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.

 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:11:52 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:17:33 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:46:50 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>
> >>

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

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> --- snip ---

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >I'm just saying that the fact that something is illegal

>
> >>

>
> >> >doesn't say anything by itself. For instance, homosexuality is

>
> >>

>
> >> >illegal in many countries, but that doesn't mean that people who

>
> >>

>
> >> >are homosexuals are necessarily immoral, even if they live in a

>
> >>

>
> >> >country where they are criminalized.

>
> >>

>
> >> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >What this discussion should be about instead is whether or not it

>
> >>

>
> >> >is moral to share information, even when the creator of that

>
> >>

>
> >> >information objects to it. As far as I'm concerned, my opinion

>
> >>

>
> >> >is that people can't even own information to begin with.

>
> >>

>
> >> >They can claim to be the first to create it, and they can

>
> >>

>
> >> >keep it to themselves to prevent other people from having

>
> >>

>
> >> >access to it, but what they can't do is publish it and still

>
> >>

>
> >> >expect to have a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution

>
> >>

>
> >> >of that information.

>
> >>

>
> >> >That is simply a position that is incompatible with modern

>
> >>

>
> >> >information technology, regardless what the law says.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> It is equally incompatible with medieval printing technology, also. It

>
> >>

>
> >> more or less works with printing. Why shouldn't it work just as well

>
> >>

>
> >> with digital information?

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> >Why wouldn't interpretations of intellectual property be subject

>
> >to change under influence of technological developments?

>
>
>
> Why should they be?
>


Because the whole idea of copyright only came into existence when
people started to employ certain kinds of information technology,
like the printing press. People had been creating things long before
that and also making a living that way. Now we have computers
and they are a form of technology way beyond the printing press
and so it stands to reason that we might need to update the concept
of copyright so it takes into account the radical differences between
a computer and a traditional printing press.

One of the signs that indicate there might be a problem with
copyright is that copyright was much easier to enforce back
in the day when the printing press started to be used by
publishers.
Over the course of subsequent technological developments,
it has become increasingly hard to enforce copyrights and by now
it's virtually impossible to enforce it at all.

>
>
> Next thing you will be arguing that the intellectual property in a
>
> painting depends on its colour, or the composition of the paint.
>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> 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.

>
> >

>
> >Like I've said. I'm convinced that there is nothing morally wrong

>
> >with so-called copyright violations. You can think of it as a kind

>
> >of civil disobedience to protest against the way corporations

>
> >are subverting copyright legislation (e.g. via secret negotiations,

>
> >like we've seen with the ACTA proposals to criminalize filesharing).

>
>
>
> In other words you think there is nothing morally wrong with what you
>
> are doing because you don't like the people who are trying to stop
>
> you.


No, because the people who are opposed to my activities have their head
stuck up their ass so deep, they have lost all contact with reality.

>
> >

>
> >Similar to how I'm using cannabis, despite cannabis being illegal.

>
>
>
> Now that may help explain things. How old were you when you started
>
> using cannabis?


I'll just ignore that insinuation.

>
>
>
> >I think there is nothing morally wrong with responsible and

>
> >well-informed adults using cannabis and the laws that criminalize

>
> >cannabis are a travesty of justice, given that adults are free

>
> >to drink booze which has more harmful consequences for one's health

>
> >in case of abuse.

>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >Which gives rise to the question why the law doesn't make

>
> >>

>
> >> >any sense, given the availability of modern information

>
> >>

>
> >> >technology and the answer is that these laws are subverted

>
> >>

>
> >> >by corporate interests.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> It seems to me that they are morally subverted more by people with

>
> >>

>
> >> quick and easy self-serving morals like your own.

>
> >

>
> >It seems to me that you lack a basic understanding of the nature

>
> >of information technology and the implications it has for the

>
> >traditional idea of copyright boiling down to a monopoly on the

>
> >reproduction and distribution of information.

>
>
>
> What's more its a monopoly in the hands of the person who created that
>
> 'information'. You think he shouldn't have that right.


There is no reason whatsoever for creative people to have such a
monopoly. There is no need for such a monopoly to have a financial
incentive for people to create things.
Information can simply be taxed.

>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >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.

>
> >

>
> >These creative prostitutes are primarily damaged by their corporate pimps.

>
>
>
> You seem to be quite happy to denigrate anybody to help you justify
>
> your misdeeds to yourself.


Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself how denigrating
people who enjoy filesharing as thieves and parasites contributes
anything to a debate about the relationship between intellectual
property and information technology.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:22:29 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:24:24 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:54:59 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:49:38 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>
> >>

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

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> --- snip ---

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >My translation:

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >"A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >obtained from an illegal source.

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed to make a few copies of a work for

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one to be allowed to make a homecopy

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> >of a work."

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> 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?

>
> >

>
> >Probably from people like me who deliberately violate copyrights by

>
> >sharing information via p2p networks with others to protest against

>
> >unjust, unreasonable and unrealistic laws regarding intellectual

>
> >property.

>
>
>
> 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".
>


Not according to the fair use law in the Netherlands.
People are legally entitled to download most things for personal use,
even if they obtain it from an unauthorized source.
There is a special tax on information to ensure creative people get
paid. Research shows that the people who frequently obtain culture
from unauthorized sources are the same people (on average) who spend
the most money on culture from authorized sources. So I'm contributing
in multiple ways to the income of creative people. On the one hand I
pay taxes on information (actually on things like harddrives and
other information storage devices and blank media) and on the other
hand I'm contributing to the availability of unauthorized sources
of culture and research demonstrates a clear correlation between
the habit of obtaining culture from unauthorized sources and
the habit of obtaining culture from authorized sources.
So someone who obtains a copy for personal use from an unauthorized
source like one of my uploads is likely to spend money on a purchase
from an authorized source.

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


Your attempts to demonize filesharing only succeed in exposing you as
a fascist who has been brainwashed by the intellectual property mafia.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:26:34 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:33:07 -0800, Savageduck
>
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 2012-11-16 18:24:24 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >

>
> >> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:54:59 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >

>
> >

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

>
> >>

>
> >> Probably from people like me who deliberately violate copyrights by

>
> >> sharing information via p2p networks with others to protest against

>
> >> unjust, unreasonable and unrealistic laws regarding intellectual

>
> >> property.

>
> >

>
> >Your hypocrisy knows no bounds! Yours is not a protest, it is unabashed

>
> >thievery.

>
> >Your behavior looks more and more sociopathic.

>
>
>
> In this part of the world they call cannabis 'wacky baccy'. I can see
>
> why.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...ndex_1095.html

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:18:33 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:27:44 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >> On 2012-11-16 18:17:33 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:46:50 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >>

>
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> >> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they

>
> >>

>
> >> >> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.

>
> >>

>
> >> >

>
> >>

>
> >> > These creative prostitutes are primarily damaged by their corporate pimps.

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >>

>
> >> ...and yet it is these "creative prostitutes" who have done the work

>
> >>

>
> >> you value enough to steal.

>
> >>

>
> >> What an insulting, parasitic, hypocrite you are!

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> >Nonsense. Quite the other way around. These so called intellectual

>
> >property laws are having an enormous negative impact on creativity and innovation.

>
>
>
> You are twisted.


You are misinformed.

>
> >

>
> >Real creative people would only benefit from having access to the

>
> >shared wealth of human culture available via p2p networks.

>
>
>
> You fool! They have access to p2p networks now. The problem is that
>
> rodents like you use p2p networks to deprive them of the benefits of
>
> their creativity and innovation.


No they don't. Most people live in countries with more restricted
fair use laws. Also, they have been misinformed and brainwashed
by all the propaganda from the intellectual property mafia.
So they end up with the misguided delusion that there is something
morally wrong with sharing information.

>
> >

>
> >Many creative people however, have been brainwashed by the

>
> >intellectual property mafia however and they are in the same

>
> >position as slaves who were opposed to the abolishment of

>
> >slavery, because their masters managed to manipulate them

>
> >into accepting their subservient position.

>
>
>
> You should contemplate the thought that they would not need their
>
> 'masters' nearly so much if the houses of creativity and innovation
>
> were not overrun with rats. As it is, only the 'masters' can muster
>
> the strength to fight off the worst of the swarm of rats.


You should contemplate the thought that you're not even living
in a democracy where people have learned to think for themselves
and a government that guarantees human rights instead of violating
them. Corporations own your mind and they are glad they have
brainwashed sycophants like you who will defend their scam.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:03:59 -0500, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 11/16/2012 11:46 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:47:28 -0500, PeterN
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2012 10:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I's not only a matter of smarts. One must have some reasonable amount of
>>> business sense as well. There are many brilliant individuals, who work
>>> for an organization. For one reason or another, they prefer not to be in
>>> their own business. They are simply not entrepreneurs.

>>
>> I include business sense under the general umbrella of "smarts". It
>> is just one of the things people can be smart about.
>>
>>

>That's an inclusion I am not so sure about. I know many brilliant people
>who clearly have the smarts, but they are lousy business people. I would
>place medical doctors at the top of the list.


What I said is that I include business sense as smarts. In other
words, you have smarts if you are good in any area...medicine,
business, whatever. Being smart in one area doesn't mean you are
smart in other areas. Being dumb in one area doesn't mean you can't
be smart in another. Very few people are smart in all areas.

Business sense is just one thing a person can be smart in.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:27:44 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2012-11-16 18:17:33 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:46:50 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>>
>> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>>
>> >> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they

>>
>> >> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.
>> > These creative prostitutes are primarily damaged by their corporate pimps.

>> ...and yet it is these "creative prostitutes" who have done the work
>> you value enough to steal.
>>
>> What an insulting, parasitic, hypocrite you are!
>>

>Nonsense. Quite the other way around. These so called intellectual
>property laws are having an enormous negative impact on creativity and innovation.
>
>Real creative people would only benefit from having access to the
>shared wealth of human culture available via p2p networks.
>
>Many creative people however, have been brainwashed by the
>intellectual property mafia however and they are in the same
>position as slaves who were opposed to the abolishment of
>slavery, because their masters managed to manipulate them
>into accepting their subservient position.


The more this guy sobriquet says, the more apparent it is that he is
about as uncreative as anyone can be except in the area of making
creative excuses for sponging off the work of others.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:55:24 AM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:27:44 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >> On 2012-11-16 18:17:33 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>

>
> >> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:46:50 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> >>

>
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

>
> >>

>
> >> >> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they

>
> >>

>
> >> >> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.

>
> >> > These creative prostitutes are primarily damaged by their corporate pimps.

>
> >> ...and yet it is these "creative prostitutes" who have done the work

>
> >> you value enough to steal.

>
> >>

>
> >> What an insulting, parasitic, hypocrite you are!

>
> >>

>
> >Nonsense. Quite the other way around. These so called intellectual

>
> >property laws are having an enormous negative impact on creativity and innovation.

>
> >

>
> >Real creative people would only benefit from having access to the

>
> >shared wealth of human culture available via p2p networks.

>
> >

>
> >Many creative people however, have been brainwashed by the

>
> >intellectual property mafia however and they are in the same

>
> >position as slaves who were opposed to the abolishment of

>
> >slavery, because their masters managed to manipulate them

>
> >into accepting their subservient position.

>
>
>
> The more this guy sobriquet says, the more apparent it is that he is
>
> about as uncreative as anyone can be except in the area of making
>
> creative excuses for sponging off the work of others.
>


Rather typical response from a copyright nazi.
Whoever questions the propaganda from the intellectual
property mafia must lack creativity.

>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
Savageduck wrote:

> On 2012-11-16 15:06:11 -0800, DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> I have been meaning to ask this for some time now.
> Why does the G2/1.0 usenet client screw up threads so badly in responses?
> It seems to insert a carriage return at the end of each line,
> ultimately making posts and responses in a thread an unreadable mess.
>


No idea, google knows. Is this better?

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On 11/17/2012 12:52 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:03:59 -0500, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2012 11:46 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:47:28 -0500, PeterN
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2012 10:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I's not only a matter of smarts. One must have some reasonable amount of
>>>> business sense as well. There are many brilliant individuals, who work
>>>> for an organization. For one reason or another, they prefer not to be in
>>>> their own business. They are simply not entrepreneurs.
>>>
>>> I include business sense under the general umbrella of "smarts". It
>>> is just one of the things people can be smart about.
>>>
>>>

>> That's an inclusion I am not so sure about. I know many brilliant people
>> who clearly have the smarts, but they are lousy business people. I would
>> place medical doctors at the top of the list.

>
> What I said is that I include business sense as smarts. In other
> words, you have smarts if you are good in any area...medicine,
> business, whatever. Being smart in one area doesn't mean you are
> smart in other areas. Being dumb in one area doesn't mean you can't
> be smart in another. Very few people are smart in all areas.
>
> Business sense is just one thing a person can be smart in.
>

Obviously, I misunderstood what you originally meant.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
SNIP & stop adding superfluous lines. Ir this was a deliberate attempt
to discourage reply, you succeeded. Few will bother to read & follow.

Deliberately top posted for ease of reading



On 11/16/2012 2:23 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:29:09 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:13:10 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>>
>>
>> You can't claim to live in an 'absolutely' free country if you can't
>>
>> share information. Most people want one form or another of a 'Privacy
>>
>> Act'. Then there is the question of treason. Unless you insist in
>>
>> living in a vacuum you can't share all information without hurting
>>
>> someone.
>>

>
> I think it's not the information that hurts people. For instance, take the
> Mohammed cartoons. It's not those cartoons that hurt people (nobody
> is forced to view them if they find them distasteful or insulting), but
> people who overreact to such cartoons and start a riot where people get
> hurt.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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..

>>
>>
>>
>> Most governments have come down first on people who want to abuse
>>
>> property rights.

>
> Most governments are corrupt. I can't really think of any country that has a truly transparent
> government that is really able to guarantee human rights.
> I suppose this isn't even possible without having citizens who are well-informed and
> able to think autonomously and critically.
> In such a society, one expects people to be more free to share just about any
> information they like.
>
>>
>>
>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>> 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 within the context of "the right to freedom of opinion and
>>
>> expression".
>>

>
> Yes, so? I think sharing a bitstring online counts as a form of expression,
> regardless whether the person who shares it was also the person who
> can be said to be the creator of the bitstring or merely someone who obtained
> that bitstring from someone else.
>
>>
>>
>> You have your work cut out if you want to use "the right to freedom of
>>
>> opinion and expression" to justify the wholesale copying of a song
>>
>> (any song).

>
> Not really. People already enjoy that freedom on p2p networks.
>
>>
>>>

>>
>>> That's exactly the right that people who enjoy filesharing exercise. They seek,

>>
>>> receive and impart information through p2p networks.

>>
>>
>>
>> 'Information' maybe. But not all of it is 'opinion and expression'.
>>

>
> Surely every possible bitstring expresses 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 can always set up a bureaucracy.

>>
>>>

>>
>>> I think we already have a bureaucracy.

>>
>>
>>
>> Then why hasn't it solved all our problems?
>>

>
> Because of corruption and lack of transparency?
>
>>
>>
>> -- snip ---
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens





--
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