Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Fair Go stuff up

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Fair Go stuff up

 
 
Possible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
On Mon, 9 May 2011 10:38:34 +1200, "J.Wilson" <a@!b.c.ru> wrote:

>
>"Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:iq626f$3tp$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Boots" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
>>>> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
>>>>
>>>> You think they'd get it right....
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
>>>
>>> In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
>>> question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL) that
>>> permit sharing.
>>>

>>
>> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say so?
>> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on "Favourites". Is that
>> allowed?
>>
>> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

>
>Unlax, if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you expect
>to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued? If you are
>able to watch or listen to anything at all on the web do so with a clear
>conscience.
>



The Yanks want to ban the sales of Secondhand DVD/CD Games etc because
of copyright as you do not own them.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Boots
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
On Mon, 09 May 2011 19:59:00 +1200, Possible wrote:

> The Yanks want to ban the sales of Secondhand DVD/CD Games etc because
> of copyright as you do not own them.


The only problem with that is the fact that while you don't possess the
right to make copies for sale or distribution, you DO own the physical
media that is the Digital Versatile Disc and you can sell or otherwise
dispose of that in any way you choose - providing you also destroy any
copies you may have made for the purpose of backing up the contents of
the disc.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
On 2011-05-09, Geopelia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:iq686c$5ct$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message <iq626f$3tp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:
>>
>>> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
>>> so?

>>
>> Copyright is supposed to apply to things "fixed in a tangible form"
>> (whatever that means legally). Any such things are automatically
>> copyrighted, no need to put any copyright notice on them.
>>
>> Copyright is also only supposed to apply to expressions of ideas, not to
>> ideas themselves. But court decisions regularly stretch that distinction
>> to
>> breaking point.
>>
>>> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
>>> "Favourites". Is that allowed?

>>
>> They should be. But sometimes lawyers will come down on you for bogus
>> reasons
>> <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/21415213752/greek-site-that-links-to-legal-videos-rightsholders-sued-infringement.shtml>.

>
> Crazy. The Greeks will be claiming copyright for Pythagoras and Euclid next.
>
>>
>>> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

>>
>> Yes <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml>.

>
> Thank you.
> Those are good websites. The whole thing seems very confusing.
>
> Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial sale?
>
>

Simple, as Cyndi Lauper sung, Money changes everything.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
In message <iq7tcg$9dq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:

> Those are good websites.


techdirt.com is a long-running blog chronicling (mis)adventures of
copyrights, patents, trademarks and all sorts of things that roughly fall
under the umbrella of that totally misleading term “intellectual property”.
You will find both happy and sad stories there; sad ones of overreach and
abuse of these rights to shut down harmless, even beneficial activities, and
happy ones of artists and entrepreneurs discovering how to adapt and even
thrive in the presence of supposedly evil things like “piracy”.

The guy who runs it also runs an open comment system. He welcomes informed
discussion, has the patience to keep explaining things to those who
automatically assume that copyrights and patents are good, therefore even
more draconian copyright and patent laws must be even better, and is even
willing to tolerate those who simply refuse to listen to reasoned argument
and keep on repeating the same bullshit without censoring them.

> The whole thing seems very confusing.


In some ways that seems almost planned. It’s like the whole system has
evolved to favour those with the biggest legal budgets.

> Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial
> sale?


Define “commercial”.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Geopelia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:iq89l1$aq5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <iq7tcg$9dq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:
>
>> Those are good websites.

>
> techdirt.com is a long-running blog chronicling (mis)adventures of
> copyrights, patents, trademarks and all sorts of things that roughly fall
> under the umbrella of that totally misleading term "intellectual property".
> You will find both happy and sad stories there; sad ones of overreach and
> abuse of these rights to shut down harmless, even beneficial activities,
> and
> happy ones of artists and entrepreneurs discovering how to adapt and even
> thrive in the presence of supposedly evil things like "piracy".
>
> The guy who runs it also runs an open comment system. He welcomes informed
> discussion, has the patience to keep explaining things to those who
> automatically assume that copyrights and patents are good, therefore even
> more draconian copyright and patent laws must be even better, and is even
> willing to tolerate those who simply refuse to listen to reasoned argument
> and keep on repeating the same bullshit without censoring them.
>
>> The whole thing seems very confusing.

>
> In some ways that seems almost planned. It's like the whole system has
> evolved to favour those with the biggest legal budgets.
>
>> Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial
>> sale?

>
> Define "commercial".


To be sold for money?

I had a lot of trouble getting anything to post with eternal-september
today.
Sorry about the duplicates.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
In message <iq8k5s$q83$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:iq89l1$aq5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Define "commercial".

>
> To be sold for money?


What if you make money off the items in question some other way? For
example, by advertising? Is that still not “commercial”?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
In message <4dc76f86$(E-Mail Removed)>, J.Wilson wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:iq7g5h$s6p$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> In message <4dc71b47$(E-Mail Removed)>, J.Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> ... if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you
>>> expect to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued?

>>
>> Paper book or e-book?

>
> e-books can be encrypted but apart from that read or not read I
> would'nt make the distinction.


Some would like the distinction to disappear, perhaps in ways you won’t like
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090925/0100086317.shtml>
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/163148691.shtml>
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020410/0044220_F.shtml>.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Geopelia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:iq8sd3$nca$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <iq8k5s$q83$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:
>
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:iq89l1$aq5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Define "commercial".

>>
>> To be sold for money?

>
> What if you make money off the items in question some other way? For
> example, by advertising? Is that still not "commercial"?


Probably a lot of things could be considered commercial.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Geopelia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011

"J.Wilson" <a@!b.c.ru> wrote in message news:4dc71b47$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:iq626f$3tp$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Boots" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
>>>> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
>>>>
>>>> You think they'd get it right....
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
>>>
>>> In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
>>> question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL)
>>> that
>>> permit sharing.
>>>

>>
>> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
>> so?
>> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
>> "Favourites". Is that allowed?
>>
>> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

>
> Unlax, if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you
> expect
> to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued? If you
> are
> able to watch or listen to anything at all on the web do so with a clear
> conscience.


What about library books? I don't think the author gets anything every time
the book is borrowed.
And Project Gutenberg seems to be free.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2011
In message <iq9nnf$6jg$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:iq8sd3$nca$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> In message <iq8k5s$q83$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:
>>
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:iq89l1$aq5$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>>> In message <iq7tcg$9dq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Geopelia wrote:

>
>>>> Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial
>>>> sale?
>>>
>>>> Define "commercial".
>>>
>>> To be sold for money?

>>
>> What if you make money off the items in question some other way? For
>> example, by advertising? Is that still not "commercial"?

>
> Probably a lot of things could be considered commercial.


So what does that do to your idea that they should "just keep the law to ...
commercial sale”?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fair-queue'ing ESM Cisco 1 03-08-2006 04:00 PM
fair-queue and MLPPP interfaces Bill F Cisco 1 03-04-2005 05:46 PM
Fair-Queing causes interface resets Douw Gerber Cisco 2 11-12-2003 03:03 PM
Weighted Fair-Queuing Martin Bilgrav Cisco 8 11-03-2003 09:08 PM
Are Freserve Fair Or Foul CapStick Computer Support 4 08-10-2003 02:17 AM



Advertisments