Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem. (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t954521-re-copyright-again-potentially-a-serious-problem.html)

sobriquet 11-14-2012 10:40 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/
>


"It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

I think they have it all backwards.

It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can
own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is
supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of
such information.

What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had
to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is
the ease with which it allows people to share information.


>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens



sobriquet 11-14-2012 11:19 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:56:35 PM UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012.11.14 17:40 , sobriquet wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > "It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

>
> >

>
> > I think they have it all backwards.

>
> >

>
> > It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can

>
> > own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is

>
> > supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of

>
> > such information.

>
>
>
> The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be
>
> declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar
>
> (that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an
>
> absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the
>
> start of something useful.
>


That issue is beyond the actual reality of the way information
finds its way on the internet these days.
If I create a picture and share it (regadless whether I sell it
or give it away), it can turn into a meme and thousands of people
can be making modifications and distributing it online again,
and those images can be further modified again and so on.
That renders the whole ownership discussions completely
irrelevant and moot.

The people who have these discussions are still living in the analogue
past where you had a clear distinction between centralized publishers who
were responsible for reproduction and distribution (and copyright laws
to protect them from unfair competition from other publishers) and
consumers who could only consume content, but were more or less unable
to modify it, reproduce it or redistribute it in any practical fashion.

>
>
> > What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system

>
> > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the

>
> > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely

>
> > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

>
>
>
> What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from
>
> other sites.
>


There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
it theft.
But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
information".

>
>
> > Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientisthad

>
> > to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

>
> >

>
> > Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is

>
> > the ease with which it allows people to share information.

>
>
>
> Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,
>
> slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue
>
> their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,
>
> publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof
>
> of it, but that's another matter).
>
>
>
> If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his
>
> research and results will not be available online at all.
>


But do we really need to have companies or money for some deep and
fundamental reason?
Maybe in the near future we can reproduce commodities with the
same ease at which we can currently reproduce digital content.
At that point the whole role of money as a universal substitute
is completely redundant, because money only makes sense in a world
where things are scarce.

That's the whole idea of copyright nowadays, to artificially try
to keep information scarce, while any teenager understands information
is actually not scarce at all. So it's like proof that there are no limits
to human stupidity to try and ignore the fact that everybody can easily
share information and pretend that information is like a commodity that
can't be easily reproduced and distributed (heck, it can even be
modified, recombined with other pieces of information).

All because supposedly people will stop creating new content when they
can no longer rely on their traditional monopoly on the reproduction
and distribution of their creations.

The remix culture of the internet proves otherwise.

>
>
> --
>
> "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
>
> were divided politics became a mere struggle for office."
>
> -Sir John A. Macdonald


David Dyer-Bennet 11-15-2012 07:11 AM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> writes:

> There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
> might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
> it theft.
> But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
> infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
> copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
> actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
> information".


So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
"songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
"director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Whisky-dave 11-15-2012 12:13 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:19:17 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:56:35 PM UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > On 2012.11.14 17:40 , sobriquet wrote:

>
> >

>
> > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >

>
> > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/

>
> >

>
> > >>

>
> >

>
> > >

>
> >

>
> > > "It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

>
> >

>
> > >

>
> >

>
> > > I think they have it all backwards.

>
> >

>
> > >

>
> >

>
> > > It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can

>
> >

>
> > > own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is

>
> >

>
> > > supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of

>
> >

>
> > > such information.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be

>
> >

>
> > declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar

>
> >

>
> > (that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an

>
> >

>
> > absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the

>
> >

>
> > start of something useful.

>
> >

>
>
>
> That issue is beyond the actual reality of the way information
>
> finds its way on the internet these days.
>
> If I create a picture and share it (regadless whether I sell it
>
> or give it away), it can turn into a meme and thousands of people
>
> can be making modifications and distributing it online again,
>
> and those images can be further modified again and so on.
>
> That renders the whole ownership discussions completely
>
> irrelevant and moot.


Doesn't that depend on how you alter it or whether or not it is noticable.


>
> The people who have these discussions are still living in the analogue
>
> past where you had a clear distinction between centralized publishers who
>
> were responsible for reproduction and distribution (and copyright laws
>
> to protect them from unfair competition from other publishers) and
>
> consumers who could only consume content, but were more or less unable
>
> to modify it, reproduce it or redistribute it in any practical fashion.


That's true in Dickens day there wasn't much chance of even photographing a book let alone scanning it in and emailing it.


>
> > > What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system

>
> >

>
> > > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the

>
> >

>
> > > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely

>
> >

>
> > > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from

>
> >

>
> > other sites.

>
> >

>
>
>
> There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever.


That's difficult to evaluate You, but a similar situation to libraries.
If tehy are lending out books then I don't need to buy a copy.


>
> might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
>
> it theft.


You label it nhow you want others to react to it.
Theft is bad, borrowing is good.


>
> But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
>
> infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
>
> copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
>
> actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
>
> information".


I don't think that day will come, and I dont; think it should either.


> > > Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had

>
> >

>
> > > to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.


That is slightly differnt in many ways.


>
> > > Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is

>
> >

>
> > > the ease with which it allows people to share information.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,

>
> >

>
> > slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue

>
> >

>
> > their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,

>
> >

>
> > publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof

>
> >

>
> > of it, but that's another matter).


True but what is the reason for publishing why bother ?



>
> > If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his

>
> >

>
> > research and results will not be available online at all.

>
> >

>



Some of our studetns in the past have worked for componies anbd we haven't been allowed to allow that studetns work to be made availble to others.

>
> But do we really need to have companies or money for some deep and
>
> fundamental reason?
>
> Maybe in the near future we can reproduce commodities with the
>
> same ease at which we can currently reproduce digital content.


Highly unlikely.

>
> At that point the whole role of money as a universal substitute
>
> is completely redundant, because money only makes sense in a world
>
> where things are scarce.


Are we talking of the star trek universe here were there is no poverty ?
Because everythingn is free ?

>
>
>
> That's the whole idea of copyright nowadays, to artificially try
>
> to keep information scarce,


No it's not.
Most authors and muscians want as many people as possible to have their works, they don't normally want them to be scarce.



>while any teenager understands information
>
> is actually not scarce at all.


Teeneagers understand little.


> So it's like proof that there are no limits
>
> to human stupidity to try and ignore the fact that everybody can easily
>
> share information and pretend that information is like a commodity that
>
> can't be easily reproduced and distributed (heck, it can even be
>
> modified, recombined with other pieces of information).


So ?


> All because supposedly people will stop creating new content when they
>
> can no longer rely on their traditional monopoly on the reproduction
>
> and distribution of their creations.


So work in the catering buisness supply me with free food.

sobriquet 11-15-2012 03:07 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

>
> > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

>
> > it theft.

>
> > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

>
> > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

>
> > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

>
> > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

>
> > information".

>
>
>
> So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
>
> "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
>
> "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
>
> production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
>
> hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
>
> millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
>


You missed this part?

"What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "


>
>
> --
>
> Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
>
> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
>
> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
>
> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info


Mayayana 11-15-2012 03:19 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
| > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
| > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
| > it theft.
| > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
| > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
| > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
| > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
| > information".
|
| So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
| "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
| "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
| production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
| hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
| millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
|

That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
two views:

Young people who don't know what it means
to work for a living think that everything should be
free. (It always has been for them, after all.)

At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
deal about the presumed value of their creations.

But much of what they're producing is essentially
a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
part of the public enough that those people will pay
for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
implies something edifying and entertainment is really
just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
attention.

In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
not a business venture.

Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?

How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
copyright was due to expire.

It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
between art, entertainment and business before copyright
law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
be missing the big picture.



sobriquet 11-15-2012 03:43 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
> | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
>
> | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
>
> | > it theft.
>
> | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
>
> | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
>
> | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
>
> | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
>
> | > information".
>
> |
>
> | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
>
> | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
>
> | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
>
> | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
>
> | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
>
> | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
>
> |
>
>
>
> That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
>
> two views:
>
>
>
> Young people who don't know what it means
>
> to work for a living think that everything should be
>
> free. (It always has been for them, after all.)
>
>
>
> At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
>
> Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
>
> that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
>
> etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
>
> deal about the presumed value of their creations.
>
>
>
> But much of what they're producing is essentially
>
> a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
>
> part of the public enough that those people will pay
>
> for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
>
> which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
>
> implies something edifying and entertainment is really
>
> just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
>
> attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
>
> attention.
>
>
>
> In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
>
> are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
>
> does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
>
> is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
>
> not a business venture.
>
>
>
> Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
>
> creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
>
> some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
>
> unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
>
> band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
>
> can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
>
> a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
>
> And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
>
> commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
>
> make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?
>
>
>
> How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
>
> the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
>
> buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
>
> copyright was due to expire.
>
>
>
> It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
>
> between art, entertainment and business before copyright
>
> law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
>
> be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
>
> honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
>
> if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
>
> just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
>
> to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
>
> be missing the big picture.


Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.

What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
usually the bitstrings are much longer.

These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

There can be no sensible definition of the public domain that doesn't
include all bitstrings and there can be no sensible claim that people
are free to share information (as claimed in the universal declaration
of human rights) if it doesn't include all possible bitstrings.

So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion about human rights
and the freedom to share information first (in relation to the new
reality of contemporary information technology like computers,
smartphones and the internet) and after that has been settled, we
can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
on information that can be distributed to those who create new
content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
are not a paying member from that library)?
The internet plays that same role in society of making information
more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the
general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,
except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a
library.

Whisky-dave 11-15-2012 04:36 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:07:36 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> writes:

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

>
> >

>
> > > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

>
> >

>
> > > it theft.

>
> >

>
> > > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

>
> >

>
> > > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

>
> >

>
> > > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

>
> >

>
> > > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

>
> >

>
> > > information".

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

>
> >

>
> > "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

>
> >

>
> > "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

>
> >

>
> > production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

>
> >

>
> > hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

>
> >

>
> > millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

>
> >

>
>
>
> You missed this part?
>
>
>
> "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
>
> of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
>
> one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
>
> and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "


But that part doens;t actually say anything meaningful.
It's as meaningful as me saying poverty should be outlawed.

How would you work out this financial compensation while you make 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or renting is the way to go.

Also depends what you mean by sharing.

Whisky-dave 11-15-2012 04:56 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
>
> > | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

>
> >

>
> > | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

>
> >

>
> > | > it theft.

>
> >

>
> > | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

>
> >

>
> > | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

>
> >

>
> > | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

>
> >

>
> > | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

>
> >

>
> > | > information".

>
> >

>
> > |

>
> >

>
> > | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

>
> >

>
> > | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

>
> >

>
> > | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

>
> >

>
> > | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

>
> >

>
> > | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

>
> >

>
> > | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

>
> >

>
> > |

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the

>
> >

>
> > two views:

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Young people who don't know what it means

>
> >

>
> > to work for a living think that everything should be

>
> >

>
> > free. (It always has been for them, after all.)



Yes a spoilt rich kids, mummy and daddy pay for everything.


>
> > At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven

>
> >

>
> > Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations

>
> >

>
> > that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,

>
> >

>
> > etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big

>
> >

>
> > deal about the presumed value of their creations.

>



They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.

if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.


> > But much of what they're producing is essentially

>
> >

>
> > a business venture meant to profit by titillating some

>
> >

>
> > part of the public enough that those people will pay

>
> >

>
> > for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,

>
> >

>
> > which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art

>
> >

>
> > implies something edifying and entertainment is really

>
> >

>
> > just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and

>
> >

>
> > attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and

>
> >

>
> > attention.

>


Most people like both to some extent ?


>
> > In between the two extremes in the copyright debate

>
> >

>
> > are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist

>
> >

>
> > does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which

>
> >

>
> > is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is

>
> >

>
> > not a business venture.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting

>
> >

>
> > creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's

>
> >

>
> > some artistic value involved and not just some kind of

>
> >

>
> > unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy

>
> >

>
> > band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls

>
> >

>
> > can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,

>
> >

>
> > a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....

>
> >

>
> > And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social

>
> >

>
> > commentary books. Do those people really deserve to

>
> >

>
> > make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?


No idea, but most make money because of what they are peddling.
If yuo do sonwthing thatc peole like surely you should get something back.



> > How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In

>
> >

>
> > the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists

>
> >

>
> > buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse

>
> >

>
> > copyright was due to expire.

>
> >

>
> >

>
> >

>
> > It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction

>
> >

>
> > between art, entertainment and business before copyright

>
> >

>
> > law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can

>
> >

>
> > be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be

>
> >

>
> > honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively

>
> >

>
> > if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is

>
> >

>
> > just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy

>
> >

>
> > to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would

>
> >

>
> > be missing the big picture.

>
>
>
> Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
>
> I think ,



That's not what I would call it.

>it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
>
> parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.



That's not quite all they are doping is it.


>
>
>
> What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
>
> and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
>
> usually the bitstrings are much longer.


So post you bank details including passwords and anyb other info it's just binary digits.
So your not prepared to share yuor bitstrings are you.
well that typical isn;t it.


>
>
>
> These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
>
> etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.


bank accounts....

>
>
>
> There can be no sensible definition of the public domain that doesn't
>
> include all bitstrings and there can be no sensible claim that people
>
> are free to share information (as claimed in the universal declaration
>
> of human rights) if it doesn't include all possible bitstrings.


You really are clueless aren;t you.

>
>
>
> So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion about human rights
>
> and the freedom to share information first (in relation to the new
>
> reality of contemporary information technology like computers,
>
> smartphones and the internet) and after that has been settled, we
>
> can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
>
> there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
>
> are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
>
> on information that can be distributed to those who create new
>
> content in proportion to how popular their creations are).


More meaningless talk.

>
>
>
> Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
>
> information for free .


I pay taxes for library books.


>(if you read books at the library, even if you
>
> are not a paying member from that library)?
>
> The internet plays that same role in society of making information
>
> more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the
>
> general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,
>
> except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a
>
> library.


But peole won;t write those books and other bitstrings unless they getv somnething back, you don;t understand that because you're probbaly not created anythijng useful or wanted by others in your life.

perhaps if yuo did you'd understand and there's little chance of that until your IQ gets into double figures



Mayayana 11-15-2012 05:39 PM

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
 
| So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion
| about human rights
| and the freedom to share information first ....after
| that has been settled, we
| can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
| there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
| are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
| on information that can be distributed to those who create new
| content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?
You have a human right to use everything in the world?
You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you
claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others
use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
So I see no justification for the public paying her way.

|
| Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
| information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
| are not a paying member from that library)?

Libraries do not make copies. They lend copies. We
pay for those books with our taxes. Apparently you
neither work nor pay taxes. In that case your parents
are paying for your use of libraries. They are funded
by the public and they buy the books that they lend
out.




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.