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.

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On 11/15/2012 8:46 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> tony cooper writes:
>
>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

>
> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
>


Whoosh!

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On 11/15/2012 8:48 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> PeterN writes:
>
>> 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.

>
> If you needed financing for your work that only they could provide, you could
> have never signed a deal with anyone.


Or, if I'm good enough, I can have them bidding against each other for
my services.


>
>> I am also free to give it away, or sell it.

>
> Not after you sign with a corporation.
>
>> You, OTOH, are not free to use my work without my express written
>> permission.

>
> Sometimes. I can still claim fair use or de minimis in some circumstances, and
> in some cases you must grant me a license whether you want to or not.
>

You may also use it for fair comment. But that is not what I was
referring to.
Tell me the circumstances under which I MUST grant a license for my work?
I am not aware of that provision in law. And give me a specific
reference, with short explanation.
--

Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On 11/15/2012 8:49 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mayayana writes:
>
>> ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
>> DVDs as much as they like.

>
> Not software.
>
>> But it's true that
>> some ebooks, software and digital music are currently
>> cheating the law and getting away with it.

>
> Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they have
> bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.
>


If you have evidence of such bribery, you have a moral obligation to
bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:46:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper writes:
>
>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

>
>It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
>software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
>engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
>of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.


Of course. That's why people go into business and start corporations.
If you had the smarts, you'd do the same thing. If you don't have the
smarts, you work for someone else and they make the money.


>> Of course it's ethical. Anyone can demand an employment contract with
>> any provision in it they want.

>
>Such as a provision that prohibits contact with black people, for example? Or
>a provision that gives the company custody of an employee's first-born child?


As I said, you can demand anything. That doesn't mean you'll get it.

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

>
>Which makes it a contract of adhesion, and thus not always enforceable.


No it doesn't. One of the elements of a contract is mutual agreement.
"Send in the next applicant" is a refusal to agree.

>> 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.

>
>18 x $60,000 = $1,080,000
>2 x $2,000,000 = $4,000,000
>
>They don't need a return of 18 years' salary.


Tough titty even if you didn't include compound interest.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:06:22 -0500, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 11/15/2012 8:46 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> tony cooper writes:
>>
>>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

>>
>> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
>> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
>> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
>> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
>>

>
>Whoosh!


I'm glad someone "got it".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
| > ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
| > DVDs as much as they like.
|
| Not software.
|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

The EU recently confirmed First Sale Doctrine for software.
In the US it's up in the air. The law says you have the rights
of First Sale, but some software companies have won in
cases where they've claimed that the software is licensed
and not sold. That's an example of what I would call cheating
the law. No one would get away with "licensing" a book to
skirt FSD, but digital media are a new issue that's not really
settled. Software companies have a genuine concern, but
that's no excuse for cheating their customers out of the
product they've bought. The EU judgement concurs:

" it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital
good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale
doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an
unlimited amount of time, ..."

"The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use
the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical
difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to
authorizing resale..."

In the American corporatocracy we probably can't hope
for such civilized judgements. The only choice is to refuse
to enter into such deals, but that's difficult when nearly
all sources of digital media are running the same scam.
One would have to give up products from Microsoft and Apple,
as well as ebooks and digital music. Personally I've never
considered buying from the latter 3 categories, and
I don't buy anything more than absolutely necessary from
Microsoft. But most people haven't even thought about
this issue, much less resolved to hold out for a fair deal.
It's hard to lay all blame on the snake oil salesman when
his income derives from people willingly fooling themselves.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
| > Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they
have
| > bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.
| >
|
| If you have evidence of such bribery, you have a moral obligation to
| bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
|

That's quaint. Lobbying *is* bribery. And it's perfectly
legal. What authorities are you going to report to?


 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:45:22 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:29:19 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >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:
> >> >
> >> >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..

>
> For your information the word 'book' has referred to a bound
> collection of paper for about 2000 years. And no, I'm not a computer
> illiterate. My experience with computers and computer programming goes
> back to 1961. Were you even born then?


So your point is what? That people get into real trouble when they try
to share an ebook via p2p networks?
You can scan a bound collection on paper to convert it to a
bitstring (like an ebook in pdf format) and you can print an ebook
and bind the printed pages to convert it back to a book on paper.
So I don't see what your point is about the word 'book' referring
to a bound collection of papers when an ebook boils down to
the same thing. There is no significant difference between an
ebook in pdf format you can read on an ereader and the same content
in a book as a bound collection of papers.
The only difference is that it's rather cumbersome to convert a
bound collection of papers to a digital format (compared to ripping
an audio cd for instance). But your statement about getting into
real trouble for sharing a book on p2p networks seemed to imply
you were referring to an ebook, as only books in digital form can
be shared on p2p networks.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:13:53 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:02:01 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >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.

>
>
>
> But you are not entirely free to share information.


Perhaps not entirely, but you can't really claim to live in a free
country if you aren't free to share information.
Just like you can't really claim to live in a free country when you
get criminalized or marginalized by your government because of your
choice of lifestyle (like whether you prefer beer or pot), religious orientation, sexual preference, political conviction, etc..

>
> >

>
> >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.

>
>
>
> Apart from the fact that this is how you feel about it, what is there
>
> about sharing information that makes it a fundamental right?
>


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

"Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

So this right (freedom of expression) includes the freedom to seek, receive
and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers.

That's exactly the right that people who enjoy filesharing exercise. They seek,
receive and impart information through p2p networks.

>
>
> >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 can always set up a bureaucracy.


I think we already have a bureaucracy.

>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> > 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,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2012
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:
>
> > 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?


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.


>
> >

>
> > 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.


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 ?


 
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