«

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:42:22 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
>
> >>Eric Stevens <> writes:
>
>
>
> >>> Reproducing creative works (what you call 'information') has probably
>
> >>> always regarded as immoral. The idea of copyright was introduced only
>
> >>> when the mass copying of original works became a practical
>
> >>> proposition.
>
>
>
> >>Sorry, you're historically wrong. That's why monks devoted their lives
>
> >>to copying manuscripts by hand -- it was almost an act of worship for
>
> >>them. Certainly NOT an immoral act.
>
>
>
> > As I've already remarked, you've opened a can of worms.
>
>
>
> > Monasteries used to have a system where one monk (the 'Reader' which
>
> > title is still preserved in some universities) would read from an
>
> > original text and a room full of scribes would write down his words as
>
> > he read them aloud. The original authors were long since dead and were
>
> > not being deprived of anything by the copying. The idea generally was
>
> > to try and preserve ancient knowledge for posterity.
>
>
>
> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
>
> till the original author was safely dead, then started
>
> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
>
> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
>
> another monastery.

I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
so when did God die

>

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:48:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:51:58 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:13:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>>>>>PeterN <> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Absent some express provision to the contrary, purchase of a book is a
>>>>>>>>> purchase of a limited right to the contents of that book.

>>>>>>>>Only with ebooks.

>>>>>>> Not so. If you look inside the cover of most books you will find a
>>>>>>> detailed copyright notice limiting your rights as to what you can do
>>>>>>> with it.

>>>>>>The notice is only that: a notice. It's not a contract.
>>>>>>You did not enter into it. You did not agree to it. You did
>>>>>>not sign it.

>>>>> I think you will find that under Copyright law, you are bound by those
>>>>> terms if you choose to buy the book.

>>>>Go ask your lawyer if
>>>>- the notes in a book you bought carry any legal weight.
>>>>- US copyright law applies to other countries with not only
>>>> different laws but a different law tradition (common law
>>>> versus civil law).

>>>>Report back.

>>>>If the notes in the book happen to state exactly what the law
>>>>says, that's a happy circumstance, nothing else.

>>> I'm sure you know that copyright laws vary with time and place. Things
>>> have been stabilised by the Berne Convention of 1988 which applies
>>> almost uniformly to signatory countries. See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...Artistic_Works
>>> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...ght_Convention
>>> A copyright notice is still required in the USA if you are to succeed
>>> in recovering damages. Consequently any book likely to be sold in the
>>> USA will have such a notice.

>>So basically you agree that the notice of a book may be correct
>>for one place and only sorta-correct for other places.

> Basically yes, when the details of the various laws are considered.
> But I'm sure you knew that already.

*I* knew that. *Your*:
| If you look inside the cover of most books you will find a
| detailed copyright notice limiting your rights as to what you can do
| with it.
read like *the notice* did limit your rights.

But maybe it's just my rather limited English skills.


>>>>>>You purchased the physical thing, and you have the same rights
>>>>>>to the content as if you loaned it from a library or a friend
>>>>>>or if you stole the book.

>>>>> Not so.

>>>>So which additional rights to the content does buying
>>>>(compared to lending) grant one?

>>>>Ask your lawyer.
>>>>Report back.

>>> Once again it depends whereabouts in the world you are.

>>OK, so "which additional rights to the content does buying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>(compared to lending) grant one" where *you* reside. You
>>claim that there's a difference ... which one is it?

> The biggest one is that you can keep the book.

I underlined the part of the question you seem to be completely
missing. Please reread the question carefully before answering.


>>> However the
>>> recent fuss over the illegitimate copying of music and videos should
>>> give you some idea of the complexity of the various rights and
>>> responsibilities. (OK I know you don't recognise any of these and can
>>> be expected to deny they exist.)

>>'recent'? The music industry was self-proclaimed dying ever
>>since ther was radio and/or tape recorders. "Home recording
>>kills music!"

> We both know that already.

Ok, so what does the 'recent' fuzz over the illegitimate
copying of music and videos teach us --- in regard to the
contents of books?


>>>>There it is again: if the US is a signatory, then every
>>>>country must be a signatory. Typical.

>>> (Nearly) every country _is_ a signatory to the Berne Convention of
>>> 1988.

>>(Nearly) everyone has never ended the life of a human being,
>>therefore, no murderers exist. Let's do away with all the
>>unneccessary laws about that topic. Right?

> It would make life easier but I wonder how long people with your
> ethical outlook would last.

What on Earth made you think that this was my ethical outlook?


>>>>>>Note that there is no "if you personally bought this book,
>>>>>>you may copy the pages 110-125 and sell them, if you name the
>>>>>>source" or similar text in the notice, which would give you
>>>>>>limited rights to the contents of that book if you purchased it.

>>>>> I would love to see you trying to tell that to the judge.

>>>>You probably should closely reread what I wrote, you seem not
>>>>to get it. In case you think you do:

>>>>Print a book with that notice, I'll buy it, copy and sell
>>>>pages 110-125 naming the souce, you sue me, I tell that to
>>>>the judge (and show him the notice), I prove that I bought the
>>>>book personally --- as stipulated --- and the judge will
>>>>agree with me and laugh you out of court.

>>> Its the selling that will land you in trouble.

>>WHY should doing exactly as you permit me --- in writing, no
>>less --- land ME in trouble? Care to explain how you propose
>>to tell the judge "I didn't mean what I wrote when I granted
>>that right"?

> Because the copyright law of virtually every significant country gives
> you limited rights to copy but does not give you rights to copy for
> resale. But I'm sure you know that already.

Could you kindly point out where in the copyright law it is
written that a copyright owner cannot unilaterally (in writing)
grant any affitional rights to his works outside what copyright
allows? I'm sure I didn't know about that part ...

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:42:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:42:22 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
>>>>Eric Stevens <> writes:

>>>>> Reproducing creative works (what you call 'information') has probably
>>>>> always regarded as immoral. The idea of copyright was introduced only
>>>>> when the mass copying of original works became a practical
>>>>> proposition.

>>>>Sorry, you're historically wrong. That's why monks devoted their lives
>>>>to copying manuscripts by hand -- it was almost an act of worship for
>>>>them. Certainly NOT an immoral act.

>>> As I've already remarked, you've opened a can of worms.

>>> Monasteries used to have a system where one monk (the 'Reader' which
>>> title is still preserved in some universities) would read from an
>>> original text and a room full of scribes would write down his words as
>>> he read them aloud. The original authors were long since dead and were
>>> not being deprived of anything by the copying. The idea generally was
>>> to try and preserve ancient knowledge for posterity.

>>So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
>>till the original author was safely dead, then started
>>copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
>>that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
>>another monastery.

>>I think not.

> Quite rightly. That's not what I'm saying. But I'm sure you know that.

So you retract your "The original authors were long since
dead" part?

>>Oh, authorship wasn't nearly as important then as it is today.
>>Many books were anonymous.

> They still had a title.

non sequitur.

-Wolfgang

Whisky-dave <> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
>> till the original author was safely dead, then started
>> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
>> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
>> another monastery.

> I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
> so when did God die

Some say he never existed.

Others would say he let humans write.

Yet others could explain that since God made the world and
everything (including the humans), he's got the ownership of
everything from his creation anyway --- and thus humans copying
his works is as much a copyright problem as a copying machine
copying on the button press of the author.

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>>> Yes it is. The person who has just ripped off a copy is eliminated as
>>> as customer. Why should they buy? They've already got one.

>>Logical fail. You assume everyone who has NOT ripped off a
>>copy (yet) is a customer.

> That's nothing to do with what I said.

That's the foundation of your claim.


>> Most people are decent. If they
>>want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,
>>they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay
>>and don't get stones laid in their way there.

> And if they haven't already ripped off a copy.

If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily.


>>Logical fail, second: For most creators the problem is not
>>people not wanting to buy, but people not knowing there exists
>>something they'd want to buy. A free sample, a test drive,
>>so to say, is an effective way of finding out if the pig in a
>>poke is actually something they'd enjoy. Paying 20 bucks on
>>the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
>>joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
>>quite different ....

> Yeah, people buy music they have never heard all the time.

Yes, they just walk into a CD shop and grab a bunch of CDs at
random, hoping they'll like 1 or maybe 2 of the whole bunch.

> If
> something new comes on the radio they close their ears so they don't
> have a chance to decide whether or not they want it.

You really must feel clever, reducing music to the top 40 pops,
top 40 Country and top 40 Rock-n-Roll. When was the last
time you heard Gregorian Chants on radio? Or Early Music?


>>>>They can sell their creations just the same, ...

>>> Yes, not to the people who have already stolen a copy.

>>Yes, people who go into brick and motar stores to take a copy
>>without paying are thieves. They're not the decent majority.

> Buy your definition, the decent people take a copy from outside the
^^^
> store.

Your freudian slip shows perfectly clear that you know
exactly what decent people want to do.


>>Do you really want them as your customers?

> If they have got money and are prepared to pay - yes.

More brain damage? If they had money and were prepared to
pay, why would they take physical copies from shops? Can you
explain that or is that just you being contrary?


>>>>... but
>>>>they can't expect to impose a monopoly on the reproduction or
>>>>distribution of their creations.

>>> Not even when it has been legally granted to them?

>>Naah, it's been granted to the publishers and labels.
>>At least in the real world, if not in the letters of the law.

> The "publishers and labels" buy the monopoly on the reproduction and
> distribution with the intention of selling copies.

Nope.
Wrong on several counts.
Their main goal is (usually) making money, not selling copies
(selling copies is just one means, especially for labels).
And not even that is a given.


> If they can't sell
> copies because people have ripped them off then they will pay the
> original copyright holders less. But I'm sure you know that.

Please find your way to the Baen Free Libary and read the
Prime Palaver articles.

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:02:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:49:38 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>>>>> This is where your argument falls down. Your copy is only as legal as
>>>>> the 'bitstring' you copied to obtain it.

>>>>Wrong, I'm even legally allowed to make a copy for personal use
>>>>from an unauthorized source (e.g. a free download via a p2p network).

>>> And from where does the p2p network obtain it?

>>Does it matter? Why?

> Because you are copying stolen property.

Wrong. Ask your lawyer to explain.

> But I'm sure you knew that
> already.

I know that you cannot steal intellectual property, since
it's not physical. You can only steal an embodyment or
unauthorizedly copy intellectual property, but you cannot
steal it as such.


>>If I tell a business secret (even if I'm forbidden), are you
>>bound by law not to listen to it and not to repeat it?

> No law can stop me hearing it if the circumstances are right but it
> may be illegal for me to pass it on.

So under which conditions may it be illegal for you to pass
it on?

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:25:25 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <> wrote:

>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>>> So in just two interchanges you explain why I am right and you are
>>> wrong when you denied that is not correct to say "Your copy is only as
>>> legal as the 'bitstring' you copied to obtain it".

>>> Stolen goods are stolen goods. You can't have any rights, license or
>>> ownership in stolen goods.

>>However, you cannot steal intellectual property.

> Nonsense.

Absolutely true.

>> At most you
>>can steal a physical object embodying intellectual property, say
>>a DVD embodying a film or blueprints embodying some invention.

> You should look up the "Yes, we have no bananas" case. The tune was
> inadvertantly copied

!= stolen
That *is* the point.

> and built into another piece of music by someone
> who had done no more than listen to it. There is no need to steal a
> physical object to infringe copyright. All that has to be transferred
> is the idea itself.

True but irrelevant. You can infringe copyright, but that is
!= *theft*.

>>You *can* copy intellectual property without permission, but
>>that's not theft or stealing[1]. Nor is it robbery on a ship
>>on the high seas cutlass between your teeth, no matter what
>>some quarters would like you to believe.

>>-Wolfgang

>>[1] Ask your lawyer. "stealing" as a moral issue is something
>> else, and often shouted most loud by people who think
>> digital downloads need to have a downward adjustment in pay
>> to the creator for "grampohone records broken in transit".

> You really do have a blind spot.

Not calling infringing copyright "murder" or "terrorism" or
"theft" --- because these are completely different crimes ---
is a blind spot?

Really, DO ask your lawyer.

-Wolfgang

On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:52:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<> wrote:

>Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>>> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
>>> till the original author was safely dead, then started
>>> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
>>> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
>>> another monastery.
>
>> I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
>> so when did God die
>
>Some say he never existed.
>
>Others would say he let humans write.

While not a religious person, I have been around them. I've never
heard even the most devoutly religious claim the Bible was written by
God. The usual attribution is "inspired by God".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:03:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:26:38 -0500, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:52:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>Whisky-dave <> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
>>>>> till the original author was safely dead, then started
>>>>> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
>>>>> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
>>>>> another monastery.
>>>
>>>> I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
>>>> so when did God die
>>>
>>>Some say he never existed.
>>>
>>>Others would say he let humans write.
>>
>>While not a religious person, I have been around them. I've never
>>heard even the most devoutly religious claim the Bible was written by
>>God. The usual attribution is "inspired by God".
>
> ... "the word of God".

I am not, by any means, a religious person. I am a person who is
interested in words, word meaning, and word connotation, though.
"Inspired by God" implies that a human wrote something, but God was
indirectly guiding his thoughts. "The word of God" implies a
transcription of an actual conversation with God.

"Inspired" gives the writer a lot of latitude. He can claim God put
the idea in his head, but he can elaborate or embellish on that.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:20:25 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>>> One reason is that digital copying is much easier and the effort
>>> required is much less. One can quickly do the deed and then pat your
>>> concience on the head telling it that you haven't done anything of
>>> significance.

>>The significance IS the work needed.

> So it's OK to burgle your house as long as the burglar doesn't raise a
> sweat in the process. I think not.

If someone burgles my bicycle, I don't have any and have to walk.
If someone COPIES my bicycle, I STILL have mine and will ride it.

See any difference?

(Of course you cannot admit there is one. Because you would
then have to admit that your "burgle" example has been dragged
in by the hair.)


>>I can download Debian easily, put it on a couple sticks and
>>share them with my friends and neighbours. The only significant
>>parts are
>>a) I share something and thereby help my friends and neighbours
>>b) I probably want the sticks back

>>Now compare that to, say, a functionally equivalent Windows.
>>Not only do I need to spend months finding all the software
>>to get the function I got out of the box (and some of the
>>functionality isn't even available[1]), I also need to spend
>>tens of thousands of USD on software. Then I need to have
>>lots of CDs and key codes and so on.

>>Installing the whole mess is lots of work (instead of just
>>choosing the packages and letting the computer do all the
>>work while I'm away from it). And it doesn't update itself
>>automatically, only a few parts do.

>>Oh, and I'm not allowed to share. And even if I were, there
>>are lots of technical barriers.

>>Now, tell me, what is the significance of THAT?

> Rather than do it the easy way but which costs you money, you would
> rather go out and steal.

Do you have to work hard to find such completely idiotic and
wrong interpretations, or are you just naturally blonde?


>>And tell me a society that makes it artifically hard to help
>>your friends and neighbours (and thinks the profits of a
>>convicted monopolist more important) is on the right way.

> Nothing to do with convicted monopolists.

So microsoft was never in court and judged guilty for that
crime? Even if all they got was a slap on the wrist as
punishment?


> You would be quite happy to
> steal from a totally blameless person.

And the Earth *is* flat and I killed Kennedy *and* Genghis
Khan, too.


>>>>So to solve the problems associated with copyright, we
>>>>first should strive towards a transparent government that is
>>>>able to draft sensible laws and only then can we expect people
>>>>to take such laws seriously.

>>> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they
>>> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.

>>Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?

> They lose sum or all of the value of the intillectual property.

Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?

Or can you point me to where the law says "Theft is ... the
copying of intellectual property"?


>>[1] Try to get Windows to understand sloppy focus (i.e. the
>> window last touched by the mouse is active) *and* not to
>> raise the active window.

> The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but that
> you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely
> honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is.

The manner in which you try your hand in character assassination
tells me that you are either too stupid to know what you are
doing, or you know fully well that you have lost the argument
and resort to beating the messenger to a virtual pulp to save
your hide.

The way in which you avoid answering questions when the answer
is bad for you rules out the "too stupid" part.

Which means that --- I am sorry to say that --- you are
intellectual dishonest and should pursue a career where lying
and sidestepping reality and attacking everyone who challenges
you is an advantage. Extremist politican, terrorist ("We had
to kill them, it's your fault for not doing as we ordered you
to") or war crimes apologist come to mind.

-Wolfgang