new example of the silly licensing nonsense

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

  1. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 20:59:45 UTC, sobriquet wrote:

    > 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.


    How about the ones ripping DVDs? And the ones cracking software?

    DanP
    DanP, Jan 30, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:46:28 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    > Describing intellectual property as 'bit strings' comparable with
    >
    > describing the works of Shakespeare as "ink on paper".


    It's a factual description. Are you denying that people are exchanging
    bitstrings via p2p networks? Or are you denying that some people claim
    that some of those bitstrings constitute their purported intellectual
    property?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> 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 will find most judicial systems will not agree with you.


    That's irrelevant. Try it out. Scatter your money out on the streets and
    then go to the police to see what they have to say when you ask them to
    help you prevent people from collecting your money.
    I can assure you they will tell you that you need to take better care of
    your possessions or they will refuse to assist you in guarding your
    possessions.

    That's a very different scenario from you having your money stored in a
    safe at home and calling the police to ask their help when you find people
    are breaking into your home and trying to collect your money from the safe
    where you had stored it. In that case they will be very helpful in assisting
    you to prevent others from unauthorized access to your money.
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:07:07 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 20:59:45 UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > How about the ones ripping DVDs? And the ones cracking software?
    >
    >
    >
    > DanP


    Well, in my opinion that's still fundamentally different from
    someone having their possessions stored at home and someone
    breaking into their home to gain unauthorized access to
    their possessions.

    Ripping a DVD is merely an synonym for duplicating a DVD and it doesn't necessarily imply breaking any kind of copy protection.

    But the nature of copyprotection is such that it is intended to impose
    a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of information and there
    are many people out there who feel that this is a fundamentally flawed
    notion which is incompatible with contemporary information technology.

    Not because they think that creative people are not entitled to financial
    compensation for their efforts, but because they feel that a monopoly on
    the reproduction and distribution of information is a very idiotic way to
    achieve this otherwise sensible goal.

    The ultimate goal is to ensure there is a financial incentive for people
    to create new content and there can be numerous ways to try and implement
    a system that encourages people to create new content to contribute to the
    shared wealth of human culture.

    The ultimate goal is not to ensure that creative people have a monopoly on
    the reproduction or distribution of their creations.

    Neither is there necessarily a causal relationship between creative people
    having a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of their creations
    on the one hand and those creative people being able to make a living from
    their creative skills on the other hand.

    In analogy to the way a public library works, we might tax information and
    employ that money to finance people who contribute content that is popular.
    That way people can enjoy free access to information, while still paying
    taxes (in a way that takes into account their socioeconomic status) to
    ensure there is a financial incentive to encourage people to create new
    content.

    In a public library, anyone can consume information for free. Yet that
    doesn't detract from the fact that the authors who's books are available
    for free consumption at the library still get paid.

    So in case there would be no copyright whatsoever and people would be free
    to share information online indiscriminately, that doesn't preclude us
    from ensuring there is a financial incentive for people to create new
    content. Furthermore, having free access to information provides a great
    benefit for creative people, especially those with a poor socioeconomic
    status.
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #23
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:44:18 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    > So is describing gthe work of Shakespeare as ink on paper.


    Sure. I don't see any problem with that description.

    >
    > You are again trying to evade the issue. Taking money just because it
    >
    > was accessible in someone's pocket is most definitely frowned upon.
    >
    >
    >
    > Even if you scatter money on the street, it still remains your money
    >
    > unless there is evidence that you are trying to give it away.
    >


    You're the one who is evading the issue. I'm talking about someone
    who makes a habit of scattering his money or possessions out on the streets,
    as opposed to someone who takes good care of his possessions by storing them
    in a way that makes it feasible to guard those possessions.

    My point being that the notion of property can not be considered to be
    completely independent from an ability to guard one's possessions.

    If there would not be such a condition, you could seriously expect the police
    to help you guard your possessions, even if you deliberately and habitually scatter your possessions out on the streets wherever you go.

    >
    > Are you trying to say that the police don't try to discourage
    >
    > pickpockets?


    I'm saying the police will not assist you in guarding your property
    if you insist that you have the right to be careless with your property,
    for instance, by scattering your property out on the streets habitually
    and intentionally.


    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #24
  5. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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 $?

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

    >
    > 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.

    Sure, you can scam clueless people 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.

    >
    > >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.
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #25
  6. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:18:25 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > [..]
    > Not quite, that is not "found" money, that is lost cash which belongs
    >
    > to the rightful owner, and the police will, or should provide
    >
    > assistance in recovering any of the "lost" money which is "stolen" and
    >
    > not recovered:
    >


    Ok, so you go to the police and they ask you about your lost money
    and you say to them, "No, you misunderstand, I didn't lose my money.
    I habitually and intentionally scatter my money out on the streets
    wherever I go."

    I can assure you, the police will not assist you in trying to guard or
    recover your money.
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #26
  7. sobriquet

    NotMe Guest

    "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >

    <snip>

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

    The information I've posted is the result of court actions. It's called
    case law. Look it up.
    NotMe, Jan 30, 2013
    #27
  8. sobriquet

    NotMe Guest

    "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >


    Keep believing that.

    http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

    With few exceptions dealing with copyright we've settled based on a simple
    demand letter from our attorney. The few cases were we have good to court
    the judge (at summery) tapped the bench and said 'pay up'.

    Patents typcially take a bit more work and expense.
    NotMe, Jan 30, 2013
    #28
  9. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:42:02 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
    > [..]
    > Keep believing that.
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html
    >
    >
    >
    > With few exceptions dealing with copyright we've settled based on a simple
    >
    > demand letter from our attorney. The few cases were we have good to court
    >
    > the judge (at summery) tapped the bench and said 'pay up'.
    >
    >
    >
    > Patents typcially take a bit more work and expense.



    http://tinyurl.com/apblbys

    No torrents have been removed because of spurious legal threats.

    So it seems all that legal mumbo jumbo isn't really very convincing
    for the millions of piratebay users out there (not to mention p2p
    filesharing in general).
    sobriquet, Jan 30, 2013
    #29
  10. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:44:03 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > [..]
    > Who said anything about "habitually and intentionally"?
    >
    > Only you.
    >


    So you're not denying the fact that the notion of property can't be
    seen independent of an ability to guard your property.

    Or are you saying that even if you do habitually and intentionally
    scatter your possessions out on the streets, you can still realistically
    expect the police to assist you in trying to guard or recover your
    possessions?

    >
    >
    > Your philosophy is that anything that you see unattended in anyway,
    >
    > whether online or on the street, is freely available for you to take.
    >
    > While it might be simple enough to take such unguarded items, that does
    >
    > not make the taking of them in anyway right. It is still relieving the
    >
    > rightful owner of their property, and that is theft.
    >
    >
    >
    > So if you find a wallet on a sidewalk, you believe that you are within
    >
    > your rights to empty it of cash and to use any credit cards you might
    >
    > find until they are cancelled?


    You're trying to subvert my point. My point was that you need to take
    care of your possessions and if you are intentionally careless with your possessions, that has implications for your ability to consider those items
    to be your possessions.

    >
    > Somehow I have a feeling that even Dutch law enforcement might consider
    >
    > that to be a criminal act. Whereas the morally and legally correct
    >
    > thing to do is make an effort to locate the rightful owner, and if
    >
    > unsuccessful advise authorities of your find. Then you might discover
    >
    > that a grateful owner might provide a finder's fee, and you would have
    >
    > the satisfaction of having behaved within civic expectations.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, it seems likely that you would exploit such a scenario given
    >
    > all you have told us regarding your particular philosophy.
    >


    The scenario you sketch is completely irrelevant with respect to the
    question of a moral imperative to respect a monopoly on the reproduction
    and distribution of information.

    My philosophy is that all information belongs to the public domain.

    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.


    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #30
  11. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #31
  12. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

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

    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.
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #32
  13. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:32:21 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:12:57 -0800 (PST), 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > What's clear from these discussions is you believe if you can get away
    >
    > with it easily then its OK to do so.
    >
    >
    >
    > I hope you won't accept sympathy if you meet someone who feels the
    >
    > same way about you. Laws are part of the machinery which make society
    >
    > work. The people who believe that the laws don't apply to them, simply
    >
    > because they believe they can get away with breaking them, are the
    >
    > rats in the woodwork.


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

    Someone in Iran might argue that he is a homosexual and feel that the
    law that prohibits homosexuality in Iran is unjust and feel justified
    to break that law.
    In that case you would probably immediately jump to the conclusion that
    such a person is a rat in the woodwork who would disrespect any law
    provided he can get away with it.

    Instead of considering the case that that person might be right in
    their argument that the law that says homosexuality is a crime is
    wrong and hence being justified not to adhere to that law.

    Just because they might break that law and have good reasons for
    doing so, doesn't mean that that person is also likely to steal,
    rape or murder whenever it's convenient.

    So what the law says is irrelevant. This discussion should be about
    the morality of sharing information in case the creator of that
    information feels that it violates their monopoly on the reproduction
    and distribution of information.

    Just like whether the law says homosexuality is legal or not doesn't
    really matter, but what matters is whether or not it's moral for
    people to be a homosexual and to choose a partner of the same sex.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #33
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:45:58 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:44:03 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >> [..]

    >
    > >> Who said anything about "habitually and intentionally"?

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Only you.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > >So you're not denying the fact that the notion of property can't be

    >
    > >seen independent of an ability to guard your property.

    >
    >
    >
    > In the event that you own a car, you should be aware that I can break
    >
    > into it and steal it in less than four minutes and that almost
    >
    > certainly you will not be able to prevent me. Do you think that it
    >
    > should be OK for me to do so?


    Have I argued anywhere that stealing physical property is OK?

    I have only argued that the notion of property can't be applied to
    abstractions like bitstrings. Hence, I think that bitstrings can't
    be stolen (as they can't be owned in the first place).

    Furthermore, I've argued that the police can somewhat effectively
    assist you in preventing your car from being stolen (provided you make
    a habit of locking your car). 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.

    That doesn't mean that I advocate stealing money and neither does that
    imply that I will not return a wallet to its rightful owner if I happen
    to find it in the street. I would return such a wallet, including its
    contents, simply because I would also appreciate it if someone returns
    my wallet in case I lose it.



    >
    > >

    >
    > >Or are you saying that even if you do habitually and intentionally

    >
    > >scatter your possessions out on the streets, you can still realistically

    >
    > >expect the police to assist you in trying to guard or recover your

    >
    > >possessions?

    >
    >
    >
    > What's your answer in the event that I steal your car?


    I don't have a car.

    >
    >
    > >The scenario you sketch is completely irrelevant with respect to the

    >
    > >question of a moral imperative to respect a monopoly on the reproduction

    >
    > >and distribution of information.

    >
    >
    >
    > Slippery little bugger, aren't you? How many times now have you
    >
    > changed the subject in an attempt to evade an argument?



    You're the one who is shifting and evading arguments all the time.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >My philosophy is that all information belongs to the public domain.

    >
    >
    >
    > More than one government is unlikely to agree with you.


    Not really. After all, we have public libraries that offer free access
    to information and they are legal.
    The nature of information technology agrees with my philosophy.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > What about ink on paper?


    Well, a book is a physical item that can't be duplicated with the same
    ease as a bitstring (like a pdf file).
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #34
  15. sobriquet

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 30/01/2013 14:50, sobriquet wrote:
    > 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 like he idea of others profiting from it, some might not like the way a picture is used.
    >>

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


    There is if it has been watermarked and you have deep enough pockets.
    But the usual solution is not to put the commercially valuable highest
    resolution version up but only a decent size to show the content.
    (and then to deface it slightly with an ad for the agency)

    How do you think the various stock photography resellers do it?

    http://www.jupiterimages.com/

    > 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.


    To which there is a simple solution don't share the high quality data.

    > 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.


    The entertainment industry tries very hard to do this but the results
    have mainly been to inconvenience legitimate users and merely slow down
    the bad guys who want to rip work off to resell from a car boot.

    > But once security has been breached, it's virtually impossible to
    > prevent unauthorized sharing.


    Binding digital material to the name or email address and hardware MAC
    address of the downloader is one way that works.

    > 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.


    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.

    >> 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 then you complain that your work is being used to advertise a porn
    site. Your position is inconsistent. Either you accept that when you put
    an image online it can be used by anybody for any purpose no matter how
    disgusting it might be or you claim copyright over your work. If you
    fail to enforce copyright then subsequent infringers have a defence.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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.


    Not at all. How do you expect to sell images without a shop window.
    The same applies to MP3 samples of songs or MP4 video trailers.

    >> 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.


    People are generally kind enough to tell you if a notable copyright
    image has been used without your permission and a takedown notice is
    usually sufficient. Basically pay up or remove it.

    >>> 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

    >>
    >> 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.


    They try fairly hard to make thieving their software a bit more
    difficult but the hackers and WAREZ folk will always find a way to break
    any protection eventually. I am no great fan of Adobe.

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


    It is really quite simple don't put the valuable full resolution image
    online.

    You can't stop people using the small images but they don't really have
    much commercial value. A rare image of natural phenomena for a coffee
    table book or magazine article has a price. They have to be able to find
    your images if you want to get paid - modest size thumbnails are free
    but are copyright watermarked and usually carry some kind of imprint
    across the face showing the agency that supplied (or encoded in a
    steganography so if a paid for image leaks out you know who to sue).

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jan 31, 2013
    #35
  16. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:53:05 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >

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

    >
    > >apply to clueless people.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Someone in Iran might argue that he is a homosexual and feel that the

    >
    > >law that prohibits homosexuality in Iran is unjust and feel justified

    >
    > >to break that law.

    >
    > >In that case you would probably immediately jump to the conclusion that

    >
    > >such a person is a rat in the woodwork who would disrespect any law

    >
    > >provided he can get away with it.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Instead of considering the case that that person might be right in

    >
    > >their argument that the law that says homosexuality is a crime is

    >
    > >wrong and hence being justified not to adhere to that law.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Just because they might break that law and have good reasons for

    >
    > >doing so, doesn't mean that that person is also likely to steal,

    >
    > >rape or murder whenever it's convenient.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >So what the law says is irrelevant. This discussion should be about

    >
    > >the morality of sharing information in case the creator of that

    >
    > >information feels that it violates their monopoly on the reproduction

    >
    > >and distribution of information.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Just like whether the law says homosexuality is legal or not doesn't

    >
    > >really matter, but what matters is whether or not it's moral for

    >
    > >people to be a homosexual and to choose a partner of the same sex.

    >
    > >

    >
    > Homosexuality is largely genetic in origin.
    >
    >
    >
    > Can you say the same about the desire to copy data protected by
    >
    > copyright?


    That's besides the point. The point is that there is no univeral
    moral code that dictates that homosexuality should be illegal or
    that filesharing should be illegal.

    Besides, there are many interpretations for protection and it's not
    entirely clear why that protection should imply that information
    can be consumed for free at a public library, while information can't
    be consumed for free on the internet. So data being protected doesn't
    necessarily imply that it should be illegal to share it freely online.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #36
  17. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #37
  18. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:25:01 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > In the context of copyright, the law makes no distinction between
    >
    > physical and intellectual property. In fact it is the stealing of
    >
    > intellectual property that is frowned upon.


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

    So obtaining a copy for free isn't even necessarily against the law,
    even if copyright applies to that copy that would technically make
    it illegal for me to share that copy online with others.

    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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >I have only argued that the notion of property can't be applied to

    >
    > >abstractions like bitstrings. Hence, I think that bitstrings can't

    >
    > >be stolen (as they can't be owned in the first place).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Furthermore, I've argued that the police can somewhat effectively

    >
    > >assist you in preventing your car from being stolen (provided you make

    >
    > >a habit of locking your car).

    >
    >
    >
    > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > >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. A more suitable analogy, as I've claimed over and
    over is people who intentionally and habitually scatter their money
    out on the streets wherever they go.


    >
    > 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >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.

    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.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> What about ink on paper?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Well, a book is a physical item that can't be duplicated with the same

    >
    > >ease as a bitstring (like a pdf file).

    >
    >
    >
    > 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.


    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #38
  19. sobriquet

    Martin Brown Guest

    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?

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jan 31, 2013
    #39
  20. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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?


    There is no theft. Nothing is being taken away.
    Sharing information is a human right.. look it up in the UDHR.

    Legally, I'm even allowed to download most things and there is
    a special tax where I live, to compensate for obtaining free
    copies for personal use by means of filesharing.

    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Martin Brown
    sobriquet, Jan 31, 2013
    #40
    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:
    940
    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:
    1,667
    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:
    754
    Blinky the Shark
    Jul 6, 2004
  4. Gordon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    448
    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:
    511
Loading...

Share This Page