«

On 28/01/2013 02:34, sobriquet wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:26:12 AM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>>
>> Nothing immoral, see below. the difference between me and Sobriquet, is
>>
>> that I am stating what the law is, not what I wish it to be. I have also
>>
>> stated my opinion on morality. BTW, it's unfortunate that you never took
>>
>> my college course covering the difference between law and morality. You
>>
>> might actually have learned something.
>> [..]
>
> Your statement of the law is irrelevant. The facts are that the nature
> of information technology is such that it would be completely ludicrous
> to maintain that one can seriously expect a monopoly on the reproduction
> and distribution of something you put on the internet.
> Hence, you're not just a fascist (as far as morality is concerned), but
> you're also delusional.
> Lots of fascists have the law on their side, but that is just indicative
> of fascistic laws.
>

Do you know what a fallacy is?

"Drogreden" in Dutch, if that's easier to understand.

--
audentes fortuna iuvat

On Monday, January 28, 2013 4:45:36 PM UTC+1, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> On 26/01/2013 08:23, sobriquet wrote:
>
>
>
> (...)
>
>
>
> > Employing, manipulating and remixing images one encounters in
>
> > one's environment (like on the internet or on the streets)
>
> > constitutes artistic freedom.
>
>
>
> Yes. And making money with these remixed images constitutes copyright
>
> infringement. Keyword being "commercial use".
>

Then why are torrentsites like piratebay being harassed by the
copyright nazis, when people tend to employ piratebay for sharing
and exchanging things without money ever being involved?
People don't buy or sell things on piratebay and similar torrent
sites.
In the vast majority of cases of people who supposedly infringe
copyright online, people are merely exchanging information and
there is no money involved whatsoever.

>
>
>
>
> --
>
> audentes fortuna iuvat

On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:15:30 PM UTC+1, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> [..]
> Do you know what a fallacy is?
>

Sure, copyright is a fallacy.

>
>
> "Drogreden" in Dutch, if that's easier to understand.
>
>
>
> --
>
> audentes fortuna iuvat

On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:16:48 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> [..]
> When you have enough power to set yourself up as an independent state
>
> which can defend its own borders - only then might you have a chance
>
> of enforcing that opinion.

No need for that. On the internet there is no copyright simply because
the nature of information technology is incompatible with traditional
notions of copyright as they applied to physical commodities like books, records or tapes. Hence, on the internet, the vast majority of people completely
ignore these spurious intellectual property claims.

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

On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:19:27 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> Stealing has certainly occurred when you deprive the creator of the
>
> file of an opportunity to sell a copy.

Depriving the creator of an opportunity to scam people with
idiotic licensing bullshit.

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

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:36:13 PM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> [..]
> So you'd be fine if big corporations copied and exploited free
>
> software, but ignored the 'but you need to make the source
>
> code available' part (e.g. GPL, CC-sa, ...) and thus made it
>
> closed source?
>

What difference does that make? Their freedom to copy that software
and turn it into closed source software (that is likely to be cracked
anyway) doesn't detract from the freedom of others to spread it freely
in open form.

>
>
> You know what that means: less "internet or computers" ...
>
> and you want that?
>

Nonsense. There might be less closed source software if corporations
are no longer allowed to scam people with inferior crap because they are
allowed to perpetuate the intellectual property myth.
It would likely motivate people to create better open source software and
that would only benefit people in the long run.

>
>
> -Wolfgang

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:07:02 PM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> [..]
> So you want to limit personal freedom for artists --- they
>
> shouldn't be on the internet at all --- but copyright is
>
> limiting personal freedom for artists --- they can't simply
>
> copy whatever they want --- and therefore copyright must go.
>

They can be on the internet, but on the internet it doesn't make
sense to try to enforce a monopoly on the reproduction and
distribution of information.
People or corporations can put or even sell their creations
online (regardless whether it's pictures, music, video,
books, software, etc..), but they can't expect to remain in
control over the terms and conditions regarding reproduction
and distribution.

The law more or less implies that they do, but such laws are
unrealistic and unjust, on par with laws that criminalize
gay people. Such laws infringe on human rights.

For someone who is creative, it is in their interest to
strive towards the freedom to share information and that
implies that their creations can also be freely shared.
Free sharing can happen in lots of ways. Like people being
free to enter a local library to consume information or
people being free to download things from the internet
that are exchanged between peers.

That does not mean that someone who is creative is not
able to make money from their creative skills. If they
create things and they turn out to be very popular online,
I'm sure they can be commissioned to create a new work
in exchange for financial compensation.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume a kind of dependency
of an artist to make money on a monopoly on the reproduction
and distribution of their creations on the internet.

>
>
> Are you, by chance, a split personality or is that your
>
> skill as a dogmatically religious person: believing obvious
>
> contradictions without even noticing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's clueless people who tell others how to live their life
>
> and where they may go and be and where not. Doubly clueless
>
> for not even knowing or understanding the laws of the land.
>

Laws don't change the facts.

>
>
> -Wolfgang

On 1/28/2013 11:36 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-28 11:08:57 -0800, George Kerby <> said:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/13 11:32 AM, in article
>> 2013012809325525485-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-01-28 08:23:16 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:16:48 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> [..]
>>>>> When you have enough power to set yourself up as an independent state
>>>>> which can defend its own borders - only then might you have a chance
>>>>> of enforcing that opinion.
>>>>
>>>> No need for that. On the internet there is no copyright
>>>
>>> Wrong. Just because you choose to ignore the copyright and conditions
>>> of license does not mean they do not exist on the internet.
>>>
>>>> simply because
>>>> the nature of information technology is incompatible with traditional
>>>> notions of copyright as they applied to physical commodities like
>>>> books, records or tapes.
>>>
>>> That is your assertion to rationalize and justify your theft of work
>>> owned by others, with copyright held by others, and licensing
>>> conditions set by others.
>>>
>>>> Hence, on the internet, the vast majority of people completely
>>>> ignore these spurious intellectual property claims.
>>>
>>> Nope, just because some people like you choose to ignore copyright and
>>> licensing conditions, does not make them the "vast majority". You might
>>> have noticed that in this room full of photographers, amateurs and
>>> professionals alike, you are a minority of one.
>>
>> Sounds like you are dealing with one of those Wall Street Occupoopers who
>> think everything should be "Communal"...
>
> Worse! They weren't stealing anything.
>

Yeah, they were. They occupied space paid for by every taxpayer thereby
depriving others from having access to that space. With the threat of
damage, they used the facilities of neighboring business's without
recompensing them for the materials used. They took what they can, when
they can and nothing was done to disperse them. Occupiers were just as
likely to succumb to theft as would rioters. Occupiers were not quite
the nice people the press made them out to be.

On 1/27/2013 11:11 PM, GMAN wrote:
> In article <a76ea3be-2414-4e2e-9075->, sobriquet <> wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 4:28:32 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>>
>>> [..]
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> the Internet is a modern communication medium. Artists should get paid
>>>
>>> for their work. From a moral standpoint, and regardless of copyright
>>>
>>> laws, using another's work without their permission is nothing more than
>>>
>>> stealing.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who
>> claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp
>> the most basic aspects of information technology.
>>
>>>
>
> Liberal bullshit
>
He is not aliberal. Just a self proclaimed common thief.

--
PeterN

On 1/28/2013 1:56 PM, Frank S wrote:
>
> "GMAN" <> wrote in message
> newsUmNs.419391$%...
>> In article <a76ea3be-2414-4e2e-9075->,
>> sobriquet <> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 4:28:32 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> the Internet is a modern communication medium. Artists should get paid
>>>>
>>>> for their work. From a moral standpoint, and regardless of copyright
>>>>
>>>> laws, using another's work without their permission is nothing more
>>>> than
>>>>
>>>> stealing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense, all information belongs to the public domain. People who
>>> claim otherwise have their head stuck up their ass and fail to grasp
>>> the most basic aspects of information technology.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Liberal bullshit
>
> Seems strange that thoughtful people are still responding to that loony.
>

Some of us are interested in letting others know that his statements are
absolute lies, and self justification. They should not be encouraged in
any manner.

--
PeterN