Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>>> 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.


> Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with
> the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died
> recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how
> I feel about ripping off.


So you didn't dump it when you got it.
You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
for that old version.

Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
you STOLE from Adobe. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


>>>>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.


> You are taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I've stopped buying
> recently but I used to regularly go in and buy music by composer even
> though I had never heard it.


OK, so now you're cutting down your own straw man ...
.... let me quote the original:
| 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 ....

See ... you admit you were buying by group (or composer), not
randomly.


>>> 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?


> 7:10 am this morning, I woke up to a choral by one of the lesser Bachs
> (I can't quite remember each one). We do have a 'Concert Program' in
> this part of the world.


Bach is a superstar.
So which one of the ones named here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mposers_by_era
did you hear this year on your concert program?

How many of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medieval_composers
have you ever heard on radio?


>>>>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?


> The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can
> afford to pay for it but are determined not to.


Which evidence?

Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
(i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
more than average on music.

Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
#11).

Where's youre evidence?


>>> 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.


It seems you haven't found the way yet, even though it's just
a google away. Here's one for you:
http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp

No more excuses now. Go read.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:00:54 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>
> >>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

>
>
>
> >>>> 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.

>
>
>
> > Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with

>
> > the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died

>
> > recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how

>
> > I feel about ripping off.

>
>
>
> So you didn't dump it when you got it.
>
> You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
>
> for that old version.
>
>
>
> Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
>
> you STOLE from Adobe.


Is that really true as the word stole can't be applied to IP.
he can't have stolen it as it was given to him too.



> And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
>
> since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


He didn;t rip off the copy.




>
>
>
> Bach is a superstar.


Sebastian's a superstar :-0



>
> > The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can

>
> > afford to pay for it but are determined not to.

>
>
>
> Which evidence?


Yes I'd like to see that evidence, not the stories or the fertile imagination of the music or software industry but real evidence.



> Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
>
> (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
>
> more than average on music.
>
>
>
> Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
>
> books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
>
> the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
>
> and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
>
> #11).
>
>
>
> Where's youre evidence?
>



The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:20:25 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


> Actually, I've got this bicycle shop and there is a guy outside the
> door who has a machine which copies the bikes in my window and he
> gives them away for free.


What's your address? I want to shake the hands of the guy
outside who managed to win several Nobel prices upending all
of our physics, singlehandedly solving the problem of free,
clean energy for everyone, teaching us how to transmute atoms at
will and form them into any possible shape, near instantly ---
thus solving world hunger (just transform atoms into food),
nature catastophy help (just transform the atoms into houses,
new roads, phone lines, or whatever is needed), solving the
problem of limited parking space (just transform your car into
air or something small and compact --- and transform it back
again when you need it), solving the problem of pollution
(just transform the pollution into inert or useful stuff),
solving worldwide access to clean water everywhere (even in
the driest desert: just transform some sand into a bottle
full of good water --- or a full luxury meal with fine wine
in a clima controlled restaurant (minus patrons and personal
outside yourself)), solving all poverty (just transform air
or ground into whatever you want right now) --- and thereby
instantly solving (almost) all problems of theft or other
property crimes (people who are mentally ill and steal because
of that exempted), solve all and any oil crisis (transmute water
or air or rocks to fuel), freeing everyone from drudgery and
jobs where little creativity is needed, and so on and so on.
Never mind opening the solar system for easy travel and easy
colonization of the Moon (transform the regolith to air and
water and shelters and food) and Mars (send in a couple of
machines --- powering the rocket on the way --- in 15 days
on a fuel saving 0.01g brachistochrone course, landing and
starting to transform the Martian soil to more such machines
and transporters for them, which then in a couple months are
everywhere over the planet and create a breathable athmosphere,
while the new settlers (on more zero-cost-per-unit rockets
and fuel come in at a 1g brachistochrone transfer in 4 days.))

And all YOU do is "whine whine he's giving away bicycles
whine whine in front of my bicycle shop whine whine we need
him stopped whine my outdated business model must be protected
whine whine he's a thief, a pirate whine whine".

So where's your bicycle shop?


I guess your kind was the same that made laws so that at least
one person had to walk or run in front of an autombile waving
a flag to warn everyone ... because otherwise buggy whip makers
might suffer.


>>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.)


> And you have twisted it away from the actual line of argument.


Your actual line of argument, which insists that there is no
difference between physical objects and information, and that
copying is theft (it's not, just like libel isn't slander).


>>>>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?


> I'm saying the fundamental question of theft of intellectual property
> has nothing to do with anyone being convicted as a monopolist.


What's fundamental about the simple fact you have to remove
the last copy an entity owns to perform something similar to
a theft[1] of intellectual property?

As to your poor bicycle shop: You loosing money because someone
can produce bicycles for much cheaper than you can is not
theft either. Even if they build identical copies.

>>> 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"?


I notice your silence. Stunning.


>>>>[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.


> It's not character assassination by me. Your arguments speak for
> themselves.


What my arguments speak is something completely different from
what you want them to say.


>>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.


> A freedom fighter I see.


Nope. Just someone who's looking through your rethoric and
lies (you might have a bicycle shop --- but I doubt it --- and
there ISN'T someone copying your bikes for free. The latter
is not simply doable with our technology. That you feel the
need to invent the impossible[2] ... well, your arguments
speak for themselves.


-Wolfgang

[1] in as much as then the taker has an embodyment of the
intellectual property and the takee doesn't have one.

[2] and very badly. An SF writer would have seen implications.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>> 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.


> What I wrote wasn't character assassination. It was an opinion reached
> on the basis of your own words.


In the same way in which hate mongers preaching that God wants
all others but their own sect dead use the Bible or the Quran
as the basis.

> Irrespective of the words used, the
> argument all along has been about the unauthorized copying of
> intellectual property. It doesn't matter whether it is music or a book
> The law gives the creator the right to control the use of their own
> work (intellectual property).


What argument? That's not an argument but a statement of facts.
One of the arguments is whether the current parameters of
these laws are good for society as they are.


> They are entitled to limit the number of people who have access to the
> work,


No, they are not, not after the first sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

One copy is all that is needed, it just needs to be passed
along a lot.

> they can license the use of a specified number of copies under
> specific terms of their choice,


They can try.
Try licensing a physical book that way.
Try licensing a music sheet that way.
Those were your examples: a book and music.


> they can sell the rights to control
> the use of the intellectual property to others etc.


And?

> At the root of the argument is the fact that unauthorized copying
> causes the creator to lose control of the use of their property.

^
intellectual

A sale also causes the creator to lose control of the use of
their INTELLECTUAL property.

> That's what copyright is all about: control of the use of the
> property. I am sure you understand this.

^
intellectual

Nope, that's not what copyright is all about.

Copyright is all about maximising the works available to the
public --- for which purpose a limited monopoly is granted.


> You are a strong advocate of the unauthorized copying of intellectual
> copying.


If you really, honestly think that, I question your ability to
impartially read what other write when they disagree with you.

But I don't think you could be that dense.

> You have consistently avoided the problems caused to the
> creator by the loss of control of their intellectual property by
> arguing:


> 1. It's only copying, you haven't deprived the creator of the
> intellectual property or its use.


And that's a fact.

It does however hurt artifical scarity and prices seen as
unfair by the broad public --- which one could claim is harmful
to society.

> 2. You determinedly ignore the loss of opportunity cost and argue
> that copying does no harm.


Where would I have claimed that? I've claimed that a copyright
over the current period of time causes loss and cost to the
public in a bad relation to the wins of a few.

I also claim that trivial patents --- as they are extremely
common these days --- cause extremely high costs and hinders
innovation instead of promoting it.


> 3. You argue that the creator has already been ripped off by the fat
> cats of the record companies so the damage to them might be a form of
> social reparation.


I am saying that in the case of record companies --- one of
the parties really screaming bloody murder regarding illegal
copying --- do in no way fight "for the artists" as they claim,
but rip them off whereever they can. True. But where did
you get the "so" part? Please show me where I said that, or
stop smoking whatever you are smoking!


> 4. You argue that the creators obtain the benefits from a wider
> dissemination of their work as a result of unauthorized copying.


I argue --- and point to the numbers --- that prove that (given
quality works) wider dissemination does cause people to get
interested and buy, which otherwise would not have done that,
causing an overall win.

I don't argue that that has to be by unauthorized copying,
in fact, my main example uses completely authorized copying.


> ... and similar arguments. None of these arguments can be regarded as
> honest


read: You found that I have real numbers from real people living
by their creativity and have nothing at all to counter them,
so you go ad hominem.


> and your persistent use of them paints an unfortunate picture
> of your personal ethics.


You probably cannot comprehend that one can argue for a change
of laws without breaking the very same laws one wants changed.

Or do you understand that and therefore like your character
assassination? Demonizing people thinking or being differently
from one is a tactic extremists, racists, tyrants and terrorists
of all kinds like.

Either way: you're either too stupid or evil, and neither
paints a fortunate picture of your character.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>>>>> 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.


>>> Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with
>>> the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died
>>> recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how
>>> I feel about ripping off.


>>So you didn't dump it when you got it.
>>You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
>>for that old version.


> I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
> tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics.


So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
theoretically punch your face?

> I kept it around so
> I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
> explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".


*rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
control freak.


>>Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
>>you STOLE from Adobe. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
>>since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


> I didn't steal. I received a copy of stolen intellectual property.


A receiver of stolen goods is also a thief and worse than a
thief, for they form the financial basis of theft.

> You
> almost got it right.


Just aping your logic, thief.

> Having that copy in my possession put Adobe at
> risk of never selling me CS2.


Yep. It absolutely was a lost sale for Adobe.


> In fact Adobe puts themselves at risk of never having me as a customer
> by their pricing policy, but that's a different matter.


And you're stealing from Adobe again, by not buying for the
price they're asking.


>>>>>>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.


>>> You are taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I've stopped buying
>>> recently but I used to regularly go in and buy music by composer even
>>> though I had never heard it.


>>OK, so now you're cutting down your own straw man ...
>>... let me quote the original:
>>| 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 ....


>>See ... you admit you were buying by group (or composer), not
>>randomly.


> You are confused. Those are your own words you were quoting.


I am confused: What is your point? Do you agree that a "test
drive" of some group or composer's work is valuable when you
don't know them, or not?


>>>>> 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?


>>> 7:10 am this morning, I woke up to a choral by one of the lesser Bachs
>>> (I can't quite remember each one). We do have a 'Concert Program' in
>>> this part of the world.


>>Bach is a superstar.
>>So which one of the ones named here
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mposers_by_era
>>did you hear this year on your concert program?


> Not that many.


See?

>>How many of
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medieval_composers
>>have you ever heard on radio?


> Certainly Hildegard of Bingen, Bernard of Cluny, Albertus Parisiensis,
> Chr├ętien de Troyes among others.


4 out of 198 (unless I miscounted).

"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."
said you. Well, there's not much need to close ones ears if
most of the stuff never even comes on non-mainstream radio.

And the situation is much worse with contemporary bands.
You probably couldn't find all the bands in the surroundings
of the next large city, never mind hearing them or their music.


>>>>>>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?


>>> The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can
>>> afford to pay for it but are determined not to.


>>Which evidence?


> Well, this discussion for a start.


Where exactly?

And don't dare to point at me: I don't download music unless
it's been put up with consent from the copyright holder for
that express purpose.


So: where is your "many/most" evidence?

>>Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
>>(i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
>>more than average on music.


> Which evidence?


For example here:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-243463.html

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Promotional_power


>>Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
>>books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
>>the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
>>and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
>>#11).


>>Where's youre evidence?


> Same place as yours.


http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp

Your URL please?


>>>>> 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.


>>It seems you haven't found the way yet, even though it's just
>>a google away. Here's one for you:
>> http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp


>>No more excuses now. Go read.


> Why does he keep using the word 'theft'?


Is that ALL you have to say? No other comment? Really?

If you genuinely wonder why an author may choose to use a word
which, even though technically incorrect, is commonly used by
those who think different ... send him an email.

If you honestly declare you're too stupid to differenciate
between a very specifc crime of a certain name and something
else, namely illegal copying, I'll use the word as well.
Wouldn't what to overtax your brain.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:00:54 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> >>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>> >>>> 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.


>> > Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with
>> > the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died
>> > recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how
>> > I feel about ripping off.


>> So you didn't dump it when you got it.
>> You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
>> for that old version.
>> Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
>> you STOLE from Adobe.


> Is that really true as the word stole can't be applied to IP.


Eric doesn't believe in that.

> he can't have stolen it as it was given to him too.


A fence is just as bad as a thief.


>> And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
>> since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


> He didn;t rip off the copy.


He had one, and it was not legal. Ergo: ripped off.


>> > The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can
>> > afford to pay for it but are determined not to.


>> Which evidence?


> Yes I'd like to see that evidence, not the stories or the fertile imagination of the music or software industry but real evidence.


Well, maybe some people are barely held in check by the threat
of punishment and they think everyone is that way.

Or maybe they are paranoid and think everyone but themselves
is evil.

Would that count as evidence?


>> Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
>> (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
>> more than average on music.
>> Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
>> books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
>> the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
>> and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
>> #11).


>> Where's youre evidence?


> The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.


Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and
therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:00:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>> The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.


>>Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and
>>therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off.


> I would never claim "every copy" is a lost sale but the industry
> argument is that a significant proportion of them are.


"significant" is such a ... variable word. As seen by the
last Space Shuttle disaster, it can mean --- on the very same
powerpoint slide! --- "just measurable, no ill effect at all"
and "everybody dies". (Look up the statistical meaning of
significant.)

I guess there are a few sales that are lost and they probably
could be measured[1]. I also guess that there is a siginificant
number of sales which were only made because of the copy.
Which people arguing for "lost sales" conveniently tend to
forget in public.

In fact, every company that offers student and education
versions and/or pricing is voluntarily losing part of a sale
(namely the difference to the full price) on the recognition
that students one day earn income and, once used to or addicted
to a product (say Windows) will continue to buy the product or
it's replacements and on the recognition that students often
aren't rich and therefore the full price would mean a fully
lost sale as well.


> What's more
> they have produced evidence to support that argument.


see [1]. What evidence did they produce that does not
immediately fail with glaring obvious mistakes to anyone
skilled in the art of economics and statistics?
Name URLs.

-Wolfgang

[1] Not that e.g. the music industry who always flogs that horse
ever seriously did. Assuming an economic downturn does not
affect CD sales is pretty stupid even for them. But maybe
they did and on purpose never admitted the real effect ...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>>>So you didn't dump it when you got it.
>>>>You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
>>>>for that old version.


>>> I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
>>> tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics.


>>So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
>>theoretically punch your face?


> We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of
> CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and
> why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him.


So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently
isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it.

> In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either
> personally or for a long time.


So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you
receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word,
but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who
disagrees with you might do the same ....

THAT casts an interesting light on your morality.

We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their
own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that
person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware
if the opposition does something not *fully* right ...

.... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard
that's being applied, and rightly so.

> I have no hesitation in telling you my
> analysis of what you have said to me.


And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments.
Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that.


> As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a
> logical argument.


Your characterisation of me is not an argument.
You might think the path to that characterization "logical",
but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken".

> I presume you desire to punch me


See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such
a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave
the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone
taking offense in a way that hurt you directly.

> comes from me
> saying to you:


> "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."


> Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of
> arguing leaves the impression

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question.

At least you got that your characterization might be considered
offensive by some recipients.

> that you are not entirely honest or
> trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your

^^^^^^^^
I *think* it's backpaddeling.

> fists.




>>> I kept it around so
>>> I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
>>> explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".


>>*rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
>>upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
>>face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
>>control freak.


> I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to
> wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen.


You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a
lot ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:42:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>>>>>>So you didn't dump it when you got it.
>>>>>>You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
>>>>>>for that old version.


>>>>> I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
>>>>> tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics.


>>>>So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
>>>>theoretically punch your face?


>>> We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of
>>> CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and
>>> why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him.


>>So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently
>>isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it.


No comment?


>>> In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either
>>> personally or for a long time.


>>So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you
>>receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word,
>>but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who
>>disagrees with you might do the same ....


> The copying had already been done and the chain of events stopped with
> me.


You did nothing to undo the untold damage (just look at what
a single song costs when copied, and you get them at less than
a dollar! Compare that to the damages awarded. Compare that
to the retail price of a full Photoshop. Connect the dots.).

> My criticism of you is based not on my suspicions but on your own
> words.


The same way that killing people who don't convert to their
religion is based on the holy books by fanatists: sloppy, willfully
misreading and ignoring what doesn't fit the preconceived results.


>>THAT casts an interesting light on your morality.


>>We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their
>>own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that
>>person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware
>>if the opposition does something not *fully* right ...


>>... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard
>>that's being applied, and rightly so.


No comment? Well, at least you seem to have the sense to
stop digging sometimes.

>>> I have no hesitation in telling you my
>>> analysis of what you have said to me.


>>And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments.
>>Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that.


> Of course I dislike your arguments in this case: they are dishonest


So for you arguments are people, have morality, etc. instead of
having some truth or not and being logically correct or incorrect,
supporting or not supporting some position?

> and I have told you so to your face.>


When did we meet where, then?
Perhaps you did tell my arguments when they were displayed on
your screen ...


>>> As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a
>>> logical argument.


>>Your characterisation of me is not an argument.
>>You might think the path to that characterization "logical",
>>but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken".


> You laid the path.


As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water ...

You need to *follow* the path, not stumble off it after a few
steps and run off in circles. I've done my part, more than that.
Now it's your job.


>>> I presume you desire to punch me


>>See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such
>>a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave
>>the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone
>>taking offense in a way that hurt you directly.


> If you felt no urge to punch me, why did you raise the question?


To test a hypothesis. Which turned out to be true.

Seeing you jump from a hypothetical possibility to a desire is
merely a bonus, and a nice insight into your psyche.


>>> comes from me
>>> saying to you:


>>> "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."


>>> Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of
>>> arguing leaves the impression

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>>Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question.


>>At least you got that your characterization might be considered
>>offensive by some recipients.


> I knew damned well you wouldn't like it.


Let's play Eric: "I presume you are itching for a beating".

> But neither did the burglar
> when I told him to stop trying to break into my house.


You objected to him copying your CD collection and you sued
him on the wear and tear of your CDs and CD cases.


>>> that you are not entirely honest or
>>> trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your

>> ^^^^^^^^
>>I *think* it's backpaddeling.


> What you think doesn't matter.


So why do you spill your tinking all over the place, even
after being repeatedly told you're wrong? Who died and made
*you* king?

BTW: thanks for telling me I'm on the right track. It *is*
backpaddeling.

>>>>> I kept it around so
>>>>> I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
>>>>> explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".


>>>>*rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
>>>>upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
>>>>face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
>>>>control freak.


>>> I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to
>>> wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen.


>>You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a
>>lot ...

> --


> Regards,


Liar.

-Wolfgang
 
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
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Why Getting 'A Potentially Dangerous Request...' Error? Anil Kripalani ASP .Net 2 02-25-2004 06:39 PM
A potentially dangerous Request.Form Alex Munk ASP .Net 2 12-17-2003 09:11 AM
Re: a serious question for a non-serious cause... henry DVD Video 1 11-08-2003 04:38 PM
Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?= MCSE 14 08-26-2003 02:12 AM



Advertisments