Well 3 stikes and you out and with No solid evidence of it.

On Nov 7, 12:04*am, Msg. Scooter <monsignor.scoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pretty much like you being the National Parties mouthpiece on this group.
>

Wot? me?

Suppose it could be worse - I could be accused of being ACT's
mouthpiece.

peterwn

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
news:hd0e44$s38$...
> "impossible" <> wrote in message
> news:%AOIm.117404$5n1.111584@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>> news:hd0as9$7hg$...
>>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
>>> news:sSNIm.123094$la3.44800@attbi_s22...
>>>>
>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:hcvc4s$l04$...
>>>>> "Msg. Scooter" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> On , , Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:15:04 +1300, Re: Well 3 stikes and you out
>>>>>> and with No
>>>>>> solid evidence of it., "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mary Hanna" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:4fm4f599cnnoo01etk541ha643b70tun3n@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes
>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>> court order
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems that we will be in the same boat If Ozz is, plus the US
>>>>>>>> free trade
>>>>>>>> talks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-...irates-091104/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also, makes non-commercial copyright infringement a criminal rather
>>>>>>>than a
>>>>>>>civil offense. Nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is really quite simple, don't pinch someone elses work.
>>>>>> What is so bloody difficult about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that's grossly oversimplified.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently got an illegally duplicated copy of a book that I wanted to
>>>>> read but is out of print, and has been for 20 years. It's a
>>>>> collector's item and is hard to find, and if you do manage to find it
>>>>> goes for around US$8000 a copy. I'm not a collector, I just wanted to
>>>>> read it, I own legitimate copies of all of the author's other works,
>>>>> and it's the 2nd book in a trilogy that I have book 1 & 3 of.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I should have just stumped up the US$8000 or be prepared to do
>>>>> jail time huh.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Care to explain who exactly I am stealing from?
>>
>> The copyright holder.
>>
>>> Book dealers reselling this book as a collector's item?
>>
>> No. The copyright holder. You have no right to their property.
>
> The Theft Act: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly
> appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
> permanently depriving the other of it"
>
> Oh dear, it appears that they no longer have their property as I have
> permanently deprived them of it... oh, wait.
>

Tell it to the judge.


>>> I'm not stealing from the author because the book is out of print, so he
>>> can't make money from it no matter what happens.
>>
>> Has the copyright expired?

Well, has it?

>> If not, you've infringed on copyright. Whether or not the copyright
>> holder can, or wants to, make money from their work is completely beside
>> the point. Without the permission of the copyright holder, you have no
>> right to a copy of their work.
>
> Why not?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+violation

>
> Because I did not purchase a physical copy of one of the extremely limited
> print runs?
>

No, because you were too cheap to do that and instead acquired a knock-off
that was produced without the copyright holder's permiossion.


> What if I borrowed the book from someone and read it, then gave it back to
> the owner?
>

If you wdere borrowing a legal copy, there wouldsn't be an issue. Why not do
that?

> Please explain to me why that would be OK but printing a copy and reading
> it isn't.
>

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+violation


>>> Besides which, I've legally bought *every* single one of his other
>>> books.
>>>
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous! Just because you obey the law 364 days a year
>> doesn't entitle you to violate it on the 365th.
>
> I don't obey the law 365 days a year, I only obey laws that I think are
> fair and just.
>

Tell it to the judge. Case closed.

> Non-commercial copyright is not currently a criminal offence and nor
> should it become one.
>
> Copyright is seriously broken.
>

By pirates like yourself, yes.

> We live in a world where the song Happy Birthday must be licensed to be
> performed in public:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_B...pyright_status
>
> "The origins of "Happy Birthday To You" date back to the mid-nineteenth
> century"
> "The song is currently set to pass in to the public domain in 2030."
>

And the difficulty this creates for society is what exactly?

> I do not obey laws that I consider unjust or ridiculous. Nor should
> anyone.
>

Fine. Tell it the judge.

>>> I suppose we should also throw all music pirates in jail right?
>>>
>>
>> Cutting off an internet pirate's internet connection seems sufficent in
>> most cases.
>
> And that of their family and anybody else who they live with?
>

The account holder is responsible for ensuring that anyone who uses their
account abides by the terms and conditons.

> With no due process, merely an accusation being sufficient?
>

It's a service contract termination, for heaven's sake, not a death
sentence. Read your terms and conditions -- there are many reasons the ISP
can shut you down.

> Coming from the industry that accuses laser printers of copyright
> infringement?
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/05...-indust-1.html
>
> But that's not the point, the point is that this new law, along with this
> provision of internet disconnection, changes non-commerical copyright
> infringement from being a civil matter to a criminal one.
>

Property right violation are usually taken very seriously.

>>> Norwegian study:
>>> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/s...an-they-steal/
>>>
>>> British study:
>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...l-1812776.html
>>>
>>> Canadian government study:
>>> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dp...g/ip01457.html
>>
>> LOL. Exatly how many $8000 books have you purchased since stealing the
>> one you wanted.
>
> What does the price point have to do with anything?
>

It's the price you won't pay for a legal copy of the book you want.
According to the logic of the studies you cite, a single act of piracy might
be justified on economic grounds if you could show that you subsequently
purchased many more works of equal value. Alas, that's sheer nonsense in
your case.

> Nothing, aside from it being an insurmountable obstacle for me to enjoy an
> important work, which I have harmed nobody by doing, nor deprived anybody
> of anything.
>

Poor you! It must be tough being a spoiled GenXer, eh?

> At the same time I bought two more books from the same author, the other
> two in the trilogy, the first of which was bloody expensive as it was also
> out of print, but thankfully not a collector's item as is the 2nd (which
> had a smaller print run), which completed my collection of his works.
>
> And damn right I'll buy a legitimate copy of the 2nd book if they ever
> reprint it, you think I like having a print out of a PDF sitting in my
> book shelf amongst all the other nice books?

Whatever.

impossible

On Nov 6, 7:24*am, peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:56*pm, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn> wrote:
>
> > Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy to
> > disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid evidence or a
> > court order
>
> > Seems that we *will be in the same boat If Ozz is, *plus the US free trade
> > talks.
>
> >http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-...-isps-into-pir...
>
> I have responded to a similar thread on nz.comp as (because it is an
> important matter):
>
> > And - why is it being kept so secret?
> > What is there to hide?
>
> To try and prevent popular debate on the matter before state parties
> have initially signed the treaty. those promoting the treaty have so
> far been able to do a lot of work on it without interference from
> opponents, protestors, etc.
>
> The fundamental issue state parties are being confronted with is what
> is a practical and effective way of protecting property interests in
> creative works in a similar manner that owners of real estate and
> other property are protected by society.
>
> It is very difficult to argue with the proposition that owners of
> intellectual property would expect, in a civilised society, that the
> state provides mechanisms to help protect their property rights.
>
> The issue then becomes one of how to protect these interests without
> indue effect on ordinary human rights.

I think you have framed the issue well.

I think that people sometimes forget that intellectual property is not
the same as ordinary property. To copy information does not deprive
someone of the original copy. Laws against theft are designed to
protect possession of property whereas copyright laws are designed to
protect the ability of creative artists to profit from their work
thereby creating incentive for more works to be produced.

Thus, if we are to assess how big a problem file sharing is I think we
need to consider what it has done to the ability of artists to profit
from their work. While there are often big imaginative numbers on how
much the recording industry has lost due to file sharing these numbers
tend to be based on some false assumptions (e.g. that a download
necessarily equates with a loss in sales). Also, the frequency with
which a work is pirated I would argue is roughly proportional to its
popularity. Yet the big artists and the blockbuster hollywood movies
etc. appear to be as successful as ever they were before Napster.

So while it is hard to argue against protecting the interests of
creative artists, it's not immediately obvious that those interests
are under serious threat.


Weihana.

WD

"WD" <> wrote in message
news:732c567f-0385-480c-bb61-...

> I think that people sometimes forget that intellectual property is not
> the same as ordinary property. To copy information does not deprive
> someone of the original copy. Laws against theft are designed to
> protect possession of property whereas copyright laws are designed to
> protect the ability of creative artists to profit from their work
> thereby creating incentive for more works to be produced.

Nonsense. Copyright gives the author of original works exclusive property
rights. Only the copyright holder can determine the terms under which their
works are copied and distributed. Whether or not the copyright holder cares
to profit from their work is completelty beside the point.

impossible

On , , Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:02:22 -0800 (PST), Re: Well 3 stikes and you out and
with No solid evidence of it., peterwn <> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 12:04*am, Msg. Scooter <monsignor.scoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pretty much like you being the National Parties mouthpiece on this group.
>>
>
>Wot? me?

What part of my message did you not comprehend?

>Suppose it could be worse - I could be accused of being ACT's
>mouthpiece.

--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.

Msg. Scooter

On 2009-11-07, impossible <> wrote:
>
> "WD" <> wrote in message
> news:732c567f-0385-480c-bb61-...
>
>> I think that people sometimes forget that intellectual property is not
>> the same as ordinary property. To copy information does not deprive
>> someone of the original copy. Laws against theft are designed to
>> protect possession of property whereas copyright laws are designed to
>> protect the ability of creative artists to profit from their work
>> thereby creating incentive for more works to be produced.
>
> Nonsense. Copyright gives the author of original works exclusive property
> rights. Only the copyright holder can determine the terms under which their
> works are copied and distributed.

Yes! The fact that some authors say, distrubte freely, and you shall make
attribute to me while making no profit from it is true.

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/how1

Gosh Creative Commons is powering up fast. Kiwiland has version.

http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/

> Whether or not the copyright holder cares
> to profit from their work is completelty beside the point.

Wrong, oh so wrong. This *is* the point. The copyright holder, the author,
has the control on the conditions under which their work is distributed.
Whether they care about receiving money from its use is beside the point.

People want recognition, ego feeding if you like.

Gordon

Mary Hanna wrote:
> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy
> to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid
> evidence or a court order

So if someone like Microsoft gets accused of copying someone else's code
without permission, then the whole of MS should get cut off from the
internet?
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/11...-code-uses-in-
microsoft-store-tool/

Remember, under ACTA (as leaked), only accusation is needed, not proof or a
conviction.

Peter

In message <a10de595-a9b3-4c97-
a224->, peterwn wrote:

> It is very difficult to argue with the proposition that owners of
> intellectual property would expect, in a civilised society, that the
> state provides mechanisms to help protect their property rights.

Except that “intellectual property� does not really behave like property.

With normal property, you as the owner are expected to bear responsibility
for it. If you give/sell it to somebody else, then they become the owner and
they become resopnsible.

Whereas with “intellectual property� you have this weird thing of being able
to give it to others while still keeping it at the same time. That’s not how
normal property behaves.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <a10de595-a9b3-4c97-
> a224->, peterwn wrote:
>
>> It is very difficult to argue with the proposition that owners of
>> intellectual property would expect, in a civilised society, that the
>> state provides mechanisms to help protect their property rights.
>
> Except that “intellectual property� does not really behave like property.
>
> With normal property, you as the owner are expected to bear responsibility
> for it. If you give/sell it to somebody else, then they become the owner and
> they become resopnsible.
>
> Whereas with “intellectual property� you have this weird thing of being able
> to give it to others while still keeping it at the same time. That’s not how
> normal property behaves.

Yup, it makes as much sense as defining your relationships as "emotional
property".

victor

"victor" <> wrote in message
news:hdarjd$8h1$...
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <a10de595-a9b3-4c97-
>> a224->, peterwn wrote:
>>
>>> It is very difficult to argue with the proposition that owners of
>>> intellectual property would expect, in a civilised society, that the
>>> state provides mechanisms to help protect their property rights.
>>
>> Except that “intellectual property� does not really behave like property.
>>
>> With normal property, you as the owner are expected to bear
>> responsibility for it. If you give/sell it to somebody else, then they
>> become the owner and they become resopnsible.
>>
>> Whereas with “intellectual property� you have this weird thing of being
>> able to give it to others while still keeping it at the same time. That’s
>> not how normal property behaves.
>
> Yup, it makes as much sense as defining your relationships as "emotional
> property".

I knew you were clueless about what property actually is. Property is not
some "thing" -- weird or otherwise. It's a bundle of rights that gives the
owner exclusive control over the disposition of whatever it is they have
legal title to. Pirates steal from intellectual property holders by denying
them exclusive control -- by copying and distributing protected works
without the property owner's permission. This is no different in principle
than what any thief does -- whether the theft involves land, cars, or hand
bags is really only relevant to the scale of punishment meted out for those
different crimes.

impossible