copyrights are futile, information is free

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by name, Apr 2, 2004.

  1. name

    name Guest

    Bryan Heit <> wrote in message news:<c4h8u3$i2q$>...
    > Jerry wrote:
    >
    > >Interesting. Personally, when I but a CD, I rip it to CD. I listen to all
    > >my music in MP3 format. If this is (or will become) common, why would
    > >anyone, other than the first guy, buy a CD?
    > >
    > >

    > I use MP3's as a way to screen what I buy. It lets me listen to most of
    > a CD. If I really like what I hear I may buy the CD. If I don't I keep
    > the tracks I like and ditch the less. Allows me to support the artists
    > who truly deserve it...
    >
    > Bryan


    Sure, sharing music online can be a motivation for people to buy
    music.
    I'd buy audiocds again, even at the ridiculous price they are sold at,
    as long as I'm allowed to rip and share them online.
    As long as this is not legalized, I will not buy music anymore and
    only support artists who's music I appreciate (apart from the fact
    that most of my favorite musicians are long dead and gone anyway) by
    visiting their concerts and sharing their music online to promote
    them.
    I've sold all my audiocds a long time ago and I'm really glad I got
    rid of them. If you own audiocds, that means you support the
    exploitation and prostitution of artists by the recording industry.
    Any artist who doesn't like free publicity or hates their material
    being distributed freely should refrain from creating things.
    If you create things, the only way to prevent this from being shared
    among other people, is to destroy it right away, before anyone gets a
    chance to learn of its existence.
    In the digital age, the whole world becomes one mind (computers as
    well as humans being similar to neurons as information processing
    units and the internet being similar to a neural network). At a
    sufficient level of complexity, just like humanity has reached a
    critical evolutionary stage where cultural evolution takes over from
    genetic evolution, there might arrise a form of global consciousness
    that transcends the sum of it's parts. Information is supposed to flow
    freely in this global mind. Any attempt to suppress or subvert
    information or obstructing the free flow of information amounts to
    fascism.
    OK, sorry about all the mystic mumbo jumbo. I'm an idiot so don't take
    my word for it (i.e. think for yourself). I'm just babbling along. But
    anyway, it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have his head stuck up
    his arse that copyrights are a thing of the past and have become
    completely redundant and counterproductive in the information age.
    Copyrights being applied to digital information is clear proof that
    there are no limits to human stupidity.
     
    name, Apr 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    nsprakel writes:

    >Any attempt to suppress or subvert
    >information or obstructing the free flow of information amounts to
    >fascism.
    >OK, sorry about all the mystic mumbo jumbo. I'm an idiot so don't take
    >my word for it (i.e. think for yourself). I'm just babbling along. But
    >anyway, it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have his head stuck up
    >his arse that copyrights are a thing of the past and have become
    >completely redundant and counterproductive in the information age.
    >Copyrights being applied to digital information is clear proof that
    >there are no limits to human stupidity.


    Bullshit.

    Copyrights are what make certain the person producing the material gets at
    least a part of income derived from it.

    You figure out a way to pay a writer, or singer, without paying for copyrighted
    material and you're in good shape. Otherwise, you are nothing but a thief,
    starting at the cheap chiseler level.

    Charlie Self
    "The function of posterity is to look after itself." Dylan Thomas
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
    news::

    > Otherwise, you are nothing but a thief,
    > starting at the cheap chiseler level.


    More likely he is a troll.

    And you took the troll bait :)

    > You figure out a way to pay a writer, or singer, without
    > paying for copyrighted material and you're in good shape.


    BTW
    - no Copyright is needed for selling pictures. Copyright
    is only needed for selling the same again, and again,
    and again, ....
    - a singer? You pay him - he sings. You don't pay him - he
    don't sing. Whats the problem? Why any Copyright?
    - a writer? You could write for money, i.e. only write if
    someone pays you to do. If you are good enough,
    someone will. Then ... when it is written ... it is free
    stuff. The company Cygnus does that with GNU code, and
    they prosper.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 2, 2004
    #3
  4. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    Roland Karlsson states:

    >> You figure out a way to pay a writer, or singer, without
    >> paying for copyrighted material and you're in good shape.

    >
    >BTW
    >- no Copyright is needed for selling pictures. Copyright
    > is only needed for selling the same again, and again,
    > and again, ....
    >- a singer? You pay him - he sings. You don't pay him - he
    > don't sing. Whats the problem? Why any Copyright?
    >- a writer? You could write for money, i.e. only write if
    > someone pays you to do. If you are good enough,
    > someone will. Then ... when it is written ... it is free
    > stuff. The company Cygnus does that with GNU code, and
    > they prosper.


    Really? That may be copyright law where you're from, but it ain't copyright law
    elsewhere.

    And it isn't a practical method of compensating book writers. As an example, I
    wrote a book in 1984, it was published the following year. I got a small
    advance. That book is still paying me almost as much as that small advance each
    year, and seems likely to continue for another few years. Are you suggesting
    the publisher would have been willing to front that much money to me 20 years
    ago? Or are you saying someone else, or everyone else, should have been allowed
    to have free copies of that book after the first one was sold? Or are you
    saying that I've made too much money off my efforts? If that's the case, who
    are you to judge?

    Same with singers.

    This also applies to photographers.

    No one is going to take a chance on unknowns, nor are they going to pay enough
    to make the work worthwhile up front.

    Everyone can do his or her own? They sure can, today. Lacking writing and
    photographic expertise, people are always eager to post their own efforts, to
    an almost total lack of readership. The stuff isn't worth stealing, so
    copyright is no problem at all.

    That guy may have been a troll. Or not. You really don't know. If he's not,
    you're flapping in the wind. If he is, you took the chance to increase the
    attention he drew.

    Charlie Self
    "The function of posterity is to look after itself." Dylan Thomas
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 2, 2004
    #4

  5. >Why any Copyright?
    > - a writer? You could write for money, i.e. only write if
    > someone pays you to do. If you are good enough,
    > someone will. Then ... when it is written ... it is free
    > stuff.


    You could not be any more wrong. I am a writer and, thanks to more
    reasonable people, have managed to raise a family and feed them. Did you
    ever hear of royalties? If it was not for such an arrangement, there would
    be far fewer books and society would pay a much larger price than the direct
    damage to poor slobs like me.

    I suppose you work for free?
     
    Charles Schuler, Apr 3, 2004
    #5
  6. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    Charles Schuler responds:

    >>Why any Copyright?
    >> - a writer? You could write for money, i.e. only write if
    >> someone pays you to do. If you are good enough,
    >> someone will. Then ... when it is written ... it is free
    >> stuff.

    >
    >You could not be any more wrong. I am a writer and, thanks to more
    >reasonable people, have managed to raise a family and feed them. Did you
    >ever hear of royalties? If it was not for such an arrangement, there would
    >be far fewer books and society would pay a much larger price than the direct
    >damage to poor slobs like me.
    >
    >I suppose you work for free?


    His mommy or daddy supports him. Why work?

    What do you write? Drop me a note off-line if you feel like it. I've been a
    writer for so long it makes my head ache to think of it, sometimes made a fine
    living, other times had trouble paying the bills. With the quoted clown, it
    would all be like the latter.

    Charlie Self
    "The function of posterity is to look after itself." Dylan Thomas
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 3, 2004
    #6
  7. name

    Guest

    Roland Karlsson <> wrote:

    > Then ... when it is written ... it is free
    > stuff. The company Cygnus does that with GNU
    > code, and they prosper.


    http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/

    "Technical mechanisms proposed to enforce copyright
    automatically require police state measures."

    ....

    "Think of this protocol as a kind of ransom note for
    a new book; if the random isn't paid, you won't be
    seeing the book anytime soon."

    The smart person looks at this, realizes the truth, and then trys to
    figure out which role in the protocol he will play. "Follow the
    money". You would _think_ the RIAA and MPAA would have figured this
    out on their own by now, but I guess like scientific revolutions, the
    ones of business also must await the death of the old guard before
    sanity prevails ...
     
    , Apr 3, 2004
    #7
  8. "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in
    news::

    > You could not be any more wrong. I am a writer and, thanks to more
    > reasonable people, have managed to raise a family and feed them. Did
    > you ever hear of royalties? If it was not for such an arrangement,
    > there would be far fewer books and society would pay a much larger
    > price than the direct damage to poor slobs like me.


    I just gave some example that it is possible to get money
    for writers and singers and photographers even if there
    are no Copyright laws. And that is perfectly true. There were
    singers and writers long before Copyright laws, and there
    will be singers and writers even if the Copyright laws are
    removed. Different circumstances - for good and for bad.
    Your reply show a very narrow minded view of the world,
    and a lack of imagination. Are you sure you are a writer?

    > I suppose you work for free?


    More lack of imagination. Maybe I even pay for may work?

    But no - I get paid for my work. I have the boring situation
    that I get paid monthly.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 3, 2004
    #8
  9. otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
    news::

    > His mommy or daddy supports him. Why work?
    > ...
    > With the quoted clown, it would all be like the latter.
    > ...


    <IRONY>
    A nice and friendly relply.
    </IRONY>

    I just gave an example of possible ways of making money
    even if there are no Copyright laws. If you are a writer,
    and therefore good with words, why don't you try to understand
    what you read instead of just randomly assume som kind
    of ill intent?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 3, 2004
    #9
  10. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    Roland Karlsson babbles:

    > (Charlie Self) wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> His mommy or daddy supports him. Why work?
    >> ...
    >> With the quoted clown, it would all be like the latter.
    >> ...

    >
    ><IRONY>
    >A nice and friendly relply.
    ></IRONY>
    >
    >I just gave an example of possible ways of making money
    >even if there are no Copyright laws. If you are a writer,
    >and therefore good with words, why don't you try to understand
    >what you read instead of just randomly assume som kind
    >of ill intent?
    >


    Your example was utter nonsense, to be polite. I pointed that out in a post
    you're avoiding comment on.

    Ill intent? You hav eno idea of the structure of any part of the publishing
    industry, yet you are all for making changes without learning. Why don't YOU do
    at least a little reading on that particular industry, then make some comments.

    I've made money writing with and without copyrights over the years. I still do.
    I plan to continue doing so. But there are some forms of writing that will not
    exist in present day form (otherwise known as professionally researched and
    written) without copyrights.

    There are literally hundreds, quite posisbly thousands, of ways to write for
    money that do not involve the writer holding a copyright, or getting extended
    payments over the years. For the most part, the writer gets screwed at least
    slightly on those. All that you are recommending is that on "work for hire"
    agreements, the publisher get screwed too.

    Bleah.

    Charlie Self
    "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 3, 2004
    #10
  11. otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
    news::

    > Ill intent? You hav eno idea of the structure of any part of the
    > publishing industry, yet you are all for making changes without
    > learning. Why don't YOU do at least a little reading on that
    > particular industry, then make some comments.
    >


    It was still an EXAMPLE.
    You make something out of nothing and dont read
    what I write.

    Keep your Copyright - I don't care.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Roland Karlsson <> wrote in
    news:Xns94C0E92083A80klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

    > It was still an EXAMPLE.
    > You make something out of nothing and dont read
    > what I write.
    >
    > Keep your Copyright - I don't care.
    >


    BTW - you are the WRITER. To be a good writer
    you need imagination. Use that imagination! Of
    course, we would still have writers without
    any Copyright laws. People will not stop writing.

    Not that I say that we shall remove any Copyright
    laws. I just say that your imagination seems
    somewhat limited if you cannot find any ways of
    making money without being able to Copyright
    what you write.

    BTW - use your imagination even more. Who says
    making money out of writing is so sacred? I do
    lots of things without getting payed. Sometimes
    I even pay for doing things.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 3, 2004
    #12

  13. > I just gave some example that it is possible to get money
    > for writers and singers and photographers even if there
    > are no Copyright laws.


    Just because you say something hardly makes it an example.

    > And that is perfectly true.


    Just because you say so?

    > There were
    > singers and writers long before Copyright laws, and there
    > will be singers and writers even if the Copyright laws are
    > removed.


    And your point is?

    > Different circumstances - for good and for bad.
    > Your reply show a very narrow minded view of the world,
    > and a lack of imagination. Are you sure you are a writer?


    Yes.

    > > I suppose you work for free?

    >
    > More lack of imagination. Maybe I even pay for may work?
    >
    > But no - I get paid for my work. I have the boring situation
    > that I get paid monthly.


    Maybe your boredem leads you to spend too much spreading nonsense.
     
    Charles Schuler, Apr 3, 2004
    #13
  14. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    Roland Karlsson babbles:

    >
    >BTW - you are the WRITER. To be a good writer
    >you need imagination. Use that imagination! Of
    >course, we would still have writers without
    >any Copyright laws. People will not stop writing.
    >


    Most of them should.

    >Not that I say that we shall remove any Copyright
    >laws. I just say that your imagination seems
    >somewhat limited if you cannot find any ways of
    >making money without being able to Copyright
    >what you write.


    I already do that. So what?

    >BTW - use your imagination even more. Who says
    >making money out of writing is so sacred? I do
    >lots of things without getting payed. Sometimes
    >I even pay for doing things


    No one said it was sacred. You do a fine job of building straw men that you are
    then unable to kick apart. I do a lot of things without getting paid, too.
    Almost everyone does. And we do pay for a lot of things. Do you have a point or
    is it more foolishness?

    You tell others to use imagination, but you do not provide a single clear
    example of your own use of imagination, nor do you show any ability to think
    clearly.

    Charlie Self
    "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 4, 2004
    #14
  15. "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in news:eek:LednRVbR-
    :

    >> I just gave some example that it is possible to get money
    >> for writers and singers and photographers even if there
    >> are no Copyright laws.

    >
    > Just because you say something hardly makes it an example.


    If I write that what I wrote was an example,
    then it was an example. You cannot decide that.

    Now - I think you and Charlie can just rest your cases.
    You have both been taking personal offense where none
    was intended.

    I am sorry that you were offended.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 4, 2004
    #15
  16. otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
    news::

    > ...


    I think you and Charles can just rest your cases.
    You have both been taking personal offense where none
    was intended.

    I am sorry that you were offended.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 4, 2004
    #16
  17. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    Roland Karlsson respnds:

    >>> I just gave some example that it is possible to get money
    >>> for writers and singers and photographers even if there
    >>> are no Copyright laws.

    >>
    >> Just because you say something hardly makes it an example.

    >
    >If I write that what I wrote was an example,
    >then it was an example. You cannot decide that.
    >


    You provided zip for any detail, any actual example, so no matter what you call
    it, it is not an example. You can call an elephant a tiger, but that doesn't
    add stripes and lose the long nose.

    >Now - I think you and Charlie can just rest your cases.
    >You have both been taking personal offense where none
    >was intended.


    I tink we're both irritated by your lack of forethought about the subject,
    added to your lack of knowledge about the subject, while making semi-definitive
    statements and calling them "examples". That's not taking personal offense.


    Charlie Self
    "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 4, 2004
    #17
  18. otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
    news::

    > I tink we're both irritated by your lack of forethought about the
    > subject, added to your lack of knowledge about the subject, while
    > making semi-definitive statements and calling them "examples". That's
    > not taking personal offense.
    >


    Whatever you say. I am glad that you are not offended
    and only irritaded.

    We still have different opinions on what I meant. I think
    it is up to me to tell you what I meant. But it is not
    important :)


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 4, 2004
    #18
  19. name

    Charlie Self Guest

    Roland Karlsson responds:

    >We still have different opinions on what I meant. I think
    >it is up to me to tell you what I meant. But it is not
    >important :)
    >


    Uh, OK. If it's not important to you, why did you posit the idea in the first
    place and then attempt to defend it?

    And words do carry their own meanings, regardless of what you want them to
    mean.

    Charlie Self
    "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 4, 2004
    #19
  20. otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
    news::

    > Uh, OK. If it's not important to you, why did you posit the idea in
    > the first place and then attempt to defend it?


    My only intent was to answer a question from you
    "You figure out a way to pay a writer, or singer, without
    paying for copyrighted material ..."

    I figured out some ways ...
    It was nothing more than that.

    > And words do carry their own meanings, regardless of what you want
    > them to mean.


    Ah ... but don't you think that if you "understand" something
    that the writer don't meant, and then get an explanation from the
    writer, that you can accept this explanation? It would be polite
    if nothing else IMHO.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Slyfoot
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    417
    Slyfoot
    Aug 13, 2004
  2. antwine

    Mighy be futile!

    antwine, Jul 22, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    894
    Old Gringo
    Jul 23, 2005
  3. Patrick L.

    Question on copyrights

    Patrick L., Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    488
    Marvin Margoshes
    Apr 8, 2004
  4. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    602
    Allan
    Mar 16, 2005
  5. Jeff Strickland

    IE7 -- Is resistance futile, should I be assimilated?

    Jeff Strickland, Jan 19, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    465
    gnu / linux
    Jan 23, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page