«

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:25:01 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

> Nonsense. For one thing, according to Dutch law, I have the right
> to download most things for personal use for free from p2p networks.

You don't, unless you have a special client that doesn't
upload anything.

> Likewise, copyright applies to most books available in the public
> library, but that doesn't mean that it amounts to theft to go
> to the library and read books for free without ever paying for them.

Copying the books is not allowed.


>> Locking your car won't protect it for more than a few seconds. Any
>> crook knows that.

> That's why the police puts cars in certain risk areas intentionally
> that are rigged with special equipment to trap people who steal cars.
> That's one example of how the police helps people to prevent theft
> of their car.

And exactly the same thing happens in p2p networks.

>> >The police cannot and will not assist you
>> >in preventing your money from being stolen, if you make a habit of
>> >intentionally scattering your money out on the streets wherever you go.

>> Are you trying to work your way around PeterN's analogy of leaving
>> money hanging temptingly out of your pocket?

> The analogy is flawed.

No. It fits perfectly.

> A more suitable analogy,

.... does not exist.


>> Libraries aren't allowed to contain all information. Just ask the AIVD
>> if you don't believe me.

> Most information available on torrent sites like piratebay is information
> that is also available in shops and libraries.
> If information would be illegal to be shared in a public library, you
> can send a complaint to piratebay and they will remove it, because they
> say they will only host information that is legal to possess under local law.

So the piratebay obeys the laws of China?

(I know you're way too stupid to understand that.)

>> >> >My philosophy is not that all physical items can be freely appropriated by
>> >> >anyone who feels like taking possession of something.
>> >> >Property as a concept can be sensibly applied to physical objects, but it
>> >> >can't be sensibly applied to abstractions like a bitstring.

>> Why not, if the bitstring has special properties?

> You might have some kind of tracing in it that renders every
> bitstring unique, but such methods to prevent unauthorized
> filesharing are unlikely to be very effective.

Answer the question, don't waffle.

> Also, suppose you buy a dvd and you forget your bag in the
> train. Since only the dvd is inside, you don't bother to report
> it to the police. But then after some time it turns out your dvd
> was copied and turns up on torrent sites. Next you get a letter
> from a lawyer demanding that you pay a few million in damages
> for unauthorized filesharing.
> That's the kind of fascist scenarios you seem to support.

Also, suppose you carry a briefcase full of crack for a drug
baron and you forget it on the bus. That's more likely than
your scenario.


>> But if it was easier to copy, you would feel entitled to copy it also?

> Yes, local Dutch law even states that I'm legally allowed to copy most
> things (like music, video, pictures, books, etc..) for personal use.

> What's prohibited is sharing such copies online, but in practice it
> seems virtually impossible to get into trouble for online filesharing
> (where no monetary transactions are involved whatsoever) to exchange
> things with other bitstring collectors.

So basically you say "the law allows it and I ignore the law
anyway". Sorry, you are an out-law, the law doesn't allow
you anything.


Hopefully you'll be targeted by others who don't think the
law applies to them.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:41:29 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> [..]

>> I'm glad we have got you to the point that you acknowledge that

>> copying of intellectual property diminishes the value of that

>> property.

> It doesn't diminish the value. It had no monetary value to
> begin with.

True --- because YOUR bistring is and was and always will
be completely worthless crap.

Other people need much more time to generate bitstrings, but
their bitstrings are *very* highly regarded --- and worth
lots of money.

> Things that can be reproduced indefinitely free from
> additional costs lack monetary value by definition, as monetary value
> is a measure for how scarce an item is.

Nothing can be reproduces indefinitely or free from
additional costs. And even if that was possible: you're
still completely wrong.

> Hence a unique oil painting is very valuable,

yep, any oil painting is very valuable if it's just unique.

I have a couple bridges to sell. They're all unique!

> because it is a unique
> item. But if you create a digital artwork and you put it online, there is
> no sensible way to associate a monetary value with that artwork.

You really need a children's book on simple economic facts.

> That doesn't mean such a digital artwork lacks any possible value. It can
> still have a lot of artistic value, but it will not have any monetary value
> because of economic laws of supply and demand that determine the monetary
> value of things.

You've proven again and again that you don't understand
economy any more than an ox understands the fine points of
theological dogmata.


-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> [..]

> I snip things, because those morons at groups.google have managed
> to come up with the most idiotic way to quote things (inserting empty
> lines every other line, cumulatively bloating quoted sections) and
> hence I assume that people are able to look up previous parts of the
> discussion elsewhere in the thread.

>> Monetary value is what people are prepared to pay for an item.

> Ok, so if I point a gun at you and force you to pay 100 $ for
> a piece of chewing gum, that means that that piece of chewing gum
> has a monetary value of 100 $?

OK, if I beat you to a pulp, will you stop sticking your
fingers in your ears and crying nya nya nya I can't hear you?

>> If the item is reproducible in the hands of the creator or the
>> creator's agent, the value of the item is the sum total of all the
>> copies people are prepared to buy. Someone who goes around handing out
>> illegally created free copies is diminishing the value of the item in
>> the hands of the creator.

> Perhaps in the delusional mind of a creator who has issues with
> wishful thinking.

No, in real economy.

> For people who have a functioning brain, they will dispute this patent
> nonsense.

Explain why you dispute the nonsense --- you clearly don't have
a brain, much less a functional one, just a knee-jerk reflex!

>> As you said above, the value of an item is diminished by copying and
>> that's what owners of copyright object to.

> You have problems with your language comprehension skills?
> I've told you before that there is no monetary value associated with
> an abstraction like a bitstring.

I've told you before that you are wrong. Do you have
problems with language comprehension skills?


> Sure, you can scam clueless people

.... you being a prime target ...

> and you might get some of them to
> pay for abstractions like bitstrings, but that doesn't mean they
> magically attain a monetary value in a sensible fashion.

There's no magic involved, just simple economy. Even if we'd
postulate that a good can be copied infinitely for zero cost,
it has to be created before it can be copied.


>> >Hence a unique oil painting is very valuable, because it is a unique
>> >item. But if you create a digital artwork and you put it online, there is
>> >no sensible way to associate a monetary value with that artwork.

>> There is if you can control the nature of the access to that artwork.

> But the whole point of this discussion is that I'm arguing there is
> no way to effectively impose a monopoly on the reproduction and
> distribution of information.

The whole point is that you're an outlaw and I hope some other
outlaw beats you up and robs all your things. Such people
exist and therefore there is no way to effectively make them
behave.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:35:48 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
>> <snip>

>> I'm a retired engineer and creative designer (artist) that has made a good
>> living from IPR (including information technology) and copyright.

> So what? There are people who have made a good living scamming people, but
> that doesn't justify the practice of scamming people.

>> The information I've posted is the result of court actions. It's called
>> case law. Look it up.

> Court actions don't change the facts.

Court actions do more than change facts. They PRODUCE facts.

> There have been numerous court
> actions against people who were accused of practicing witch craft.
> That doesn't entail that witches exist.

So you don't believe in witches, but you believe in magical
creation and magical copying for zero cost?


> All that legal harassment doesn't somehow magically turn the concept
> of copyright into a sensible notion with respect to digital
> information. It just shows how people have been scamming people
> for so long that they have even managed to buy their way into the
> government so their scams are legally sanctioned.

In fact you scam people. And don't even have the excuse of
the law.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:24:28 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:

>> What about the human right not to have to share things?

> If you keep your pictures of the internet, they won't end up being
> shared, copied or modified by others.

Liar. People have been sharing, copying and modifying long
before there even were computers, much less digital
computers, much less a intrnet!

> But it would be rather silly for you to claim that you have the right
> to upload your pictures so they are available online while
> simultaneously claiming that they remain your intellectual property and
> that you get to decide that people are not allowed to share these pictures
> with others.

It would be rather silly for you to step out of the house
where you live in the cellar and simultaneously claim you have
a right not to be beaten into a pulp.


> If you don't believe me, try it out. Put one of your pictures online and
> I will show you that once you've put your pictures on the internet,
> it's beyond your control to decide who is or isn't allowed to copy
> those pictures (potentially in modified form) or upload them
> elsewhere.

I've got a number of picures on the internet, and of COURSE
I retain the control to decide who is and who is not ALLOWED
to copy (and that includes uploading, of course!) them.

If you don't believe me, try it, and the judge will explain
it to you in small words.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:33:41 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>> Does the same argument apply to your health details?

> Sure. If I insist on putting my health details online, it would be
> silly to subsequently attempt to prevent others from sharing that
> information with others.

I'll happily put your health details online. Have fun.

> Generally speaking, people who engage in filesharing don't break
> into people's houses to obtain information, in order to share that
> information on the internet.

Generally speaking peiple don't break into people's houses,
because there's a law against it.

> They tend to share things that have been published voluntarily by
> their creators

Yes. Like all the zero-day just-out-in-the-cinema blockbusters.
They were published voluntarily by their creators.

> and dispute the claims that these creators retain
> a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of their creations
> despite their deliberate choice to enable others to gain access to
> these creations.

You do have a door to the damp, dark cellar where you live?
That's a deliberate choice to enable others to gain access ...

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:

> Sensible and intelligible laws apply to everyone. Nonsense laws
> apply to clueless people.

All laws apply to all people.

> Someone in Iran might argue that he is a homosexual

So you're ****ing your filesharing copies now?
Are they at least porn flicks?

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:05:41 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

>> One thing which is clear in all of this discussion, is your lack of a
>> moral compass.

> What's clear from these discussions is that people who try to argue
> in favor of a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of
> information are totally clueless about the nature of information
> technology.

Says the guy who's even more clueless about it than a chicken
with it's head cut off.

-Wolfgang

sobriquet <> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:17:06 PM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 31/01/2013 13:02, sobriquet wrote:
>> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:10:29 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

>> >> Depends on the value of the material. If you want to find out what
>> >> happens try scanning a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey, put it on your
>> >> website and see how many hours you last before the lawyers descend.

>> > Why would anyone want to put it on their own website? Torrent sites
>> > seem more suitable for sharing:
>> > http://tinyurl.com/abst3tt

>> So essentially you think that theft of any intellectual property is OK
>> if you can get away with it anonymously on the internet?

Basically, yes, (even though the word theft is wrong for
legal reasons). So-brick-head has repeatedly said that the
law doesn't apply to him at all.

> Sharing information is a human right.. look it up in the UDHR.

Intellectual property is a human right.. look it up in the UDHR.


> Legally,

doesn't matter. You're an outlaw. Laws don't apply to you.
And you should be dealt with as such. Too bad we're to
civilized to lock you into a kennel.

-Wolfgang

On Friday, February 8, 2013 4:33:07 AM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[.. babbling snipped ..]

I'm not gonna waste more time on you clueless nazi cockroaches.

Let me just point you to a recent indication that filesharing
constitutes a human right:

http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/cour...-human-rights/