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.

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:35:11 -0500, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> 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.
>>

This kind of thinking, the above is somehow wrong, somewhat baffles
me. That software engineer was paid for his services and agreed to
perform those services when he took the job.

If the software engineer was capable of designing software that would
bring in millions, but was not capable of starting his own company to
sell that software for millions, whose fault is that?

The company that hired the software engineer most probably hired other
software engineers, maybe even this one, that were unable to develop
successful software applications. The company still paid them despite
losing money by doing so.

I have an acquaintance who has worked for a company for over twenty
years. He designed a product two years ago that was patented and
licensed. My acquaintance's employment contract requires that all
patent rights be assigned to the company if the product is developed
as a result of the employment.

My acquaintance is very bitter that he was not rewarded for the
development of the product. He doesn't see that the company provided
him with a very good job with very good benefits for the 18 years
prior to this development.





>So stealing from a corporation is OK?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:57:54 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:16:27 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:36:45 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:

>
> >> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:07:36 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

>
> >> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>
> >> > > sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
> >>[..]

>
> >> 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?

>
> >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.

>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> Also depends what you mean by sharing.

>
> >

>
> >P2p sharing. So a bitstring going from one individual on the internet

>
> >to another individual on the internet, so they both end up in

>
> >possession of the same bitstring.

>
>
>
> If you try doing that with a book you will find you are in real
>
> trouble.


You've got to be joking. It seems you're some kind of computer
illiterate person or something.
I can assure you that books in digital form (ebooks or audiobooks) are
shared and exchanged on p2p networks just as easily as music,
software, video, etc..

>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:56:00 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:22:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> >> So stealing from a corporation is OK?

>
> >Corporations are the real criminals, because they abuse their

>
> >influence on the government to subvert laws and regulations

>
> >to suit their interests, at the expense of the rights of

>
> >individual people (regardless whether they are creative or

>
> >not).

>
>
>
> "individual people" also have the ability "to subvert laws and
>
> regulations to suit their interests", whether illegally or through the
>
> ballot box. If an individual finds they don't have enough clout on
>
> their own they can always gang up with others and form a corporation
>
> or even a political party.
>
> --
>


Sure, they can even take over an entire country and start
exterminating 'unwanted' minorities on an industrial scale,
as we've seen in former Nazi Germany. But my point was that
we need a government that is a neutral institution that
guarantees human rights, rather than violating human rights.

Why the **** do we have a government anyway? Isn't that to ensure
that it's not just a matter of who has more power, money or weapons
so they get to impose their will on others?


>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens


 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:17:02 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-15 12:16:51 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:29:26 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >> [..]

>
> >> You sir, remain a thief at heart, and continue to rationalize your

>
> >> criminal intent.

>
> >> [..]

>
> >

>
> > That sums up your misguided position. Fine. As far as I'm

>
> > concerned, you are a nazi who advocates a fascistic and

>
> > unrealistic interpretation of intellectual property.

>
>
>
> Well it seems to be time to invoke "Godwin's Law".
>
>
>
> ...and you living in a country which has suffered under nazi
>
> occupation, has had its share of nazi collaborators, and it continues
>
> with contemporary nazi political groups such as the NVU, seem to be
>
> ignorant of just what nazi philosophy represents.
>
>
>
> I sir, am not remotely close to accepting the label "nazi" and you also
>
> seem to be ignorant of the true meaning of the term "fascistic". Most
>
> importantly, regardless of your inconsequential thoughts, I am not
>
> misguided about much.
>
>
>
> BTW: Have you considered getting a job so you can actually buy these
>
> things you desire so much?
>
> ...or do you prefer to remain a freeloader?
>


The real freeloaders are the corporate criminals responsible for
all that intellectual property nonsense.
You're obviously clueless about the nature of information
technology.

>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck


 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:46:49 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-15 14:36:42 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> >

>
> > Sure, they can even take over an entire country and start

>
> > exterminating 'unwanted' minorities on an industrial scale,

>
> > as we've seen in former Nazi Germany. But my point was that

>
> > we need a government that is a neutral institution that

>
> > guarantees human rights, rather than violating human rights.

>
>
>
> Oh! like the right to demand royalties for the use or sale of
>
> intellectual property such as recorded music, original movies,
>
> software, ...?
>


Such economic considerations take a back seat compared to more
fundamental human rights, like the freedom to share information.

I'm not necessarily against rights associated with creativity/innovation,
but such rights can never detract from more fundamental human rights
like the freedom to share information.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we can only have financial
incentives to create new content, provided that authors/creators get
to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of their
creations.

>
>
> > Why the **** do we have a government anyway? Isn't that to ensure

>
> > that it's not just a matter of who has more power, money or weapons

>
> > so they get to impose their will on others?

>
>
>
> OK! I get it! You are actually a self professed anarchist.
>


Sure, I'm an anarchist, but I'm not necessarily opposed to having a
government as a temporary solution in the transition towards a society
where people take full responsibility for their actions and have acquired
a sufficient level of education which ensures they can enjoy
freedom while respecting the freedom of others.

So ultimately, only a government that strives to make itself
redundant by emancipating its citizens would be acceptable for me.

But my point was that we don't really need a government when
it's just a fake government as a store-front to confuse people
about the fact that corporations are calling the shots behind
the scenes.

>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012

| > In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think
| > anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material
| > legally and don't make further copies.
|
| But they are allowed to loan these materials out, whereas ordinary people
are
| not. It's a gray area.

?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
DVDs as much as they like. According to the law you
can do anything but make a copy. But it's true that
some ebooks, software and digital music are currently
cheating the law and getting away with it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:02:47 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper writes:
>
>> This kind of thinking, the above is somehow wrong, somewhat baffles
>> me. That software engineer was paid for his services and agreed to
>> perform those services when he took the job.

>
>But the work he did was creative work that produced something subject to
>copyright. Usually, when people do creative work, they retain the copyrights
>to what they've done, but not in the software industry. Musicians retain their
>rights even after signing with a label (although this changed briefly, when a
>change was made to legislation, until musicians found out about it and
>screamed to have it changed back), but software engineers have no rights after
>signing with a software company. And this is enshrined in the text of the law.
>
>> If the software engineer was capable of designing software that would
>> bring in millions, but was not capable of starting his own company to
>> sell that software for millions, whose fault is that?

>
>If the musician were capable of writing music that would bring in millions,
>but were not capable of starting his own company to distribute it, whose fault
>is that?
>
>Why aren't musicians and software engineers treated the same?


Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

>> The company that hired the software engineer most probably hired other
>> software engineers, maybe even this one, that were unable to develop
>> successful software applications. The company still paid them despite
>> losing money by doing so.

>
>Record labels do the same with musicians. So why are they treated differently?
>
>> I have an acquaintance who has worked for a company for over twenty
>> years. He designed a product two years ago that was patented and
>> licensed. My acquaintance's employment contract requires that all
>> patent rights be assigned to the company if the product is developed
>> as a result of the employment.

>
>Yes, that's routine, even if it's not very ethical.


Of course it's ethical. Anyone can demand an employment contract with
any provision in it they want. They can demand an employment contract
that gives the 25% of any license fees or royalties of any product
they develop on company time using company facilities.

Of course, the employer's reply to such a demand will be "Send in the
next applicant".

>> My acquaintance is very bitter that he was not rewarded for the
>> development of the product. He doesn't see that the company provided
>> him with a very good job with very good benefits for the 18 years
>> prior to this development.

>
>That may be only a tiny fraction of the income tha the invention actually
>generates.


So what? The company didn't ask for a return of the salary and
benefit costs for the 18 years when the guy didn't produce a
money-making design.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Friday, November 16, 2012 12:32:58 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-15 15:02:01 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:46:49 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >> On 2012-11-15 14:36:42 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>> Sure, they can even take over an entire country and start

>
> >>> exterminating 'unwanted' minorities on an industrial scale,

>
> >>> as we've seen in former Nazi Germany. But my point was that

>
> >>> we need a government that is a neutral institution that

>
> >>> guarantees human rights, rather than violating human rights.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> Oh! like the right to demand royalties for the use or sale of

>
> >> intellectual property such as recorded music, original movies,

>
> >> software, ...?

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > Such economic considerations take a back seat compared to more

>
> > fundamental human rights, like the freedom to share information.

>
>
>
> However you want to define privately & corporate owned intellectual and
>
> copyrighted property as public domain "information" which it is not.
>
> Not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination is that a valid
>
> proposition.
>


Not for people who are clueless about information technology like you.

>
>
> > I'm not necessarily against rights associated with creativity/innovation,

>
> > but such rights can never detract from more fundamental human rights

>
> > like the freedom to share information.

>
> > There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we can only have financial

>
> > incentives to create new content, provided that authors/creators get

>
> > to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of their

>
> > creations.

>
>
>
> You are in fact a hypocrite with an unworkable solution. You have put
>
> this argument into play so as to justify your own particular free
>
> loading philosophy.
>


I've started out participating in this discussion defending that same
position.

>
>
> >>> Why the **** do we have a government anyway? Isn't that to ensure

>
> >>> that it's not just a matter of who has more power, money or weapons

>
> >>> so they get to impose their will on others?

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> OK! I get it! You are actually a self professed anarchist.

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > Sure, I'm an anarchist, but I'm n....

>
>
>
> Then further debate on this issue is pointless since you are locked
>
> into a philosophy without a point of reason or compromise.
>


Indeed, it's pointless to discuss the implications of information
technology with people who are clueless about the nature of information
technology. Especially in case of clueless people like you who have
been thoroughly brainwashed by the propaganda of the intellectual
property mafia.


>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
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.
You, OTOH, are not free to use my work without my express written
permission. What is so difficult to understand about that?
I may or may not own stock in those corporations you seem to despise. If
you are planning a pension, your plan and you will benefit from such
ownership, if the corporations are profitable.
What is evil, is stealing from those companies.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On 11/15/2012 5:58 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> PeterN writes:
>
>> On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> So stealing from a corporation is OK?

>
> I fail to see what leads you to this conclusion.
>


If you check your attribution, you will see that my one line question is
directed at you, where you seem to be saying exactly that.

--
Peter
 
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