new example of the silly licensing nonsense

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Suppose I encounter an image somewhere:

    http://imgur.com/gallery/IzXeagt

    With some reverse image search, I can find good quality copies:
    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i77/hackingmyspace/myspacebackgrounds/31857n7rf24mnxn.jpg

    Yet one can also find a page that supposedly offers people to license the
    image:
    http://solent.photoshelter.com/image/I0000PthDBeASYVg

    But suppose people are just interested in messing around a bit in
    photoshop, one can't really expect them to buy a license to use that
    image just so they can experiment a bit with it and to post the
    result on a social media or filesharing platform like imgur, facebook
    or piratebay.

    You could argue that constitutes 'theft', but let's be realistic
    here. If you search for an image, you encounter countless hits on
    sites in many languages with an assortment of copyright claims.

    http://m.gfan.com/android-3012546-1-1.html

    So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image
    that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since
    it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one
    can find on the web are all properly licensed.

    Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find via
    images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able
    to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without
    mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found
    the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out
    where I might have found the images on the internet.

    http://imgur.com/a/dTJmj#0
     
    sobriquet, Jan 29, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:57:39 PM UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
    > Suppose I encounter an image somewhere:
    >
    >
    >
    > http://imgur.com/gallery/IzXeagt
    >
    >
    >
    > With some reverse image search, I can find good quality copies:
    >
    > http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i77/hackingmyspace/myspacebackgrounds/31857n7rf24mnxn.jpg
    >
    >
    >
    > Yet one can also find a page that supposedly offers people to license the
    >
    > image:
    >
    > http://solent.photoshelter.com/image/I0000PthDBeASYVg
    >
    >
    >
    > But suppose people are just interested in messing around a bit in
    >
    > photoshop, one can't really expect them to buy a license to use that
    >
    > image just so they can experiment a bit with it and to post the
    >
    > result on a social media or filesharing platform like imgur, facebook
    >
    > or piratebay.
    >
    >
    >
    > You could argue that constitutes 'theft', but let's be realistic
    >
    > here. If you search for an image, you encounter countless hits on
    >
    > sites in many languages with an assortment of copyright claims.
    >
    >
    >
    > http://m.gfan.com/android-3012546-1-1.html
    >
    >
    >
    > So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image
    >
    > that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since
    >
    > it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one
    >
    > can find on the web are all properly licensed.
    >
    >
    >
    > Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find via
    >
    > images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able
    >
    > to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without
    >
    > mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found
    >
    > the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out
    >
    > where I might have found the images on the internet.
    >
    >
    >
    > http://imgur.com/a/dTJmj#0


    http://i.imgur.com/a7oQu37.jpg
     
    sobriquet, Jan 29, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    NotMe Guest

    "sobriquet"
    <snip>
    > So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image
    > that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since
    > it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one
    > can find on the web are all properly licensed.


    Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
    work product.

    > Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find
    > via
    > images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able
    > to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without
    > mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found
    > the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out
    > where I might have found the images on the internet.


    Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
    work product.

    BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use
    someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation
    of copyright.
     
    NotMe, Jan 30, 2013
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:41:19 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
    > "sobriquet"
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image

    >
    > > that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since

    >
    > > it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one

    >
    > > can find on the web are all properly licensed.

    >
    >
    >
    > Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
    >
    > work product.


    Matters not if people have the slightest clue about the nature of
    information technology.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find

    >
    > > via

    >
    > > images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able

    >
    > > to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without

    >
    > > mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found

    >
    > > the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out

    >
    > > where I might have found the images on the internet.

    >
    >
    >
    > Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
    >
    > work product.
    >


    The rights to YOU have just been sold.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4

    >
    >
    > BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use
    >
    > someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation
    >
    > of copyright.


    Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
    People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
    gullible and clueless folks are scammers on part with the corporate
    scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomanda

    They are nazi cockroaches of the worst kind who couldn't care less
    about human rights like the freedom to share information.
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #4
  5. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:00:44 AM UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
    > Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
    >
    > People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
    >
    > gullible and clueless folks are scammers on par with the corporate
    >
    > scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.
    >


    Typo in the above fixed for clarity.
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:00:44 AM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:41:19 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
    >
    > > "sobriquet"

    >
    > >

    >
    > > <snip>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > can find on the web are all properly licensed.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > work product.

    >
    >
    >
    > Matters not if people have the slightest clue about the nature of
    >
    > information technology.
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > via

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > where I might have found the images on the internet.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > work product.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > The rights to YOU have just been sold.
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use

    >
    > >

    >
    > > someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation

    >
    > >

    >
    > > of copyright.

    >
    >
    >
    > Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
    >
    > People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
    >
    > gullible and clueless folks are scammers on part with the corporate
    >
    > scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.
    >
    >
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomanda
    >
    >
    >
    > They are nazi cockroaches of the worst kind who couldn't care less
    >
    > about human rights like the freedom to share information.


    What about the human right not to have to share things?
    I don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.
    Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or have so pass over your computer so we can share it.
    later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 30, 2013
    #6
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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.

    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.

    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 don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.
    >
    > Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or have so pass over your computer so we can share it.
    >
    > later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

    > 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.


    Just because you can it does not mean you are allowed. Check local legislation to clarify who is allowed.

    I have a question to ask you, do you think you have a right to privacy online?


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jan 30, 2013
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC, 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.


    OK then waht abourt the topless picturs of Kate milington they were all of the internet and she did't put them there.
    What about medical records and other personal information, you're still pretty clueless about this aren't you.
    Most people that don;t want their information shared don't put it on the internet, someone else does. Others want to share their work but don;t like he idea of others profiting from it, some might not like the way a picture is used.

    How about you posting a picture of yourself them we can modify it and shareit.


    > 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.


    That's what copyright is for. It allows the owner of the pictures to decideon who can view them. I've got pictures on my flicker site that I don;t want you or anyone else viewing without my permission and that is why you can;t see them.
    So it is quite possible to put images or anything on the internet while notallowign everyone to see them, you proved that to yourself at least didn'tyou.





    >
    >
    >
    > 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.


    Have done, but you don;t uinderstand now there are some companies that put things oin the internet that yuo can;t get to witout paying . Porn sites are the obvious example they don't want to or anyone lese seeing thses pictures unless paying for them, so I'm assuming you have some special method ofviewing them for free.
    So how about you going ahead and proving your point.





    >
    >
    >
    > > I don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or have so pass over your computer so we can share it.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.


    So share your details if you don;t that'll prove the point.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 30, 2013
    #9
  10. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:13:54 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:32:06 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > Just because you can it does not mean you are allowed. Check local legislation to clarify who is allowed.
    >


    But that is irrelevant if people can't effectively be prevented from sharing things online as they see fit.

    >
    >
    > I have a question to ask you, do you think you have a right to privacy online?


    That is a question that is impossible to answer because it very much
    depends on countless factors.
    My right to privacy doesn't detract from the freedom of others to take
    pictures in public, even though that may imply I might be visible on some
    of those pictures and technology that enables people to identify people based
    on pictures they encounter online.

    >
    > DanP
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #10
  11. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:45:54 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > OK then waht abourt the topless picturs of Kate milington they were all of the internet and she did't put them there.
    >
    > What about medical records and other personal information, you're still pretty clueless about this aren't you.
    >
    > Most people that don;t want their information shared don't put it on the internet, someone else does. Others want to share their work but don;t likehe idea of others profiting from it, some might not like the way a pictureis used.
    >


    In practice, the only way to prevent others using that picture is simply
    not to share the picture online.

    If information was obtained illegally, like from hacking computers to
    copy data that was intended for private use, that is different, but
    I think that in practice, there is little that can be done to prevent
    such information from being disseminated, once it has been shared
    online.
    There are simply no effective ways to restrict people's freedom to
    share information once it has been shared online. When it hasn't been
    shared online yet, you can use encryption and other security measures
    to try and prevent others from gaining access and that might be
    effective to some degree.
    But once security has been breached, it's virtually impossible to
    prevent unauthorized sharing.
    For things that have been disseminated intentionally, like books,
    videos or software that has been sold commercially, it's really silly
    to claim that people can prevent unauthorized reproduction and
    distribution effectively.

    >
    >
    > How about you posting a picture of yourself them we can modify it and share it.
    >


    I've got plenty of pictures online:

    https://picasaweb.google.com/114882846033118696357/Experimenteel#5282010159386521810

    Feel free to modify it and share it.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's what copyright is for. It allows the owner of the pictures to decide on who can view them. I've got pictures on my flicker site that I don;t want you or anyone else viewing without my permission and that is why you can;t see them.
    >
    > So it is quite possible to put images or anything on the internet while not allowign everyone to see them, you proved that to yourself at least didn't you.
    >


    You can protect it with a password or encryption, but the more people
    have access to it, the harder it becomes to ensure it won't be reproduced
    and distributed without your authorization.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > Have done, but you don;t uinderstand now there are some companies that put things oin the internet that yuo can;t get to witout paying . Porn sites are the obvious example they don't want to or anyone lese seeing thses pictures unless paying for them, so I'm assuming you have some special method of viewing them for free.


    It doesn't work that way. Software like photoshop is not intended for
    being shared freely, yet it's being shared freely anyway and there is
    nothing Adobe can do to prevent that.

    >
    > So how about you going ahead and proving your point.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > I don;t want to share my physical adress with you or where I'm going tonight, or teh picture of my cat I took last night.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Now according to you I have human right so share what you own or haveso pass over your computer so we can share it.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > later in teh year a few of my friends and I are think of going to travel a littel so I demand my human right to share your living quarters i.e your house or flat they'll only be 3 or 4 of us sharing.

    >
    >
    >
    > So share your details if you don;t that'll prove the point.


    I've never claimed that everyone is forced to publish all their
    information.
    I've just claimed that once information has become available online,
    it's virtually impossible to maintain that copyright can be enforced
    in the sense of an effective monopoly on the right to reproduce and
    distribute that information.
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #11
  12. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2013 2:00 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:41:19 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
    >> "sobriquet"
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> So it seems people don't really have to worry about sharing an image

    >>
    >>> that is supposedly copyrighted (potentially in modified form), since

    >>
    >>> it seems unrealistic to expect that all those countless copies one

    >>
    >>> can find on the web are all properly licensed.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
    >>
    >> work product.

    >
    > Matters not if people have the slightest clue about the nature of
    > information technology.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Hence I also like to create photoshop composites from images I can find

    >>
    >>> via

    >>
    >>> images.google and I think it's a matter of artistic freedom to be able

    >>
    >>> to employ images one finds online in one's own creations, even without

    >>
    >>> mentioning the source. I just mention in the album info that I've found

    >>
    >>> the images online, so it's up to people if they like to figure out

    >>
    >>> where I might have found the images on the internet.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Matters not if YOU don't own the rights then you have no business using the
    >>
    >> work product.
    >>

    >
    > The rights to YOU have just been sold.
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yq7043awb4
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> BTW when a work is fixed in any media it's under copyright. Second to use
    >>
    >> someone else work in a derivative work without authorization is a violation
    >>
    >> of copyright.

    >
    > Copyright is bunk like infused water with supposed healing power.
    > People who sell infused water with purported healing power to
    > gullible and clueless folks are scammers on part with the corporate
    > scumbags who peddle this copyright and licensing bullshit.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomanda
    >
    > They are nazi cockroaches of the worst kind who couldn't care less
    > about human rights like the freedom to share information.
    >


    One can only legally sell what they have a right to sell.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 30, 2013
    #12
  13. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:09:45 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > [..]
    > One can only legally sell what they have a right to sell.
    >


    One can only sensibly sell what is scarce, because the price of
    things is dependent on factors like supply and demand.

    So I can create a bitstring, like 00101010111110101000100101111.
    But if I try to sell it on ebay, I will not be very successful in
    selling a lot of copies of that bitstring. Because as soon as someone
    has bought it, there is nothing I can effectively do to prevent that
    person from sharing it with others.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > PeterN
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #13
  14. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2013 11:14 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:09:45 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    >> [..]
    >> One can only legally sell what they have a right to sell.
    >>

    >
    > One can only sensibly sell what is scarce, because the price of
    > things is dependent on factors like supply and demand.


    theissue is price, not right to sell.


    >
    > So I can create a bitstring, like 00101010111110101000100101111.
    > But if I try to sell it on ebay, I will not be very successful in
    > selling a lot of copies of that bitstring. Because as soon as someone
    > has bought it, there is nothing I can effectively do to prevent that
    > person from sharing it with others.
    >

    You have made the first sale. If you sold the string you have
    transferred rights to sell.
    If you only grant a limited use license, then no one else has a right to
    sell.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 30, 2013
    #14
  15. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:27:56 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > On 1/30/2013 11:14 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:09:45 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:

    >
    > >> [..]

    >
    > >> One can only legally sell what they have a right to sell.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > One can only sensibly sell what is scarce, because the price of

    >
    > > things is dependent on factors like supply and demand.

    >
    >
    >
    > theissue is price, not right to sell.


    Right to sell? Who grants these rights? I prefer to consider economic
    principles instead that determine whether or not one can reasonably
    expect to sell something (like laws of supply and demand).
    In case of things that can easily be reproduced, like bitstrings, the
    supply is unlimited, and hence the price must be 0.
    Unless you find some kind of encryption system that allows you to
    sell copies but prevents people from sharing these copies with
    others.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So I can create a bitstring, like 00101010111110101000100101111.

    >
    > > But if I try to sell it on ebay, I will not be very successful in

    >
    > > selling a lot of copies of that bitstring. Because as soon as someone

    >
    > > has bought it, there is nothing I can effectively do to prevent that

    >
    > > person from sharing it with others.

    >
    > >

    >
    > You have made the first sale. If you sold the string you have
    >
    > transferred rights to sell.
    >
    > If you only grant a limited use license, then no one else has a right to
    >
    > sell.
    >


    You seem to ignore the fact that people are unlikely to take these
    license restrictions seriously.

    In some scenarios you might be able to effectively impose certain
    restrictions. For instance if you own a museum, you might effectively
    prevent people from taking pictures of the items on display in the
    museum.
    In other scenarios you might not be effective in your attempts to
    impose certain restrictions. For instance, you might put items
    on display in an online museum and people might copy the items on display
    and share them elsewhere, despite clear indications that you
    feel people are not allowed to do that.

    So the bottom line is whether or not you have the ability to
    impose the restrictions you strive to enforce.

    >
    > --
    >
    > PeterN
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #15
  16. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2013 11:46 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:27:56 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 1/30/2013 11:14 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:09:45 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:

    >>
    >>>> [..]

    >>
    >>>> One can only legally sell what they have a right to sell.

    >>
    >>>>

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> One can only sensibly sell what is scarce, because the price of

    >>
    >>> things is dependent on factors like supply and demand.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> theissue is price, not right to sell.

    >
    > Right to sell? Who grants these rights? I prefer to consider economic
    > principles instead that determine whether or not one can reasonably
    > expect to sell something (like laws of supply and demand).
    > In case of things that can easily be reproduced, like bitstrings, the
    > supply is unlimited, and hence the price must be 0.
    > Unless you find some kind of encryption system that allows you to
    > sell copies but prevents people from sharing these copies with
    > others.


    By ignoring the concept of ownership, you are trying to justify
    thievery. It doesn't work.
    If you carelessly leave money hanging out of your pocket, according to
    your point, I then have a right to help myself to as much of it as I can
    take.

    You are FOS. in another thread you complained about an alleged misuse of
    one of your images. According to your theory, you had no right to complain.


    <>snip>

    >>


    >> You have made the first sale. If you sold the string you have
    >>
    >> transferred rights to sell.
    >>
    >> If you only grant a limited use license, then no one else has a right to
    >>
    >> sell.
    >>

    >
    > You seem to ignore the fact that people are unlikely to take these
    > license restrictions seriously.


    We call respect for the right of others, a civilized society.
    >
    > In some scenarios you might be able to effectively impose certain
    > restrictions. For instance if you own a museum, you might effectively
    > prevent people from taking pictures of the items on display in the
    > museum.
    > In other scenarios you might not be effective in your attempts to
    > impose certain restrictions. For instance, you might put items
    > on display in an online museum and people might copy the items on display
    > and share them elsewhere, despite clear indications that you
    > feel people are not allowed to do that.
    >
    > So the bottom line is whether or not you have the ability to
    > impose the restrictions you strive to enforce.


    Enforcement is through a mechanism, called a legal system. You would
    like to deny its existence.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 30, 2013
    #16
  17. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:58:24 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    >
    > By ignoring the concept of ownership, you are trying to justify
    >
    > thievery. It doesn't work.


    I'm questioning the whole idea of applying the concept of ownership to
    abstractions like bitstrings. It doesn't work.

    >
    > If you carelessly leave money hanging out of your pocket, according to
    >
    > your point, I then have a right to help myself to as much of it as I can
    >
    > take.
    >


    A more apt analogy would be that if I carelessly scatter my money out
    on the streets wherever I go, according to my point, you then have the
    right to help yourself to as much of it as you can find.

    >
    >
    > You are FOS. in another thread you complained about an alleged misuse of
    >
    > one of your images. According to your theory, you had no right to complain.
    >


    FOS?

    It wasn't really misuse of my image. It was porn spam in an inappropriate
    place. It doesn't really matter if it was my image or not.

    >
    > We call respect for the right of others, a civilized society.


    We? Who is we? The entertainment industry?
    It seems the people who enjoy filesharing think otherwise and are not
    part of that bunch of criminals who seek to impose copyright.

    >
    > Enforcement is through a mechanism, called a legal system. You would
    >
    > like to deny its existence.
    >


    The legal system has its limitations. You can't arbitrarily restrict
    certain activities without any regard of how the legal system is
    supposed to deal effectively with violations.

    For instance, you might argue that if criminals were not allowed to think
    about committing a crime, we could eliminate all crime by simply
    prohibiting people to think about crimes. Yet there is no way whatsoever
    to enforce this and hence it would only serve to undermine the
    credibility of the legal system if such ludicrous laws were imposed.

    > --
    >
    > PeterN
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #17
  18. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 13:45:54 UTC, Whisky-dave wrote:

    > OK then waht abourt the topless picturs of Kate milington they were all of the internet and she did't put them there.


    You have no idea what her maiden name was. I find it liberating.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jan 30, 2013
    #18
  19. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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.

    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.
    They tend to share things that have been 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.
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #19
  20. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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. 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.
    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.
    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.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #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. Sasha Y. Gupta

    Tired of Nonsense

    Sasha Y. Gupta, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    967
    Politician Spock
    Jul 15, 2004
  2. Dan Welch

    Why the nonsense in spam emails?

    Dan Welch, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,686
    Mike0000
    Oct 8, 2003
  3. David, the fen-sucked, staring flyswatter

    virus nonsense

    David, the fen-sucked, staring flyswatter, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    775
    Blinky the Shark
    Jul 6, 2004
  4. Gordon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    470
    Gordon
    Mar 17, 2005
  5. Gerry Wolf

    try again, hopefully without the nonsense

    Gerry Wolf, May 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    529
Loading...

Share This Page