«

On Friday, November 16, 2012 6:41:26 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 12:06:18 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:16:28 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:36:45 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> >
>


>
> > > > 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.
>



>
> > > So you're opposed to public libraries that offer free access to
>
> > > information?
>
> > No .
>
> >
>
> > > Free in the sense that anybody can go to the library and read a
>
> > > book there for free, instead of buying that same book in a bookstore.
>
> > As far as I know the library buys the book so why should I object to that.
>
> >
>
> > You're the one that doesn't want libraries to buy books.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I'm not opposed to libraries buying books. I'm just pointing out they
>
> offer free access to information,

What do you mean by free my taxes pay for libaries, so I do pay for them.


> similar to how people can download
>
> information for free online.

No it's not like that. Just becausee you can't tell teh difernce doesn't make it the same.


>
> Either of those options can be an alternative for buying a book.

No they can't.
Do you not understand that ?


> Yet research shows that people who obtain a free version of things
>
> online are the same people who spend most money on buying such things.

Then show that research, but it does vary depending on the product being obtained.

>
> So encouraging people to share information freely doesn't necessarily
>
> detract from people who try to earn money from their creative skills.

So it is OK for me to share your money freely ?


> > > > Also depends what you mean by sharing.
>
>
> > > P2p sharing. So a bitstring going from one individual on the internet
>

Send me yuor bitstring of your bank account details to share.
Unless you do this I can opnly assume you don;t realy believe in sharing or is it that you only believe in sharing other peoples property ?


>
> > Then share your bitstream with me, share your bank accoutn details and any PIN or other bitstream information, you say boitstings are free and can be shared so do it, or is it that it;'s only others that have tto share their bitsrtrweam with you ?
>
>
>
> I've never claimed that everybody should be forced to share all
>
> information with everybody else. All I've claimed is that once people
>
> publish information (regardless whether they sell it or give it
>
> away), they can no longer realistically expect to impose a
>
> monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of such
>
> information.

So do you have a monoploy on your bitstring ?
If you've ever brought anything on line then are you saying your bitstring is public property.
But then again I'm not sure how old you have to be to order on-line so perhpas you've not done it.

Now when you go in to a sweet shop with is public or in the street which is public and you have money in your pocket you are in a public area so your money can be shared with others can't it, just like a bitstring ?
So I assume you'll have no problem if someone comes up to you and takes your money to share with the public around you, doesn;t matterc if it's cash or a card, cheque book or gold.

"Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
news:...
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> 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?
>
> Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been
> destroyed.
> As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem.
>
> And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations,
> anyway,
> so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example
> is
> the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when
> creating
> software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties.

That's called work-for-hire.

Some folk do and some don't agree to those T&C. With our studio and my
engineering ... work for hire are not on the table save for obscene amounts
of money.

On 11/18/2012 9:24 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> | > | > That's quaint. Lobbying *is* bribery. And it's perfectly
> | > | > legal. What authorities are you going to report to?
> | > | >
> | >
> | > | It's obvious that you have little understanding of the regulatory
> | > | process, under which governmental regulations should be designed to
> work
> | > | with business, not stifle it. There is a balance between public good
> | > | and business that must be struck during the regulatory process. Yes,
> it
> | > | is, and can be abused. Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie, bought
> | > | McKinley. He was assassinated and Teddy Roosevelt became their worst
> | > | nightmare. Those matters have a way of running in cycles, due to our
> | > | very human tendency to abuse.
> | > |
> | >
> | > I always thought gov't was for the
> | > smooth operation of a civilized society...all the way
> | > back to Moses deciding the penalty for stealing one's
> | > neighbor's pig. You're saying you regard the role of
> | > gov't as a balancing between the peoples' interests
> | > and business interests? So the American gov't is
> | > intended to be a method of making plutocracy run
> | > smoothly? How bracingly savage.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | You are being deliberately provocative and offensive.
> |
> | 1. My statement was in response to your claim that lobbying is bribery.
> | It can only be read in context.
> |
> | 2. Your statement is a clear and deliberate distortion of my meaning.
> |
>
> Then perhaps you should explain your meaning. You
> equated lawmaking with business regulation, but didn't
> directly explain your position that lobbying is not
> essentially bribery. I don't accept the premise that
> lawmaking equates to business regulation.
>
> | 3. I find that your constant reference to Moses and pigs, is offensive.
> |
>
> As I said, I don't accept the premise that lawmaking
> equates to business regulation. I was using the reference
> to Moses to illustrate that point. Did you not understand
> the reference? I was pointing out that gov't, from the
> beginning of Western recorded history, has been a system
> to enable civilized society, not a system to enable business.
> I'm not a Bible expert, but from what I remember in reading
> the Bible, the Old Testament tells the story of Moses
> leading people toward civility, to some extent one law
> at a time. As I recall one case was about 2 men who
> were fighting over a pig and wanted Moses to intercede.


In my view there is no old, or new testament. There is only one Bible.
>
> I honestly can't imagine how anyone might find that
> offensive. Are you offended by Christianity? By Judaism?
> By references to religious texts? My reference was not
> about either Moses or about pigs. It was about the role
> of gov't in human society. If you didn't understand my
> point then why not ask me to explain rather than taking
> offense?

If you can't find that offensive, I feel sorry for those who deal with you.

>
> | You can only try to get away with that **** behind you firewall. In
> | person you don't have the balls.
> |
>
> Can't we discuss differences in points of view without
> it descending into insults and swearing? You called me
> stupid ("It's obvious that you have little understanding")
> and now you call me a coward. I haven't insulted
> you.... Well, I did imply you might be a plutocrat.
>
>

Perhaps you should explain your assertion that lobbying is bribery.
Perhaps you should explain why it's OK to steal from a corporation/.


--
Peter

On 11/18/2012 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-18 17:14:43 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 11/17/2012 10:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <> wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2012 6:11 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> sobriquet writes:
>>>
>>>>>> The real freeloaders are the corporate criminals responsible for
>>>>>> all that intellectual property nonsense.
>>>
>>>>> Entirely true, unfortunately. The real entities profiting from ever
>>>>> more
>>>>> restrictive copyright legislation are corporate rights holders,
>>>>> such as movie
>>>>> studios and record companies. Very little has changed for
>>>>> individual artists.
>>>
>>>> As an artist I am free to do what I want with my work. If I make a deal
>>>> with any corporation, and that company benefits, great. They expect to.
>>>> Otherwise they would not have financed my work.
>>>> I am also free to give it away, or sell it.
>>>
>>> A worker is free to work for whomever he chooses, at the price
>>> they agree. The company he works for sure wants benefits.
>>>
>>> A worker is also free to work for free, or set up his own shop.
>>>
>>> Now explain why unions are needed. Far as you put it,
>>> there's no need for them.
>>
>>
>> If your basic premise was true, you would be right. Problem is that
>> your statements are not always true. Economics plays a very limiting
>> part.
>
> Twinkie anybody?
> The Twinkie is no less an intellectual property than, a book is to a
> publisher, an iPhone to Apple, of CS6 to Adobe. Those labels, product
> names, recipes, and baking processes are their assets to sell, and sell
> they will. They have a value. (That said, I hate their products, and
> have never consumed them, even as a child.)

I too have never eaten a twinkie, in my life.
BTW if you have never eaten one, how do you know you hate them?


>
> The unions didn't take Hostess seriously in the negotiation process. As
> a result they have ended up with 18,500 jobs lost and a 100% cut in pay
> and benefits.
>
> Those union workers certainly knew what it took to make those Hostess
> products in the Hostess factories & bakeries. They probably were privy
> to the ingredients and various mixing formulae & baking methods, but it
> is Hostess who is going to sell those trademarked product labels along
> with their proprietary recipes & processes to some buyer. Those buyers
> are going to be more than willing to buy 60+ years of PR and bad eating
> habits, and produce those Twinkies, Snowballs in their bakeries, with
> their workers.
>

Some are ****ed that many in management got hundreds of thousands in
bonuses right before the bankruptcy filing. But, I cannot say that the
union leadership is acting responsibly.

While the workers may know the ingredients, they may not have access to
the proportions. the recopies may be a secret, as is the formula for
Cocoa Cola.



--
Peter

On 11/18/2012 11:57 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> || You are being deliberately provocative and offensive.
>
> In any case, I'm sorry that you feel offended.
> I enjoy lively debate and I don't generally take
> it personally, but I need to remember that not
> everyone feels the same way.
>
>

OK Lets move on. the concept of Biblical Isrealities being pig farmers
is offensive and insensitive. I let it go, and charged it up to
insensitivity. When you kept mentioning it, I consider that to be
offensive to the Jewish people.


--
Peter

On 11/19/2012 12:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:


<snip>
>
> ...and he just lost his bet on Thursday evening.
> The lesson here is never take that risk if you have no control over the
> outcome.
>

I frequently take risks, when i have no control over the outcome. But, I
consider what happens if Lose, and is the upside worth the potential
downside. Also, can I afford to lose.

--
Peter

On 11/20/2012 10:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-20 19:11:43 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 11/18/2012 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Twinkie anybody?
>>> The Twinkie is no less an intellectual property than, a book is to a
>>> publisher, an iPhone to Apple, of CS6 to Adobe. Those labels, product
>>> names, recipes, and baking processes are their assets to sell, and sell
>>> they will. They have a value. (That said, I hate their products, and
>>> have never consumed them, even as a child.)
>>
>> I too have never eaten a twinkie, in my life.
>> BTW if you have never eaten one, how do you know you hate them?
>
> As a child my maternal grandfather had this habit of making a very
> demonstrative act of consuming cream. He loved the stuff. He would add
> it to almost everything. In the days of the glass milk bottle and "real"
> milk, he went to the point of securing the separated cream on top for
> himself. Any milk bottles he could find had the foil or paper tops
> violated so he could attack the cream. My cousins and I were nauseated
> by these demonstrations, which were always made for our benefit and his
> entertainment.
>
> The result was I have always been turned off by cream, or even
> pseudo-cream, so I have never been attracted to the Twinkie, the eclair
> or anything which might appear to have a creamy filling or topping. The
> only time I am known to consume cream is in fine prepared sauces.
>
> Otherwise I am sickened by cream and any analogues of it, as represented
> by the Twinkie filling, which I have never risked.
>
> Ergo I hate their products, as they never offered me a product I could
> delight in as others around me found delight in the Twinkie.
>
> I was a child with damaged dietary habits, and it extends into my
> dotage. One of my cousins shares this issue. It is a neurosis which has
> probably saved both of us from some diet related disease.
>
> BTW: My grandfather made it to 92 in spite of his lipid rich diet.
>
>
>
OK Fair enough. I am a cream lover, especially ice cream, whipped cream,
eclairs and napoleons. My wife OTOH had a sensitive gall bladder and got
quite sick from eating cream. After her gall bladder was removed, she
still doesn't like cream, although I have never seen her eat any, except
ice cream and sour cream.

--
Peter

On 11/20/2012 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-20 20:10:23 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 11/20/2012 10:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-20 19:11:43 -0800, PeterN <>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/18/2012 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Twinkie anybody?
>>>>> The Twinkie is no less an intellectual property than, a book is to a
>>>>> publisher, an iPhone to Apple, of CS6 to Adobe. Those labels, product
>>>>> names, recipes, and baking processes are their assets to sell, and
>>>>> sell
>>>>> they will. They have a value. (That said, I hate their products, and
>>>>> have never consumed them, even as a child.)
>>>>
>>>> I too have never eaten a twinkie, in my life.
>>>> BTW if you have never eaten one, how do you know you hate them?
>>>
>>> As a child my maternal grandfather had this habit of making a very
>>> demonstrative act of consuming cream. He loved the stuff. He would add
>>> it to almost everything. In the days of the glass milk bottle and "real"
>>> milk, he went to the point of securing the separated cream on top for
>>> himself. Any milk bottles he could find had the foil or paper tops
>>> violated so he could attack the cream. My cousins and I were nauseated
>>> by these demonstrations, which were always made for our benefit and his
>>> entertainment.
>>>
>>> The result was I have always been turned off by cream, or even
>>> pseudo-cream, so I have never been attracted to the Twinkie, the eclair
>>> or anything which might appear to have a creamy filling or topping. The
>>> only time I am known to consume cream is in fine prepared sauces.
>>>
>>> Otherwise I am sickened by cream and any analogues of it, as represented
>>> by the Twinkie filling, which I have never risked.
>>>
>>> Ergo I hate their products, as they never offered me a product I could
>>> delight in as others around me found delight in the Twinkie.
>>>
>>> I was a child with damaged dietary habits, and it extends into my
>>> dotage. One of my cousins shares this issue. It is a neurosis which has
>>> probably saved both of us from some diet related disease.
>>>
>>> BTW: My grandfather made it to 92 in spite of his lipid rich diet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> OK Fair enough. I am a cream lover, especially ice cream, whipped
>> cream, eclairs and napoleons. My wife OTOH had a sensitive gall
>> bladder and got quite sick from eating cream. After her gall bladder
>> was removed, she still doesn't like cream, although I have never seen
>> her eat any, except ice cream and sour cream.
>
> Ice cream yes, sour cream no.
>

A few weeks ago I saw a farmer hauling a wheelbarrow full of manure. He
said it was for his strawberries.
I told him that I prefer sour cream on my strawberries.

--
Peter

| > I honestly can't imagine how anyone might find that
| > offensive. Are you offended by Christianity? By Judaism?
| > By references to religious texts? My reference was not
| > about either Moses or about pigs. It was about the role
| > of gov't in human society. If you didn't understand my
| > point then why not ask me to explain rather than taking
| > offense?
|
| If you can't find that offensive, I feel sorry for those who deal with
you.
|

Ah, I see. You're Jewish. Sorry. I was
referring to a section in Exodus where
the laws are being worked out:

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay
five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep."

I should have known better than to think it was a pig
in the story, as I'm vaguely familiar with kosher law. But
I'm not Jewish, so I just didn't think of that. It certainly
wasn't meant to be insulting! I did remember the gist
of the story correctly, as I was using it to make a point.
Couldn't you have just corrected my mistake and tried to
understand what point I was making? After all, there's no
reason you should assume anyone else to be well-versed
in your religion.

| Perhaps you should explain your assertion that lobbying is bribery.

I did. At some length. See my post to Tony Cooper.
But what of your view?

| Perhaps you should explain why it's OK to steal from a corporation

?? I never said that. Throughout this discussion
I've been making the same basic point, which is that
there's opportunistic dishonesty on both sides of
the issue; and that any resolution will have to
recognize that. You shouldn't assume that criticism
of one side necessarily means agreement with the
other. We're talking morals, law and government --
not sports teams.


There's actually been interesting news about this
issue over the past couple of days:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...committee.html

The piece clarifies the point I was mentioning earlier --
that copyright was never meant to protect business
profit in the first place. It was meant to compensate
creative efforts *only because they are of value to
society*. The original intent has been corrupted by
"lobbying" from the likes of Disney.

Getting back the the *original* original topic, I've been
looking at wikimedia.org, which sobriquet linked to. There's
a fairly substantial supply of images there that are free to
use. It's quite an impressive effort. I'm tempted to join and
upload some photos. It seems a shame that so many millions
of photos are taken daily, and yet very few are available
for use by people who need them.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:41:29 AM UTC, PeterN wrote:
> On 11/20/2012 11:19 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>
> > On 2012-11-20 20:10:23 -0800, PeterN <> said:
>
> >
>
> >> On 11/20/2012 10:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >>> On 2012-11-20 19:11:43 -0800, PeterN <>
>
> >>> said:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> On 11/18/2012 10:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Twinkie anybody?
>
> >>>>> The Twinkie is no less an intellectual property than, a book is to a
>
> >>>>> publisher, an iPhone to Apple, of CS6 to Adobe. Those labels, product
>
> >>>>> names, recipes, and baking processes are their assets to sell, and
>
> >>>>> sell
>
> >>>>> they will. They have a value. (That said, I hate their products, and
>
> >>>>> have never consumed them, even as a child.)
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I too have never eaten a twinkie, in my life.
>
> >>>> BTW if you have never eaten one, how do you know you hate them?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> As a child my maternal grandfather had this habit of making a very
>
> >>> demonstrative act of consuming cream. He loved the stuff. He would add
>
> >>> it to almost everything. In the days of the glass milk bottle and "real"
>
> >>> milk, he went to the point of securing the separated cream on top for
>
> >>> himself. Any milk bottles he could find had the foil or paper tops
>
> >>> violated so he could attack the cream. My cousins and I were nauseated
>
> >>> by these demonstrations, which were always made for our benefit and his
>
> >>> entertainment.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The result was I have always been turned off by cream, or even
>
> >>> pseudo-cream, so I have never been attracted to the Twinkie, the eclair
>
> >>> or anything which might appear to have a creamy filling or topping. The
>
> >>> only time I am known to consume cream is in fine prepared sauces.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Otherwise I am sickened by cream and any analogues of it, as represented
>
> >>> by the Twinkie filling, which I have never risked.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Ergo I hate their products, as they never offered me a product I could
>
> >>> delight in as others around me found delight in the Twinkie.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I was a child with damaged dietary habits, and it extends into my
>
> >>> dotage. One of my cousins shares this issue. It is a neurosis which has
>
> >>> probably saved both of us from some diet related disease.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> BTW: My grandfather made it to 92 in spite of his lipid rich diet.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >> OK Fair enough. I am a cream lover, especially ice cream, whipped
>
> >> cream, eclairs and napoleons. My wife OTOH had a sensitive gall
>
> >> bladder and got quite sick from eating cream. After her gall bladder
>
> >> was removed, she still doesn't like cream, although I have never seen
>
> >> her eat any, except ice cream and sour cream.
>
> >
>
> > Ice cream yes, sour cream no.
>
> >
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago I saw a farmer hauling a wheelbarrow full of manure. He
>
> said it was for his strawberries.
>
> I told him that I prefer sour cream on my strawberries.

I'm sure someone on masterchef last night put black pepper and red wine on strawberries. Must remmebr to buy some strawberries to try it.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter