number > availible is controlled, and gold is controlled in a similar way. > -- Peter
From: sobriquet on 7 May 2010 11:21 On 7 mei, 16:19, "Peter" <peter...(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message > > news:hs10p4$8k0$1(a)qmul... > > > > > > > > > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:520ee61b-b31a-4751-86e1-9eafc216ebc2(a)j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > On 6 mei, 15:03, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> I own the magazine and I can scan it in and share it with friends in > >> digital > >> form. The UDHR grants me the human right to share information in this > >> fashion. > > >> No it does not because most of what you call information has been copy > >> righted. The photographers or the magazine own the copyright to those > >> images. > > > }I'm not even gonna bother to respond in detail to your posting, as you > > }haven't figured out > > }the basics of having a decent usenet discussion, where you properly > > }quote your opponent > > }in a discussion to clarify who is saying what and who is replying to > > }those statements. > > > Which you have not done and I have. > > > }Besides, all the points you raise have been answered repeatedly in > > }this discussion, > > }so I'm not gonna reiterate them over and over until they gradually > > }seep through your > > }thick scull. > > > }I don't even have a credit card, > > Not trustworthy enough to have one is that it ?. > > }but if I had, my credit card details > > }are not information that I own in the sense that I can deny other > > }people the use of these details. > > > So this information please supply it under according to you my human > > rights. > > This is what yuo quote above. > > > "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this > > right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to > > seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > > regardless of frontiers." > > > Now only a lying Nazi cockroach would deni everyone the information > > such as yuor bank account details. > > > } All I can do is keep the details > > }secret and if they somehow get disclosed, I can contact the creditcard > > }company to block my card until I obtain a new card with new details, > > }so I can keep them secret again. > > > I thought only fascist Nazi cockroaches denied information to others > > because they didn't believe in human rights. > > > }The system of creditcard details doesn't work by people owning the > > }details of their creditcard, it merely works by people keeping them to > > }themselves instead of disclosing them and threatening people who > > }attempt to use it. > > > You've said al this is informatiion and it belongs in the public domain.. > > He is blatently trying to justify acts which are clearly morally wrong and > possible criminal. So clearly morally wrong, you can't tell me the moral difference between someone who doesn't buy books because he can read them for free at the local library and someone who doesn't buy books because he can download them for free, which happens to be legal where I live. I sympathize with you poor guys who live in a fascist police state where this is not allowed, but that's not much of an excuse to demonize my position in the intellectual property controversy. > > > You do NOT own bank notes, in the UK they are a form of voucher > > that in theory if you take them to the bank of England (or any bank) > > then they can exchange that note for a quantity of gold. > > The bit where it says "I promised to pay the bearer" is the indication. > > > It is a criminal offence to destroy bank notes or attempt to alter them > > for the purpose of fraud, bank notes are also serialised i.e have unique > > identification numbers on them unlike coins. > > The Bank of Engand would be thrilled if millions of bank note holders took > them and tore them up. It's all besides the point. You could put the banknotes in transparent envelopes and write on the envelopes that the contents is your property. Then scatter the envelopes containing the banknotes deliberately wherever you go and see if the police are willing to help you protect your property, since you feel you have every right to scatter your property everywhere and still expect people to respect your ownership claims. > > > You do realise you just can;t keep printing money while the value > > remains the same don't you ? > > Probably not, but that's how it is. Same with diamonds really the number > > availible is controlled, and gold is controlled in a similar way. > > -- > Peter
From: sobriquet on 7 May 2010 11:29 On 7 mei, 14:24, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:520ee61b-b31a-4751-86e1-9eafc216ebc2(a)j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 6 mei, 15:03, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > I own the magazine and I can scan it in and share it with friends in > > digital > > form. The UDHR grants me the human right to share information in this > > fashion. > > > No it does not because most of what you call information has been copy > > righted. The photographers or the magazine own the copyright to those > > images. > }I'm not even gonna bother to respond in detail to your posting, as you > }haven't figured out > }the basics of having a decent usenet discussion, where you properly > }quote your opponent > }in a discussion to clarify who is saying what and who is replying to > }those statements. > > Which you have not done and I have. > > }Besides, all the points you raise have been answered repeatedly in > }this discussion, > }so I'm not gonna reiterate them over and over until they gradually > }seep through your > }thick scull. > }I don't even have a credit card, > > Not trustworthy enough to have one is that it ?. > > }but if I had, my credit card details > }are not information that I own in the sense that I can deny other > }people the use of these details. > > So this information please supply it under according to you my human rights. > This is what yuo quote above. > > "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this > right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to > seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > regardless of frontiers." > > Now only a lying Nazi cockroach would deni everyone the information > such as yuor bank account details. > > } All I can do is keep the details > }secret and if they somehow get disclosed, I can contact the creditcard > }company to block my card until I obtain a new card with new details, > }so I can keep them secret again. > > I thought only fascist Nazi cockroaches denied information to others > because they didn't believe in human rights. > > }The system of creditcard details doesn't work by people owning the > }details of their creditcard, it merely works by people keeping them to > }themselves instead of disclosing them and threatening people who > }attempt to use it. > > You've said al this is informatiion and it belongs in the public domain. > > }Somehow you can't seem to distinguish between someone who has the > }right to own property according to the UDHR, but that right does not > }mean he can write on his banknotes they are his property and > }deliberately scatter them out on the streets wherever he goes and > }expect the police to help guard his property. > > You haven;t got a clue have you. > You do NOT own bank notes, in the UK they are a form of voucher > that in theory if you take them to the bank of England (or any bank) > then they can exchange that note for a quantity of gold. > The bit where it says "I promised to pay the bearer" is the indication. > > It is a criminal offence to destroy bank notes or attempt to alter them for > the purpose of fraud, bank notes are also serialised i.e have unique > identification numbers on them unlike coins. > > You do realise you just can;t keep printing money while the value > remains the same don't you ? > Probably not, but that's how it is. Same with diamonds really the number > availible is controlled, and gold is controlled in a similar way. I have never argued against people's right to keep information to themselves. All I've argued is that it would be insane for them to distribute the information by selling it or giving it away and still insist it remains their intellectual property. I suggest you try this out with your banknotes. Put them in a transparent envelope, write on the envelope they are your property and then scatter the envelopes containing the banknotes on the streets wherever you go. You're the one who is in favor of such moronic property claims, so put your money where your mouth is and see how this crazy idea works in practice. I'm sure the police will agree about your property claims, so they must be willing to dispatch a pack of cops to help you protect your property as you deliberately leave it out on the streets. If you fail, you have successfully demonstrated what an imbecile you are, but I suppose that's too much to ask from an imbecile.
From: Ray Fischer on 7 May 2010 13:06 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >I have never argued against people's right to keep information to >themselves. You argue against people's right to determine how information is used. >All I've argued is that it would be insane for them to distribute the >information >by selling it or giving it away and still insist it remains their >intellectual property. Because you're a thief who thinks that anything you can take must be yours. You have the morals of a 2-year-old. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 7 May 2010 14:14
On 7 mei, 19:06, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >I have never argued against people's right to keep information to > >themselves. > > You argue against people's right to determine how information is used. Sure. Only a nazi cockroach would argue in favor of the right of people to freely disseminate and disclose information and insist that doesn't detract in any way from their right to impose restrictions on the use of that information as they see fit. > > >All I've argued is that it would be insane for them to distribute the > >information > >by selling it or giving it away and still insist it remains their > >intellectual property. > > Because you're a thief who thinks that anything you can take must be > yours. You have the morals of a 2-year-old. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net You are a nazi cockroach who has no morals whatsoever, just like the nazi cockroaches in former Nazi Germany who thought they were justified to exterminate minorities on an industrial scale for the benefit of the rest of society. |