new example of the silly licensing nonsense

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

  1. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:50:13 PM UTC, 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 allof 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.


    No the only real measure is to destroy the picture.

    > If information was obtained illegally,


    How would you work that out. ?
    How can anyone tell if a picture was ontained legally and what do you mean by that anyway ?


    > like from hacking computers to
    >
    > copy data that was intended for private use,


    I didn;t think you had any option for anything under the heading private.

    > 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.


    You'll find that with most crimes otherwose we wouldn't need prisons.
    Theer's little we can do to stop peoples phones being taken.
    Most people don;t want to share their phones.


    > There are simply no effective ways to restrict people's freedom to
    >
    > share information once it has been shared online.


    The courts are one way that can be successful.
    You try sharing child porn on yuor site see what happens.
    Note that I'm seriously suggesting you try it, but if you do
    let me know what happens.


    > 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.


    And what if it isn't what then ?

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


    So why not share those topless pictures of Kate M. or of child porn if yuo realy, think no one can stop it, you could make quite a bit of money.


    > 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.


    No one casnb stop you being killed 'effectively' but tehre are laws againstit so teh chances of someone coming up and killing you is probbaly less than in a country where no one cares about effectiveness of law enforcement.


    >
    > > 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.


    Supose I submitted it to a site of known peadophiles or I use it to accuse you of something you haven't done, you'vce given permission to share.
    I could nodify it so you lok like you're having sex with anything from an iPad to a Donkey, you've given me permission to modify and share it, and you've no problem who sees it either.

    > > 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 youcan;t see them.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So it is quite possible to put images or anything on the internet whilenot 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.


    Yes exactly but how would one know whether or not a particulr thing was legal or not.

    Just suppose someone offered you £1,000 to use your passion-flower photoas abbum cover art I assume you'd be pleaseed and perhapsm take them up onthe offer.
    Now suppose I told the band as it's on teh internet I can get vin for nothing and they won;t have to pay youm anyhting but I'll accept £100 for my hard work in copying it, they'd be OK wouldn't it.


    >
    > > 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 use registartion which stops a lot of people from sharing it.
    it won;lt stop everyone in a similar way to putting a lock on your doors and windows that doesn;t stop everyone.


    > > 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.


    yes you can it's been done.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded


    >can be enforced
    >
    > in the sense of an effective monopoly on the right to reproduce and
    >
    > distribute that information.


    They managed to stop a friend of mine after he recived an email.

    Here where I work we recived an email from a company (one of the biggest film compnies) detailing how one of our student traced through the ISP was sharing a film via bittorent a film that had only recently been released, with threats of fines, they managed to convince us to stop the student using the colleges intenet for such a purpose.

    It is quite possible to stop peole sharing things they don't own it just depends on what methods yuo are willing to employ.
    As you say the Nazi's believed in sharing too, they shared the Jewish peoples gold from their teeth and the art from their homes.

    You see what you mean by sharing is differnt from what others mean you needto understand that first.
    People that are raped men and women aren;t realy sharing their body it's being taken from them without their permission for me that is not sharing.
    Whisky-dave, Jan 31, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:38:32 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:17:06 PM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
    >
    > > On 31/01/2013 13:02, sobriquet wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:10:29 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> Depends on the value of the material. If you want to find out what

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> happens try scanning a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey, put it on your

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> website and see how many hours you last before the lawyers descend.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Why would anyone want to put it on their own website? Torrent sites

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > seem more suitable for sharing:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > http://tinyurl.com/abst3tt

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So essentially you think that theft of any intellectual property is OK

    >
    > >

    >
    > > if you can get away with it anonymously on the internet?

    >
    >
    >
    > There is no theft. Nothing is being taken away.


    That;s the differnde between theft and IP .

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


    Show the link to the aection you are refering to, because all I've fouind is referncies to sharing and that is where all parties agree.


    > Legally, I'm even allowed to download most things


    Why just most things what about the things yuor not allowed to download is there anyone or anything stopping you ?


    >and there is
    >
    > a special tax where I live, to compensate for obtaining free
    >
    > copies for personal use by means of filesharing.


    Only where you live so you now understand that copyright isn;t like a piece of Gold that never changes throughout history.
    I have a video from teh band New Order on it it states that I may make as many copies as I like provided I'm not selling them for profit. NOTE profit I could charge a reasonable amount for my time and material costs.

    Most things can be stopped it's just how far you're willing to go to achive it.
    We managed to stop the Nazis from invading europe, a few file sharers being executed is rather an extreme way of dealing with it but I can assure you it works.
    Whisky-dave, Jan 31, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 30, 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 usingthe

    >
    > > 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 usingthe

    >
    > > 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.


    Snake oil, taken to its limit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Byers
    RichA, Jan 31, 2013
    #43
  4. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2013 1:18 PM, sobriquet wrote:
    > 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.


    difficulties in enforcement of rights do not create morality.

    >
    >>
    >> 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.


    No I would not. Indeed I have had some personal experience with that
    sort of thing.
    1. I was walking on a beach at sunrise, looked down and saw the beach
    covered with twenty dollar bills. As I bent down a State Trooper with a
    gun, ordered me to get off the beach. I meekly complied..

    Any argument that I could make about finders keepers, would have bee
    quite futile, and about as accurate as yours.


    >
    >>
    >>
    >> 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.



    "We" is a civilized and moral society.
    >
    >>
    >> 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.


    Not perfect, but better than anarchy

    >
    > 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.




    So. this is nt the case here, at all. The point is that there is a
    non-perfect legal mechanism, and even if all copyright laws did not
    exist, it is immoral to use the work of another, without their permission.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 31, 2013
    #44
  5. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2013 3:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:18:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:



    <snip>

    >>>
    >>> 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.



    The statement above your reply should have been attributed to me, in
    context of an example that just because someone is negligent with their
    own property a third party cannot generally acquire title.



    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 31, 2013
    #45
  6. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/30/2013 7:23 PM, sobriquet wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > 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.


    Obviously, you never met some of the females that I have.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 31, 2013
    #46
  7. sobriquet <> wrote:

    > Suppose I encounter an image somewhere:


    Suppose I encounter a man with some of money.

    > With some reverse image search, I can find good quality copies:


    With some reverse money search, I can find many banks where
    lots of money is stored.

    > Yet one can also find a page that supposedly offers people to license the
    > image:


    Yet one can also find organizations that supposedly offer
    people money --- for hard work.

    > 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.


    But suppose people are just interested in spending a bit of
    money for themslves, one can't really expect them to work hard
    just so they can hold some packets of money in their hands
    and spend it on themselves and their friends in jewellers'
    and fashion stores like (insert some well known names here).

    > 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.


    You could argue that simply taking the money from the banks
    constitutes 'theft', but let's be realistic here. If you
    search for money, you encounter countless banks (and ATMs and
    so on) in many countries with an assortment of laws regarding
    the taking of money.

    > 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.


    So it seems people don't really have to worry about having
    expensive things that are bought with supposedly stolen money
    (and hence in modified form from the money), since it seems
    unrealistic to expect that all thise countless bank notes
    have all been aquired lawfully.

    > 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.


    Hence I also like to take money from several banks and transform
    it into lots of lifestyle gear. States (with their taxes)
    and I think that it's a matter of freedom to be able to take
    any money one "finds" in banks and other places, even without
    any kind of moral justification. I just mention that I found
    the money somewhere, so it's up to the people if they like to
    trace back the money to where I 'liberated' it from. After all,
    it's trivial to trace back bank notes.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #47
  8. 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,


    Water isn't scarce. Tap water is very cheap. Yet they sell
    bottled water for lotsa money.

    > because the price of
    > things is dependent on factors like supply and demand.


    Which proves that good images are scarce --- they are bought.


    > So I can create a bitstring, like 00101010111110101000100101111.


    You mean
    *ú‰
    ? Yep, that's your bitstring. Sort of --- you're missing
    some bits there for a clearly identifyable last char.

    > But if I try to sell it on ebay, I will not be very successful in
    > selling a lot of copies of that bitstring.


    Of course. Because crappy random bitstrings that don't do
    anything, aren't interesting nor thought-provoking, don't show
    anyting (your bitstring is just long enough for a single pixel
    of an image), etc ... are NOT scarce. Any idiot can produce
    such intinsically worthless crap, as you have proven over
    and over.


    > Because as soon as someone
    > has bought it, there is nothing I can effectively do to prevent that
    > person from sharing it with others.


    No, because noone right in their mind would buy a crappy,
    completely worthless bitstring like yours. People are way
    more likely to buy for their commuting a used car that's rusted
    through and through and is missing the engine and all wheels:
    they'd get far more value that way.

    Microsoft (and tons of others) are VERY successful selling
    the same bitstring over and over and over, so your "Because" has
    been *proven* to be wrong.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #48
  9. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:27:56 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 1/30/2013 11:14 AM, sobriquet wrote:


    >> theissue is price, not right to sell.


    > Right to sell? Who grants these rights?


    The same people who grant you protection from people who
    would just take all your money.

    > 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).


    The economic principle would be that stealing all your things
    and all your money is sound: much money for little work.

    > In case of things that can easily be reproduced, like bitstrings, the
    > supply is unlimited, and hence the price must be 0.


    Wrong, and you know it. There's a very limited amount of
    known good bitstrings and it takes a lot of work to produce
    them. Hence the supply is rather limited and the price must
    be high.


    >> 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.


    You seem to ignore that people are unlikely to take the
    prohibition to rob you or steal all your stuff 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.


    You might be able to afford deadly traps round your room and
    always have half a dozen bodyguards with you.

    > 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.


    In other scenarios you might not be effective in your
    attempts. Someone might mow down your bodyguards with a
    machinegun, or someone might blow holes in your walls or come
    through the ceiling where you have no traps.


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


    So the bottom line is that you have no protection than the one
    you can afford on your own --- you're an outlaw. Other people
    should hunt you down like the crazed, mad, rabid dog that you
    are. You are a danger to civilized people, and therefore
    that is only self-defense, legally and morally justified (not
    that you'd understand what that means).

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #49
  10. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > 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


    >> 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 can't think of a place where you didn't argued exactly
    that.

    > 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).


    Physical stuff can't be stolen either as it can't be owned in
    first place. Nor can anyone be killed, since noone can be
    robbed of their life, since noone can own a life. That's
    your logic, right?


    > 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.


    As an idiot, you'll now claim that anything on the internet
    has been scattered BY THE ORIGINAL CREATOR to millions of
    places and has been tagged BY THE ORIGINAL CREATOR as "take
    it, do anything you want, I intentionally drop all the rights
    I have". Just like any museum just hangs pictures on the
    wall for anyone to take them.


    > 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.


    And whenever you step outside, you'll be plastered with all
    the shit from all these flying pigs in the sky that blot out
    the sun.

    >> >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.


    Yep, living in the cellar of his parents ... no car. Fits.


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


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


    > Not really.


    You're right for once. I don't think for a moment that there
    is *any* government that agrees with "all information belongs
    to the public domain". Every government has secrets, even if
    it's only the plans for the next election campaign.

    > After all, we have public libraries that offer free access
    > to information and they are legal.


    Taking away things from others is legal, after all there are
    marshals that legally take your stuff away (even OKed by the
    courts) if you have unpaid debts. (Your logic, not mine.)

    > The nature of information technology agrees with my philosophy.


    You don't understand even the slightest bit of information
    technology, much less it't nature. What you "know" is a few
    twisted dogmas with no grounding at all, not even in fantasy.

    And any five-year-old has more knowledge about the laws than
    you have.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #50
  11. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:25:01 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:


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


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

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


    Copying the books is not allowed.


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


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


    And exactly the same thing happens in p2p networks.

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


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


    > The analogy is flawed.


    No. It fits perfectly.

    > A more suitable analogy,


    .... does not exist.


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


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


    So the piratebay obeys the laws of China?

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

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


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


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


    Answer the question, don't waffle.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #51
  12. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:41:29 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> [..]


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


    >> copying of intellectual property diminishes the value of that


    >> property.


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


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

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

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


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

    > Hence a unique oil painting is very valuable,


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

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

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


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

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


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


    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #52
  13. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:58:00 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> [..]


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


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


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


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

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


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


    No, in real economy.

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


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

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


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


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


    > Sure, you can scam clueless people


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #53
  14. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:35:48 AM UTC+1, NotMe wrote:
    >> <snip>


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


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


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


    > Court actions don't change the facts.


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

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


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #54
  15. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:24:28 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #55
  16. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:33:41 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #56
  17. sobriquet <> wrote:

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


    All laws apply to all people.

    > Someone in Iran might argue that he is a homosexual


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #57
  18. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:05:41 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:


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


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


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #58
  19. sobriquet <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:17:06 PM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
    >> On 31/01/2013 13:02, sobriquet wrote:
    >> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:10:29 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:


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


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


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


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

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


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


    > Legally,


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

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 8, 2013
    #59
  20. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    sobriquet, Feb 9, 2013
    #60
    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:
    939
    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:
    1,663
    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:
    447
    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:
    510
Loading...

Share This Page