Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > question for the copyright nazis

Reply
Thread Tools

question for the copyright nazis

 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012

This documentary nicely illustrates the IP bullshit that
the copyright nazis are trying to peddle:

http://tinyurl.com/cywof8y

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On 12/6/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-06 17:51:51 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 12/6/2012 5:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-12-06 16:49:22 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>>
>>>> A composer of music can copyright his work and demand payment from
>>>> anyone who chooses to use the composers work for personal gain. What's
>>>> copyrighted is the melodic sequence (words as well as music) of the
>>>> composers work. But the composer uses a musical scale which is not the
>>>> work or the creation of the composer, so who does the composer pay for
>>>> the use of the musical scale, which he (or she) didn't create?
>>>
>>> Pythagoras.
>>>
>>>> I've often wondered about Internet piracy. Surely the person who
>>>> downloads a pirated program is actually stealing a program that was
>>>> created buy someone who may demand payment for his work. But the
>>>> original software creator has placed his work into a system that was
>>>> created by many others and no payment for the creation or use of the
>>>> system is or was being made by the creators of software programs.
>>>
>>> That is an assumption, and not necessarily true. I don't know about you,
>>> but I am paying for my access and use of the various strands of the
>>> internet.
>>> I have no reason to believe that any software developer, individual, or
>>> corporation isn't paying for the same access.

>>
>> I too have paid for what I use, including access. I know of no one who
>> uses Verizon who doesn't pay an access fee. But access doesn't cover
>> creation. There must have been thousands of salaried people involved
>> with the creation of the Internet, each making a talented contribution
>> to its function. Are they not entitled to receive payment for what
>> they have created?

>
> ...and there are certainly many who do not pay for their access to the
> WWW. They are to be found in libraries, and near free WiFi hotspots, and
> where they can poach from unsecured home and business WiFi networks.
> There are those who exploit their employers by conduction personal
> business on employer's time, computers and internet access. Some of that
> access is legitimately free, and some of it is stolen.
>
> The who in the case of, to use a broad term, the WWW, were three
> individuals, Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau at CERN and a student
> at CERN. He is the actual inventor of the World Wide Web.
> He is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and holds a
> few other prestigious positions regarding the internet as we know it.
>
> As for payment, I guess we would have needed to be in on those
> discussions at CERN and the arrangements made to use the product they
> owned by other system users. I have no idea of what those arrangements
> might be.


Both you and Sobriquet are very good debaters. You both have presented
valid points of view (at least I think so) that support your particular
views. Still ... I remain at sea with the concept of what is considered
to be "Intellectual Property" and how far that concept could expand.

I do not support theft yet I see theft being accomplished even by those
who do not support theft. I pay for programs and Internet access, yet
I'm free to use the Internet that others have created. It seems to me,
that challenges the issue of "Intellectual Property" ownership, as it
affects the Internet.

>
>>>> The question is, those who pirate software are labeled as thieves
>>>> while those who created and use a system to transmit their software,
>>>> who haven't paid for using a system they haven't created yet use, are
>>>> not considered as being thieves.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>> I have a hard time taking the leap to assume that an individual or
>>> corporation involved in the commercial enterprise of online distribution
>>> of their product, is stealing bandwidth and using Tim Berners-Lee's WWW
>>> creation without incurring some cost for tapping into it.
>>>
>>> Theft remains just that regardless of where that theft takes place.
>>> Consider the bicycle parked on a sidewalk while its owner goes into a
>>> store. A bicycle thief might blame the owner by saying, "he shouldn't
>>> have left it untended and tempted me."
>>> That is similar to Sobriquet's argument that if the copyright owner or
>>> the creator of the image, music or software didn't want it stolen, they
>>> shouldn't be trying to distribute their property online where it is
>>> vulnerable. Theft remains a property crime fueled by a lack of civil
>>> morality on the part of the thief.
>>>
>>> Just because you might inadvertently have left your keys in your car,
>>> does not mean that a potential thief has a right to steal your car, and
>>> when caught he is still guilty of car theft, no matter what he claims in
>>> Court.

>>
>> A thief who steals my car is certainly a thief 'cause I paid for the
>> car. But shouldn't the car thief pay a fee for the use of the road
>> that he drives the car on, even if it's a dirt road?

>
> Why? He is a thief, and it is in the nature of thieves not to pay for
> anything, this thief will probably not even possess a valid driver's
> license.
> You and I pay for road use via our vehicle registration and other taxes,
> including fuel taxes. I don't believe that the car thief has even
> considered that part of his civic responsibility.
>


There's an old saying "A thief who steals from a thief is pardoned for a
thousand years."

Under the present civic laws, if a person who breaks the law is caught,
he (or she) is subject to being lawfully punished. However, if thousands
of people break the law, at a given time, they get to keep what they
have stolen.

That is the way of those who riot and of the way of illegal entries. So,
why is that not the way of the Internet?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 4:17:26 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-06 18:58:15 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
> > On 12/6/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >> On 2012-12-06 17:51:51 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>

>
> >>> On 12/6/2012 5:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:

>
> >>>> On 2012-12-06 16:49:22 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> <<< Le Snip >>>

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>>> A composer of music can copyright his work and demand payment from

>
> >>>>> anyone who chooses to use the composers work for personal gain. What's

>
> >>>>> copyrighted is the melodic sequence (words as well as music) of the

>
> >>>>> composers work. But the composer uses a musical scale which is not the

>
> >>>>> work or the creation of the composer, so who does the composer pay for

>
> >>>>> the use of the musical scale, which he (or she) didn't create?

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Pythagoras.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>>> I've often wondered about Internet piracy. Surely the person who

>
> >>>>> downloads a pirated program is actually stealing a program that was

>
> >>>>> created buy someone who may demand payment for his work. But the

>
> >>>>> original software creator has placed his work into a system that was

>
> >>>>> created by many others and no payment for the creation or use of the

>
> >>>>> system is or was being made by the creators of software programs.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> That is an assumption, and not necessarily true. I don't know about you,

>
> >>>> but I am paying for my access and use of the various strands of the

>
> >>>> internet.

>
> >>>> I have no reason to believe that any software developer, individual, or

>
> >>>> corporation isn't paying for the same access.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> I too have paid for what I use, including access. I know of no one who

>
> >>> uses Verizon who doesn't pay an access fee. But access doesn't cover

>
> >>> creation. There must have been thousands of salaried people involved

>
> >>> with the creation of the Internet, each making a talented contribution

>
> >>> to its function. Are they not entitled to receive payment for what

>
> >>> they have created?

>
> >>

>
> >> ...and there are certainly many who do not pay for their access to the

>
> >> WWW. They are to be found in libraries, and near free WiFi hotspots, and

>
> >> where they can poach from unsecured home and business WiFi networks.

>
> >> There are those who exploit their employers by conduction personal

>
> >> business on employer's time, computers and internet access. Some of that

>
> >> access is legitimately free, and some of it is stolen.

>
> >>

>
> >> The who in the case of, to use a broad term, the WWW, were three

>
> >> individuals, Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau at CERN and a student

>
> >> at CERN. He is the actual inventor of the World Wide Web.

>
> >> He is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and holds a

>
> >> few other prestigious positions regarding the internet as we know it.

>
> >>

>
> >> As for payment, I guess we would have needed to be in on those

>
> >> discussions at CERN and the arrangements made to use the product they

>
> >> owned by other system users. I have no idea of what those arrangements

>
> >> might be.

>
> >

>
> > Both you and Sobriquet are very good debaters. You both have presented

>
> > valid points of view (at least I think so) that support your particular

>
> > views. Still ... I remain at sea with the concept of what is considered

>
> > to be "Intellectual Property" and how far that concept could expand.

>
>
>
> Try this:
>
> "Intellectual property"
>
> a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a
>
> manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may
>
> apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.
>
>
>
> Then there is this entry:
>
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property >
>
>
>
> Also consider this note on the concept of "intellectual property" on the Web:
>
> "The intellectual property rights for any creative work initially rests
>
> with its creator. Web users who want to publish their work onto the
>
> World Wide Web, however, need to be aware of the details of the way
>
> they do it. If artwork, photographs, writings, poems, or technical
>
> innovations are published by their creator onto a privately owned web
>
> server, then they may choose the copyright and other conditions freely
>
> themselves. This is unusual though; more commonly work is uploaded to
>
> web sites and servers that are owned by other organizations. It depends
>
> upon the terms and conditions of the site or service provider to what
>
> extent the original owner automatically signs over rights to their work
>
> by the choice of destination and by the act of uploading.
>
> Many users of the web erroneously assume that everything they may find
>
> on line is freely available to them as if it was in the public domain.
>
> This is almost never the case, unless the web site publishing the work
>
> clearly states that it is. On the other hand, content owners are aware
>
> of this widespread belief, and expect that sooner or later almost
>
> everything that is published will probably be used in some capacity
>
> somewhere without their permission. Many publishers therefore embed
>
> visible or invisible digital watermarks in their media files, sometimes
>
> charging users to receive unmarked copies for legitimate use. Digital
>
> Rights Management includes forms of access control technology that
>
> further limit the use of digital content even after it has been bought
>
> or downloaded."
>
>
>
> > I do not support theft yet I see theft being accomplished even by those

>
> > who do not support theft. I pay for programs and Internet access, yet

>
> > I'm free to use the Internet that others have created. It seems to me,

>
> > that challenges the issue of "Intellectual Property" ownership, as it

>
> > affects the Internet.

>
>
>
> You are paying the creators of the Internet with your monthly access
>
> fees to a service provider (in your case Verizon) who has their
>
> business model which I have no doubt includes a form of licensing from
>
> W3C.
>
>
>
>
>
> >

>
> >>

>
> >>>>> The question is, those who pirate software are labeled as thieves

>
> >>>>> while those who created and use a system to transmit their software,

>
> >>>>> who haven't paid for using a system they haven't created yet use, are

>
> >>>>> not considered as being thieves.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> See above.

>
> >>>> I have a hard time taking the leap to assume that an individual or

>
> >>>> corporation involved in the commercial enterprise of online distribution

>
> >>>> of their product, is stealing bandwidth and using Tim Berners-Lee's WWW

>
> >>>> creation without incurring some cost for tapping into it.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Theft remains just that regardless of where that theft takes place.

>
> >>>> Consider the bicycle parked on a sidewalk while its owner goes into a

>
> >>>> store. A bicycle thief might blame the owner by saying, "he shouldn't

>
> >>>> have left it untended and tempted me."

>
> >>>> That is similar to Sobriquet's argument that if the copyright owner or

>
> >>>> the creator of the image, music or software didn't want it stolen, they

>
> >>>> shouldn't be trying to distribute their property online where it is

>
> >>>> vulnerable. Theft remains a property crime fueled by a lack of civil

>
> >>>> morality on the part of the thief.

>
> >>>>

>
> >>>> Just because you might inadvertently have left your keys in your car,

>
> >>>> does not mean that a potential thief has a right to steal your car, and

>
> >>>> when caught he is still guilty of car theft, no matter what he claims in

>
> >>>> Court.

>
> >>>

>
> >>> A thief who steals my car is certainly a thief 'cause I paid for the

>
> >>> car. But shouldn't the car thief pay a fee for the use of the road

>
> >>> that he drives the car on, even if it's a dirt road?

>
> >>

>
> >> Why? He is a thief, and it is in the nature of thieves not to pay for

>
> >> anything, this thief will probably not even possess a valid driver's

>
> >> license.

>
> >> You and I pay for road use via our vehicle registration and other taxes,

>
> >> including fuel taxes. I don't believe that the car thief has even

>
> >> considered that part of his civic responsibility.

>
> >>

>
> >

>
> > There's an old saying "A thief who steals from a thief is pardoned for

>
> > a thousand years."

>
> >

>
> > Under the present civic laws, if a person who breaks the law is caught,

>
> > he (or she) is subject to being lawfully punished. However, if

>
> > thousands of people break the law, at a given time, they get to keep

>
> > what they have stolen.

>
>
>
> Sometimes.
>
>
>
> > That is the way of those who riot and of the way of illegal entries.

>
> > So, why is that not the way of the Internet?

>
>
>
> In many cases it is, and it is still theft.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck


That's a load of hogwash cooked up by people who have been
thoroughly brainwashed by the intellectual property mafia.

There is no theft involved whatsoever in filesharing. It's not
even immoral to 'violate copyrights'. It's copyright itself that is
blatantly immoral, nonsensical and downright off-the-wall.

There are over 30 million users of the piratebay who laugh at
copyright and have been enjoying the freedom to share information
for many years (TPB will be celebrating its 10 year
anniversary in 2013), and that's just one of many torrent sites
out there, while torrenting is just one of many ways to share
information, that is, violate fictitious and spurious
copyrights.

Only the most shortsighted and retarded newbies take copyright
seriously. Anyone with at least half a funtioning brain considers
the internet to be the ultimate virtual library where everything
can be found and nothing ever needs to be returned.

Sure, every once in a while the copyright nazis will legally harass
someone for unauthorized filesharing, in a feeble attempt to intimidate
filesharers, but those are the exceptions that confirm the general
rule that there is no copyright on the internet.

However, if you live in a fascist police state, like North Korea,
Iran or the United States, it's probably a good idea to share
information anonymously to minimize the chances of such harassment.

The anti-copyright / pro-sharing movement is on the rise and they
will soon bring down the intellectual property mafia and expose
their scam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_party
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 6:41:33 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-06 20:53:41 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
> <<< Anarchistic Rant redacted to stop the BS spueing >>>
>
>
>
> > However, if you live in a fascist police state, like North Korea,

>
> > Iran or the United States, it's probably a good idea to share

>
> > information anonymously to minimize the chances of such harassment.

>
>
>
> You really haven't got a clue. A statement such as that is an
>
> indication of your refusal to recognize reality. All you are doing is
>
> justifying your delusional hypothesis. I suggest that rather that
>
> trying to convince us that you are right, just take you perverted
>
> thought process and do as you please. You are going to do that anyway.
>
> Then just don't bother these photo groups with this issue. Rather stick
>
> to pure photography issues.
>


It's a recognition of the fact that human rights violations are just
as rampant in the United States as they are in Iran or North Korea.
Except that in the USA, such human rights violations are committed
primarily by corporations (with the government as a phony storefront),
while human rights violations in Iran are primarily committed by
religious nutcases (arguably, the USA has their fair share of religious
nutcases) and human rights violations in North Korea stem primarily
from attempts to impose a totalitarian political ideology.

As long as copyright nazis demonize filesharing as theft, there
is an obvious need to expose their propaganda.

Copyright is an issue that pertains to photography just like other
forms of information (movies, books, music, software, etc..), so
it's perfectly suited to discuss it in a photography newsgroup.
We can either have a civilized discussion (if the pro-IP people
refrain from demonizing filesharing as theft, the pro-sharing people
are likely to refrain from demonizing the pro-IP people as nazis), or
we can freely employ unfounded accusations of theft or fascism.

If you want to argue that filesharing is immoral, fine, but I'm
likewise arguing that intellectual property is immoral.

We can also focus on the common ground in our opposed viewpoints,
which is that we are both in favor of a financial incentive for
people who contribute new content to the shared wealth of human
culture. We only disagree about the way this should be
accomplished.

I'm in favor of the library model, and you're in favor
of the bookstore model.

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:22:24 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>
> While it is possible it describe an act as immoral, you should note
>
> that your use of the term "filesharing" can be both a legitimate act,
>
> and illicit. What you propose is the unauthorized acquisition and use
>
> of other people's property, and that has an element of criminal intent
>
> and immorality.


It doesn't, because the authorization depends on legislation in various
countries. In the USA it might be unauthorized to download music
from a p2p network for personal use, yet in the Netherlands that
same activity might be authorized (depending on various factors).
That doesn't mean that that activity is immoral in the USA and moral
in the Netherlands.

Also, use of the term property is misleading. Take the bitstring
010101110100. Who's property is that? I think it obviously belongs to the
public domain and it would be crazy for someone to claim it as their
intellectual property and search the internet for unauthorized copies of it.
If a bitstring is much longer, that doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes
meaningful to assume that it can be appropriated by people as intellectual
property in the sense that they can impose on others what they are
allowed to do with that bitstring.

Suppose I take a picture. You would probably argue that the bitstring that
corresponds with that picture (as it comes out of my digital camera) is
my intellectual property. Now suppose I generate a series of successive
bitstrings of decreasing length that correspond with copies of that picture
that are gradually reduced in resolution.
At some point we end up with very small bitstrings that obviously belongs
to the public domain, yet it's completely arbitrary where to draw the line
between bitstrings that are my supposed intellectual property and bitstrings
that belong to the public domain.

>
> "Intellectual property" on the other hand, not being sentient and/or in
>
> anyway animate (the term is just a description of a property type) has
>
> no way of being, in its purest sense, "immoral".


That depends on your interpretation of intellectual property.
It can be immoral if it's interpreted to have implications that
restrict other people's freedom in various ways (like their freedom of
expression).
We can imagine a more strict interpretation of intellectual property
where people can claim everything that currently belongs to the public
domain as their intellectual property, regardless whether they are the
original creators or not (as long as they are the first to claim ownership),
so the public domain gradually dwindles until there is no public domain
left and nobody is able to create anything anymore because they would
be required to pay excessive royalties as it involves elements that have
already been claimed by others as their intellectual property.

>
> However, you choose not to share in contributing to any such a
>
> financial incentive, by having others bear the costs.
>


I pay taxes on information (like on harddrives or empty DVD-Rs) and those
taxes are distibuted among people who create new content.

Just like I pay taxes that are employed to finance public libraries.

>
> > I'm in favor of the library model, and you're in favor

>
> > of the bookstore model.

>
>
>
> I am in favor of both.
>


Yet you claim that people who access information freely are thieves and
parasites. These people might be legally allowed to access that information
freely (whether they freely consume that information in their local library
or obtain it online as a free download).
Both in case of the library and in case of free downloads, there is a system
in place (at least in certain countries) where the creators are receiving
an indirect financial compensation for that activity.

If free access to information equates to theft, like you maintain elsewhere,
that means you are accusing people of theft when they read books for free
in their local library (which means they access the content of those books
despite the fact that they don't pay anything directly as a compensation
for that activity).

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:21:48 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>
>
> Your logic is clouded, and we are locked in a futile circular argument.
>


Actually it's a fascinating issue to ponder (given all the legal differences
between various countries and the global nature of filesharing).

Like is it immoral to be a homosexual in Iran, where homosexuals are criminalized, while it's simultaneously moral to be a homosexual in
the USA, where it has been legalized (not so long ago)?
I would say the same activity can't simultaneously be moral and immoral,
depending on your location.

> which is pointless to continue. So I will leave you to your piratical
>
> fantasy.
>
>


Fine, I will leave you to your intellectual property myth.
I can assure you that piratebay is not a figment of my lively
imagination.

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 1:51:51 AM UTC, nick c wrote:
> On 12/6/2012 5:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>
> > On 2012-12-06 16:49:22 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >

>
> > <<< Le Snip >>>

>
> >

>
> >> A composer of music can copyright his work and demand payment from

>
> >> anyone who chooses to use the composers work for personal gain. What's

>
> >> copyrighted is the melodic sequence (words as well as music) of the

>
> >> composers work. But the composer uses a musical scale which is not the

>
> >> work or the creation of the composer, so who does the composer pay for

>
> >> the use of the musical scale, which he (or she) didn't create?

>
> >

>
> > Pythagoras.

>
> >

>
> >> I've often wondered about Internet piracy. Surely the person who

>
> >> downloads a pirated program is actually stealing a program that was

>
> >> created buy someone who may demand payment for his work. But the

>
> >> original software creator has placed his work into a system that was

>
> >> created by many others and no payment for the creation or use of the

>
> >> system is or was being made by the creators of software programs.

>
> >

>
> > That is an assumption, and not necessarily true. I don't know about you,

>
> > but I am paying for my access and use of the various strands of the

>
> > internet.

>
> > I have no reason to believe that any software developer, individual, or

>
> > corporation isn't paying for the same access.

>
>
>
> I too have paid for what I use, including access. I know of no one who
>
> uses Verizon who doesn't pay an access fee. But access doesn't cover
>
> creation. There must have been thousands of salaried people involved
>
> with the creation of the Internet, each making a talented contribution
>
> to its function. Are they not entitled to receive payment for what they
>
> have created?


Yes and I think they did. Most people worked and recieved a salery paid by their employer. Most people, well in universities are under contract we arepaid a salery and anything we create during that time belongs to the university.
I think it's simialr with most componies.



>
>
>
> >

>
> >> The question is, those who pirate software are labeled as thieves

>
> >> while those who created and use a system to transmit their software,

>
> >> who haven't paid for using a system they haven't created yet use, are

>
> >> not considered as being thieves.

>
> >

>
> > See above.

>
> > I have a hard time taking the leap to assume that an individual or

>
> > corporation involved in the commercial enterprise of online distribution

>
> > of their product, is stealing bandwidth and using Tim Berners-Lee's WWW

>
> > creation without incurring some cost for tapping into it.

>
> >

>
> > Theft remains just that regardless of where that theft takes place.

>
> > Consider the bicycle parked on a sidewalk while its owner goes into a

>
> > store. A bicycle thief might blame the owner by saying, "he shouldn't

>
> > have left it untended and tempted me."

>
> > That is similar to Sobriquet's argument that if the copyright owner or

>
> > the creator of the image, music or software didn't want it stolen, they

>
> > shouldn't be trying to distribute their property online where it is

>
> > vulnerable. Theft remains a property crime fueled by a lack of civil

>
> > morality on the part of the thief.

>


One of the problems here is the English language using one word tpom secribe many things. The word Love is another example loving a beer, loving your wife, lovign your pet, lovign food or photography & loving your siblings isNOT the same emotion well not for most people but the same word is used.

The original of the word theft or steal IIRC came from a jewish religious texts which required a person to lose something and another to gain.
One thing that confuses me is that if you make love to someone without their consent it is called rape not takign love without permission or taking pleasure without permision whuiich is closer to theft.

I beleive that also (maybe someone that's done it or knows the law) if you hire/rent a prostitute then have sex with her and walk out without payment that is not called theft (even though I think it should be) it is called rape.


>
> > Just because you might inadvertently have left your keys in your car,

>
> > does not mean that a potential thief has a right to steal your car, and

>
> > when caught he is still guilty of car theft, no matter what he claims in

>
> > Court.

>
>
>
> A thief who steals my car is certainly a thief 'cause I paid for the
>
> car. But shouldn't the car thief pay a fee for the use of the road that
>
> he drives the car on, even if it's a dirt road?


How do you know he hasn't ?, here in the UK people that own cars pay road tax.
If he doesn;t own a car (like myself) he doesn't pay road tax.
When I by a beer I assume the delievery company has paid their road tax andthat is included in the cost of my beer so I do pay for my beer to travel the roads, but I don;t pay road tax.



>
>
>
> >

>
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:30:23 AM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:21:48 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>
> >

>
> >

>
> > Your logic is clouded, and we are locked in a futile circular argument.

>
> >

>
>
>
> Actually it's a fascinating issue to ponder (given all the legal differences
>
> between various countries and the global nature of filesharing).


So at least you realise there are differncies, why do you think that is the case ?

>
>
>
> Like is it immoral to be a homosexual in Iran, where homosexuals are criminalized, while it's simultaneously moral to be a homosexual in
>
> the USA, where it has been legalized (not so long ago)?


But homosexuals still get beaten up called names and discriminated against in the US.


>
> I would say the same activity can't simultaneously be moral and immoral,
>
> depending on your location.


That's depends on yuor culture, you can make laws to support 'morals' but for teh most part mrals are an indivuduals perception which can change with time and experience.


> > which is pointless to continue. So I will leave you to your piratical

>
> >

>
> > fantasy.

>
> >

>
> >

>
>
>
> Fine, I will leave you to your intellectual property myth.


It's hardly a myth because it happens and is written in law.

>
> I can assure you that piratebay is not a figment of my lively
>
> imagination.


Rapist & terrorsist aren't a figment of imagintation and they exist in the eyes of others do they exist in yuor lively imagination, because you seem to think just because something exist that make it right, is that the case.
So yuo're saying it[s, OK to torch homosexuals or stone women to death because ofaledged adultery. In WWII the Nazi murder millions of jews are you also saying that was OK because it wasn;t in your nimagination but happened ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:41:33 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-12-06 20:53:41 -0800, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
><<< Anarchistic Rant redacted to stop the BS spueing >>>
>
>> However, if you live in a fascist police state, like North Korea,
>> Iran or the United States, it's probably a good idea to share
>> information anonymously to minimize the chances of such harassment.

>
>You really haven't got a clue. A statement such as that is an
>indication of your refusal to recognize reality. All you are doing is
>justifying your delusional hypothesis. I suggest that rather that
>trying to convince us that you are right, just take you perverted
>thought process and do as you please. You are going to do that anyway.
>Then just don't bother these photo groups with this issue. Rather stick
>to pure photography issues.


Duck, this guy is tugging you around like a farmer leading a bull by
the nose ring. He knows his position is indefensible, but his uses of
"fascist police state", "nazi", and comparisons of the US to North
Korea are just button-pushing.

Have some compassion for this guy. He's incapable of creating
anything worthwhile on his own without piggybacking on the stolen work
of others. He's unable to garner any attention for his own feeble
alterations without acting out like a child eating a booger to be
noticed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 04:29:03 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:30:23 AM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
>> On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:21:48 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>
>> > Your logic is clouded, and we are locked in a futile circular argument.

>>
>> Actually it's a fascinating issue to ponder (given all the legal differences
>>
>> between various countries and the global nature of filesharing).

>
>So at least you realise there are differncies, why do you think that is the case ?
>>
>> Like is it immoral to be a homosexual in Iran, where homosexuals are criminalized, while it's simultaneously moral to be a homosexual in
>>
>> the USA, where it has been legalized (not so long ago)?

>
>But homosexuals still get beaten up called names and discriminated against in the US.


Sobriquet is not exactly a deep thinker. He confuses morality with
legality.
>>
>> I would say the same activity can't simultaneously be moral and immoral,
>> depending on your location.


An activity is neither moral nor immoral. The morality or immorality
is in the perception of those who are aware of the act. It is
perfectly logical for the same activity to be perceived to be
acceptable or unacceptable by different people.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
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
Copyright (different question, honest) PcB Digital Photography 16 10-18-2006 05:57 PM
eBook copyright question Speed Demon Computer Support 3 08-03-2005 04:50 PM
COPYRIGHT DVD QUESTION stu DVD Video 3 10-18-2004 02:24 AM
Copyright question? Five Digital Photography 16 06-13-2004 03:06 PM



Advertisments