Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/eu_orphan_blessing/
    >


    "It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

    I think they have it all backwards.

    It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can
    own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is
    supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of
    such information.

    What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
    of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
    one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
    and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

    Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had
    to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

    Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is
    the ease with which it allows people to share information.


    >
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 14, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:56:35 PM UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012.11.14 17:40 , sobriquet wrote:
    >
    > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/eu_orphan_blessing/

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I think they have it all backwards.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can

    >
    > > own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is

    >
    > > supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of

    >
    > > such information.

    >
    >
    >
    > The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be
    >
    > declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar
    >
    > (that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an
    >
    > absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the
    >
    > start of something useful.
    >


    That issue is beyond the actual reality of the way information
    finds its way on the internet these days.
    If I create a picture and share it (regadless whether I sell it
    or give it away), it can turn into a meme and thousands of people
    can be making modifications and distributing it online again,
    and those images can be further modified again and so on.
    That renders the whole ownership discussions completely
    irrelevant and moot.

    The people who have these discussions are still living in the analogue
    past where you had a clear distinction between centralized publishers who
    were responsible for reproduction and distribution (and copyright laws
    to protect them from unfair competition from other publishers) and
    consumers who could only consume content, but were more or less unable
    to modify it, reproduce it or redistribute it in any practical fashion.

    >
    >
    > > What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system

    >
    > > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the

    >
    > > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely

    >
    > > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

    >
    >
    >
    > What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from
    >
    > other sites.
    >


    There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    it theft.
    But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    information".

    >
    >
    > > Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientisthad

    >
    > > to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is

    >
    > > the ease with which it allows people to share information.

    >
    >
    >
    > Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,
    >
    > slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue
    >
    > their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,
    >
    > publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof
    >
    > of it, but that's another matter).
    >
    >
    >
    > If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his
    >
    > research and results will not be available online at all.
    >


    But do we really need to have companies or money for some deep and
    fundamental reason?
    Maybe in the near future we can reproduce commodities with the
    same ease at which we can currently reproduce digital content.
    At that point the whole role of money as a universal substitute
    is completely redundant, because money only makes sense in a world
    where things are scarce.

    That's the whole idea of copyright nowadays, to artificially try
    to keep information scarce, while any teenager understands information
    is actually not scarce at all. So it's like proof that there are no limits
    to human stupidity to try and ignore the fact that everybody can easily
    share information and pretend that information is like a commodity that
    can't be easily reproduced and distributed (heck, it can even be
    modified, recombined with other pieces of information).

    All because supposedly people will stop creating new content when they
    can no longer rely on their traditional monopoly on the reproduction
    and distribution of their creations.

    The remix culture of the internet proves otherwise.

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
    >
    > were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
    >
    > -Sir John A. Macdonald
     
    sobriquet, Nov 14, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet <> writes:

    > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    > it theft.
    > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    > information".


    So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 15, 2012
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:19:17 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:56:35 PM UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    > > On 2012.11.14 17:40 , sobriquet wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/eu_orphan_blessing/

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > "It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > I think they have it all backwards.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > such information.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be

    >
    > >

    >
    > > declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar

    >
    > >

    >
    > > (that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an

    >
    > >

    >
    > > absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > start of something useful.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > That issue is beyond the actual reality of the way information
    >
    > finds its way on the internet these days.
    >
    > If I create a picture and share it (regadless whether I sell it
    >
    > or give it away), it can turn into a meme and thousands of people
    >
    > can be making modifications and distributing it online again,
    >
    > and those images can be further modified again and so on.
    >
    > That renders the whole ownership discussions completely
    >
    > irrelevant and moot.


    Doesn't that depend on how you alter it or whether or not it is noticable.


    >
    > The people who have these discussions are still living in the analogue
    >
    > past where you had a clear distinction between centralized publishers who
    >
    > were responsible for reproduction and distribution (and copyright laws
    >
    > to protect them from unfair competition from other publishers) and
    >
    > consumers who could only consume content, but were more or less unable
    >
    > to modify it, reproduce it or redistribute it in any practical fashion.


    That's true in Dickens day there wasn't much chance of even photographing a book let alone scanning it in and emailing it.


    >
    > > > What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from

    >
    > >

    >
    > > other sites.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever.


    That's difficult to evaluate You, but a similar situation to libraries.
    If tehy are lending out books then I don't need to buy a copy.


    >
    > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    >
    > it theft.


    You label it nhow you want others to react to it.
    Theft is bad, borrowing is good.


    >
    > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    >
    > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    >
    > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    >
    > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    >
    > information".


    I don't think that day will come, and I dont; think it should either.


    > > > Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.


    That is slightly differnt in many ways.


    >
    > > > Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > the ease with which it allows people to share information.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue

    >
    > >

    >
    > > their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof

    >
    > >

    >
    > > of it, but that's another matter).


    True but what is the reason for publishing why bother ?



    >
    > > If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his

    >
    > >

    >
    > > research and results will not be available online at all.

    >
    > >

    >



    Some of our studetns in the past have worked for componies anbd we haven't been allowed to allow that studetns work to be made availble to others.

    >
    > But do we really need to have companies or money for some deep and
    >
    > fundamental reason?
    >
    > Maybe in the near future we can reproduce commodities with the
    >
    > same ease at which we can currently reproduce digital content.


    Highly unlikely.

    >
    > At that point the whole role of money as a universal substitute
    >
    > is completely redundant, because money only makes sense in a world
    >
    > where things are scarce.


    Are we talking of the star trek universe here were there is no poverty ?
    Because everythingn is free ?

    >
    >
    >
    > That's the whole idea of copyright nowadays, to artificially try
    >
    > to keep information scarce,


    No it's not.
    Most authors and muscians want as many people as possible to have their works, they don't normally want them to be scarce.



    >while any teenager understands information
    >
    > is actually not scarce at all.


    Teeneagers understand little.


    > So it's like proof that there are no limits
    >
    > to human stupidity to try and ignore the fact that everybody can easily
    >
    > share information and pretend that information is like a commodity that
    >
    > can't be easily reproduced and distributed (heck, it can even be
    >
    > modified, recombined with other pieces of information).


    So ?


    > All because supposedly people will stop creating new content when they
    >
    > can no longer rely on their traditional monopoly on the reproduction
    >
    > and distribution of their creations.


    So work in the catering buisness supply me with free food.
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 15, 2012
    #4
  5. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > sobriquet <> writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

    >
    > > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

    >
    > > it theft.

    >
    > > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

    >
    > > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

    >
    > > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

    >
    > > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

    >
    > > information".

    >
    >
    >
    > So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    >
    > "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    >
    > "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    >
    > production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    >
    > hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    >
    > millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
    >


    You missed this part?

    "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
    of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
    one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
    and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "


    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    >
    > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    >
    > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    >
    > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    | > it theft.
    | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    | > information".
    |
    | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
    |

    That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
    two views:

    Young people who don't know what it means
    to work for a living think that everything should be
    free. (It always has been for them, after all.)

    At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
    Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
    that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
    etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
    deal about the presumed value of their creations.

    But much of what they're producing is essentially
    a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
    part of the public enough that those people will pay
    for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
    which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
    implies something edifying and entertainment is really
    just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
    attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
    attention.

    In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
    are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
    does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
    is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
    not a business venture.

    Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
    creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
    some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
    unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
    band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
    can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
    a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
    And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
    commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
    make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?

    How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
    the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
    buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
    copyright was due to expire.

    It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
    between art, entertainment and business before copyright
    law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
    be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
    honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
    if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
    just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
    to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
    be missing the big picture.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #6
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    >
    > | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    >
    > | > it theft.
    >
    > | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    >
    > | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    >
    > | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    >
    > | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    >
    > | > information".
    >
    > |
    >
    > | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    >
    > | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    >
    > | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    >
    > | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    >
    > | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    >
    > | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
    >
    > |
    >
    >
    >
    > That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
    >
    > two views:
    >
    >
    >
    > Young people who don't know what it means
    >
    > to work for a living think that everything should be
    >
    > free. (It always has been for them, after all.)
    >
    >
    >
    > At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
    >
    > Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
    >
    > that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
    >
    > etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
    >
    > deal about the presumed value of their creations.
    >
    >
    >
    > But much of what they're producing is essentially
    >
    > a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
    >
    > part of the public enough that those people will pay
    >
    > for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
    >
    > which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
    >
    > implies something edifying and entertainment is really
    >
    > just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
    >
    > attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
    >
    > attention.
    >
    >
    >
    > In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
    >
    > are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
    >
    > does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
    >
    > is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
    >
    > not a business venture.
    >
    >
    >
    > Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
    >
    > creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
    >
    > some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
    >
    > unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
    >
    > band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
    >
    > can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
    >
    > a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
    >
    > And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
    >
    > commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
    >
    > make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?
    >
    >
    >
    > How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
    >
    > the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
    >
    > buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
    >
    > copyright was due to expire.
    >
    >
    >
    > It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
    >
    > between art, entertainment and business before copyright
    >
    > law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
    >
    > be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
    >
    > honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
    >
    > if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
    >
    > just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
    >
    > to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
    >
    > be missing the big picture.


    Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
    I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
    parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.

    What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
    and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
    usually the bitstrings are much longer.

    These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
    etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

    There can be no sensible definition of the public domain that doesn't
    include all bitstrings and there can be no sensible claim that people
    are free to share information (as claimed in the universal declaration
    of human rights) if it doesn't include all possible bitstrings.

    So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion about human rights
    and the freedom to share information first (in relation to the new
    reality of contemporary information technology like computers,
    smartphones and the internet) and after that has been settled, we
    can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
    there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
    are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
    on information that can be distributed to those who create new
    content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

    Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
    are not a paying member from that library)?
    The internet plays that same role in society of making information
    more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the
    general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,
    except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a
    library.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:07:36 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    > > sobriquet <> writes:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > it theft.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > information".

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

    >
    > >

    >
    > > production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

    >
    > >

    >
    > > hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > You missed this part?
    >
    >
    >
    > "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
    >
    > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
    >
    > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
    >
    > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "


    But that part doens;t actually say anything meaningful.
    It's as meaningful as me saying poverty should be outlawed.

    How would you work out this financial compensation while you make 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or renting is the way to go.

    Also depends what you mean by sharing.
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 15, 2012
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    >
    > > | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > it theft.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | > information".

    >
    > >

    >
    > > |

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > |

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > two views:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Young people who don't know what it means

    >
    > >

    >
    > > to work for a living think that everything should be

    >
    > >

    >
    > > free. (It always has been for them, after all.)



    Yes a spoilt rich kids, mummy and daddy pay for everything.


    >
    > > At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations

    >
    > >

    >
    > > that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big

    >
    > >

    >
    > > deal about the presumed value of their creations.

    >



    They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.

    if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.


    > > But much of what they're producing is essentially

    >
    > >

    >
    > > a business venture meant to profit by titillating some

    >
    > >

    >
    > > part of the public enough that those people will pay

    >
    > >

    >
    > > for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art

    >
    > >

    >
    > > implies something edifying and entertainment is really

    >
    > >

    >
    > > just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and

    >
    > >

    >
    > > attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and

    >
    > >

    >
    > > attention.

    >


    Most people like both to some extent ?


    >
    > > In between the two extremes in the copyright debate

    >
    > >

    >
    > > are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist

    >
    > >

    >
    > > does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which

    >
    > >

    >
    > > is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is

    >
    > >

    >
    > > not a business venture.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting

    >
    > >

    >
    > > creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's

    >
    > >

    >
    > > some artistic value involved and not just some kind of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy

    >
    > >

    >
    > > band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls

    >
    > >

    >
    > > can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....

    >
    > >

    >
    > > And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social

    >
    > >

    >
    > > commentary books. Do those people really deserve to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?


    No idea, but most make money because of what they are peddling.
    If yuo do sonwthing thatc peole like surely you should get something back.



    > > How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In

    >
    > >

    >
    > > the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists

    >
    > >

    >
    > > buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse

    >
    > >

    >
    > > copyright was due to expire.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction

    >
    > >

    >
    > > between art, entertainment and business before copyright

    >
    > >

    >
    > > law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can

    >
    > >

    >
    > > be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be

    >
    > >

    >
    > > honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively

    >
    > >

    >
    > > if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is

    >
    > >

    >
    > > just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy

    >
    > >

    >
    > > to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would

    >
    > >

    >
    > > be missing the big picture.

    >
    >
    >
    > Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
    >
    > I think ,



    That's not what I would call it.

    >it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
    >
    > parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.



    That's not quite all they are doping is it.


    >
    >
    >
    > What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
    >
    > and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
    >
    > usually the bitstrings are much longer.


    So post you bank details including passwords and anyb other info it's just binary digits.
    So your not prepared to share yuor bitstrings are you.
    well that typical isn;t it.


    >
    >
    >
    > These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
    >
    > etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.


    bank accounts....

    >
    >
    >
    > There can be no sensible definition of the public domain that doesn't
    >
    > include all bitstrings and there can be no sensible claim that people
    >
    > are free to share information (as claimed in the universal declaration
    >
    > of human rights) if it doesn't include all possible bitstrings.


    You really are clueless aren;t you.

    >
    >
    >
    > So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion about human rights
    >
    > and the freedom to share information first (in relation to the new
    >
    > reality of contemporary information technology like computers,
    >
    > smartphones and the internet) and after that has been settled, we
    >
    > can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
    >
    > there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
    >
    > are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
    >
    > on information that can be distributed to those who create new
    >
    > content in proportion to how popular their creations are).


    More meaningless talk.

    >
    >
    >
    > Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    >
    > information for free .


    I pay taxes for library books.


    >(if you read books at the library, even if you
    >
    > are not a paying member from that library)?
    >
    > The internet plays that same role in society of making information
    >
    > more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the
    >
    > general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,
    >
    > except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a
    >
    > library.


    But peole won;t write those books and other bitstrings unless they getv somnething back, you don;t understand that because you're probbaly not created anythijng useful or wanted by others in your life.

    perhaps if yuo did you'd understand and there's little chance of that until your IQ gets into double figures
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 15, 2012
    #9
  10. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion
    | about human rights
    | and the freedom to share information first ....after
    | that has been settled, we
    | can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
    | there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
    | are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
    | on information that can be distributed to those who create new
    | content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

    So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?
    You have a human right to use everything in the world?
    You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you
    claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others
    use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
    everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
    Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
    like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
    wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
    So I see no justification for the public paying her way.

    |
    | Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    | information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
    | are not a paying member from that library)?

    Libraries do not make copies. They lend copies. We
    pay for those books with our taxes. Apparently you
    neither work nor pay taxes. In that case your parents
    are paying for your use of libraries. They are funded
    by the public and they buy the books that they lend
    out.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #10
  11. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:38:37 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion
    >
    > | about human rights
    >
    > | and the freedom to share information first ....after
    >
    > | that has been settled, we
    >
    > | can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
    >
    > | there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
    >
    > | are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
    >
    > | on information that can be distributed to those who create new
    >
    > | content in proportion to how popular their creations are).
    >
    >
    >
    > So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?
    >
    > You have a human right to use everything in the world?
    >
    > You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you
    >
    > claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others
    >
    > use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
    >
    > everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
    >
    > Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
    >
    > like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
    >
    > wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
    >
    > So I see no justification for the public paying her way.
    >


    Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
    regardless of whether they read books or not.
    Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is
    a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but
    not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or
    reproduction of their creations.

    >
    >
    > |
    >
    > | Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    >
    > | information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
    >
    > | are not a paying member from that library)?
    >
    >
    >
    > Libraries do not make copies. They lend copies. We
    >
    > pay for those books with our taxes. Apparently you
    >
    > neither work nor pay taxes. In that case your parents
    >
    > are paying for your use of libraries. They are funded
    >
    > by the public and they buy the books that they lend
    >
    > out.


    Everybody buys things and whenever you buy something, you pay
    taxes. Some of those taxes are used to finance things like public
    libraries and they might likewise be used to finance a system
    that ensures financial incentives for people who create new content.
    Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax
    on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed
    to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..),
    even when they download them from the internet from unauthorized sources.
    Now there is a lot that can be improved about that system (regarding
    transparency in particular), but I think that's the most sensible way
    to deal with the fact that it's virtually impossible for creators
    to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of creations
    once they have been made public (regardless of whether they were
    sold or given away).
    Research shows that people who obtain culture/information from
    unauthorized sources are actually the same people who spend the
    most money on culture/information from authorized sources.
    Just like public libraries stimulate an interest in books and
    are more likely to contribute to the profits from commercial
    bookstores rather than detracting from it.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #11
  12. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-15 07:43:01 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    > >

    >
    > > Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize

    >
    > > filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise

    >
    > > I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or

    >
    > > parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect

    >
    > > and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except

    >
    > > usually the bitstrings are much longer.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,

    >
    > > etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

    >
    >
    >
    > We have been through your rationalizations at tedious length before.
    >
    > What you fail to address is, there is a big difference between
    >
    > "sharing", "dissemination of information", and "distribution" of an
    >
    > individually, proprietary, or corporately owned product or media file.
    >


    It seems your mind is a corporately owned product of some sort.
    If you were able to think critically and independently for
    yourself, you'd see through this obvious propaganda from the
    intellectual property mafia. Heck, we can't even seriously claim
    that we're living in a democracy, because people are brainwashed
    in school and by the media, rather than learning to think
    critically for themselves. So all this bullshit about voting
    for elected representatives in the government is just a
    phony show, while the government is actually a shady extension
    of corporate interests rather than a neutral institution that
    guarantees human rights.

    >
    >
    > Just because a legitimate method of commercial distribution can be via
    >
    > the internet, does not make unauthorized copying, and redistribution
    >
    > via P2P sites, and subsequent unauthorized use, any less immoral and
    >
    > theft.
    >


    There is nothing immoral about the distribution and reproduction of
    information. You might as well call education immoral.

    >
    >
    > If a creator of the image, music, movie, etc. choses to protect their
    >
    > property, and states so, any unauthorized use is theft and
    >
    > exploitation.


    Bullshit. Here, I'll create a bitstring 001001011111010000001110001.

    Now that's my intellectual property and I can go out on the
    internet to find people who have it on their computer and I can
    sue and harass them.



    > Those creative individuals and corporations have every
    >
    > right to be rewarded for their creative efforts regardless of your
    >
    > perception of their motives. Those files are far from being declared
    >
    > "public domain".


    They are public domain. My government actually grants people the freedom
    to copy such creations (music, video, books, pictures, etc..) for
    personal use, regardless of how their original creators feel about it.


    >
    > As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, try making the same
    >
    > demand of a food vendor, restauranteur, food franchise, or farmer
    >
    > (individual or agri-business).


    Yet, the difference between such commodities and information
    is that information can be duplicated indefinitely free from
    additional costs. If I have a single loaf of bread, unless
    I'm Jesus, I can't easily multiply it to supply a million
    loafs of bread to a hungry crowd.

    >
    > ...or for that matter any manufacturer of any product, from your
    >
    > clothing to the table your computer sits on, or the materials they are
    >
    > fabricated from, and designs they dare to retain copyright of.
    >


    The difference being that physical tangible products like
    computers or articles of clothing are scarce because they
    can't be easily reproduced like information on the internet.

    >
    >
    > Even with image files on the great majority of sharing sites, the
    >
    > ownership and sharing options are retained by the creator.



    You must be visiting the wrong sharing sites then.

    >
    >
    >
    > For most truly "public domain" files creators would actually prefer
    >
    > some attribution and will let you know their feelings regarding that
    >
    > issue by including an appropriate statement in the copyright
    >
    > information field of the exif of their images.
    >
    > Consider that there is the simple honoring of a creator's request when
    >
    > they include a Creative Commons license to their work. I for example
    >
    > will use the CC "Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike" license
    >
    > notification. Read it, and try to understand it.
    >
    > < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US >
    >


    That is just bullshit. You can come up with any nonsense license
    you like, but whether people will take it serious is another matter.

    Most people just skip all that legal mumbo jumbo and press the OK
    button to accept a license without reading it, whenever they
    are confronted with that nonsense.

    >
    >
    > All you propose remains a rationalization for theft.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #12
  13. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:50:25 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:38:37 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    >
    > > | So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | about human rights

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | and the freedom to share information first ....after

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | that has been settled, we

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | on information that can be distributed to those who create new

    >
    > >

    >
    > > | content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You have a human right to use everything in the world?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you

    >
    > >

    >
    > > claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others

    >
    > >

    >
    > > use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should

    >
    > >

    >
    > > everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people

    >
    > >

    >
    > > like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly

    >
    > >

    >
    > > wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So I see no justification for the public paying her way.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
    >
    > regardless of whether they read books or not.
    >
    > Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is
    >
    > a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but
    >
    > not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or
    >
    > reproduction of their creations.
    >


    What happened to "information is free"? Why tax it and who would decide who is a good artist and how much revenue they should get?

    BTW, some information is not free.

    The only people who deserve my money are the ones I like so it means the only way for my money to reach them is me buying their work.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 15, 2012
    #13
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:36:45 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:07:36 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > > > sobriquet <> writes:

    >[..]
    > How would you work out this financial compensation while you make 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or renting is the way to go.
    >


    So you're opposed to public libraries that offer free access to
    information?
    Free in the sense that anybody can go to the library and read a
    book there for free, instead of buying that same book in a bookstore.

    >
    >
    > Also depends what you mean by sharing.


    P2p sharing. So a bitstring going from one individual on the internet
    to another individual on the internet, so they both end up in
    possession of the same bitstring.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #14
  15. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:56:40 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:

    >
    > They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.
    >
    >
    >
    > if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.
    >


    You can put any value on any item as you see fit, but the price of
    things is not just determined by the supply side but also by the
    demand side. Why would somebody pay you for something when they can
    obtain that same thing for free from others?
    Why would anything that isn't scarce to begin with (like a bitstring)
    be associated with a monetary value (that is usually an indication for
    how scarce a particular item is)?

    I can sell the number 29358238385 on ebay, with a licence and a
    usermanual, but people are unlikely to spend any money on it,
    because numbers belong to the public domain and they can use
    numbers for free.

    > [..]
    > So post you bank details including passwords and anyb other info it's just binary digits.
    >
    > So your not prepared to share yuor bitstrings are you.
    >
    > well that typical isn;t it.
    >


    Nobody is forced to share anything (as they are not forced to
    disseminate their creations). My banking details are not my
    intellectual property and should other people obtain it, I simply
    have to contact my bank to obtain a new password and things like that.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

    >
    >
    >
    > bank accounts....
    >


    Money is scarce, by definition. If everybody could duplicate money as
    easily as they can share information via p2p sites, money wouldn't be
    useful as a universal substitute for things that are scarce.

    Something like a unique oilpainting can be very expensive *because*
    it is a unique item. It would be very strange if a digital piece of
    art would be sold at an auction for a few million, while that same
    digital piece of art can be downloaded for free from a p2p network.

    > [..]
    > > Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume

    >
    > >

    >
    > > information for free .

    >
    >
    >
    > I pay taxes for library books.
    >


    So why can't you pay taxes to ensure there is a financial
    incentive for people to create new content, while content can be
    freely shared online?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >(if you read books at the library, even if you

    >
    > >

    >
    > > are not a paying member from that library)?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > The internet plays that same role in society of making information

    >
    > >

    >
    > > more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a

    >
    > >

    >
    > > library.

    >
    >
    >
    > But peole won;t write those books and other bitstrings unless they getv somnething back, you don;t understand that because you're probbaly not created anythijng useful or wanted by others in your life.
    >


    Oh, I have created things that were viewed online by more than
    50.000 people.

    http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6337811/44955495/faceswappen_met_politici.html

    So it seems even an idiot like me can create things that other people
    like to see.

    >
    >
    > perhaps if yuo did you'd understand and there's little chance of that until your IQ gets into double figures
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #15
  16. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:14:13 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:50:25 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    > > Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
    > > regardless of whether they read books or not.
    > > Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is
    > > a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but
    > > not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or
    > > reproduction of their creations.

    >
    > What happened to "information is free"?


    Information is free, because I can download all the information
    I like for free from p2p networks and this is completely independent
    from the fact that I pay taxes. The only relationship there is,
    is that information is often stored on things like harddisks and
    where I live, there is a special tax on such information storage
    devices to compensate for the fact that people can download
    most content for free. This tax money is supposed to be distributed
    among people who create new content, but I find the current system
    rather shady because I can't easily find out how this tax money is
    distributed and to what degree that system is fair.

    > Why tax it and who would decide who is a good artist and how much revenue they should get?
    >


    Well, they can statistically monitor how popular creations are among
    people who share it freely online.
    So surely we can have a technological solution for that to ensure that
    the people who contribute the most appreciated content (as reflected in
    the relative popularity of their creations) are also entitled
    to reap the greatest rewards for their creative efforts.

    >
    >
    > BTW, some information is not free.
    >
    >
    >
    > The only people who deserve my money are the ones I like so it means the only way for my money to reach them is me buying their work.
    >


    Nonsense, if you read a book for free in the library, that also
    contributes to the author of that book being payed indirectly
    via taxes to finance public libraries.

    >
    >
    > DanP
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #16
  17. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:31:05 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:56:40 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

    >
    > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > You can put any value on any item as you see fit, but the price of
    >
    > things is not just determined by the supply side but also by the
    >
    > demand side. Why would somebody pay you for something when they can
    >
    > obtain that same thing for free from others?
    >
    > Why would anything that isn't scarce to begin with (like a bitstring)
    >
    > be associated with a monetary value (that is usually an indication for
    >
    > how scarce a particular item is)?
    >
    >
    >
    > I can sell the number 29358238385 on ebay, with a licence and a
    >
    > usermanual, but people are unlikely to spend any money on it,
    >
    > because numbers belong to the public domain and they can use
    >
    > numbers for free.


    I can convert anything to a number therefore everything is public domain (your point, not mine).

    You cannot sell me a number but I pay money for music in MP3 format. Explain that.

    The song can be encoded into a very big number, and you are free to write it down or say it but it is illegal for you to play a MP3 file with that number in it (unless you legally own it) or sell it on mentioning it is in fact a song.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 15, 2012
    #17
  18. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:42:29 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:31:05 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:56:40 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You can put any value on any item as you see fit, but the price of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > things is not just determined by the supply side but also by the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > demand side. Why would somebody pay you for something when they can

    >
    > >

    >
    > > obtain that same thing for free from others?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Why would anything that isn't scarce to begin with (like a bitstring)

    >
    > >

    >
    > > be associated with a monetary value (that is usually an indication for

    >
    > >

    >
    > > how scarce a particular item is)?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I can sell the number 29358238385 on ebay, with a licence and a

    >
    > >

    >
    > > usermanual, but people are unlikely to spend any money on it,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > because numbers belong to the public domain and they can use

    >
    > >

    >
    > > numbers for free.

    >
    >
    >
    > I can convert anything to a number therefore everything is public domain (your point, not mine).
    >


    Anything? Not exactly. Try to convert a commodity like a car or
    a screwdriver to a bitstring and share it on p2p networks.

    They are working on that though, but 3d scanning and printing is far
    from being able to duplicate things up to molecular details.

    >
    >
    > You cannot sell me a number but I pay money for music in MP3 format. Explain that.
    >


    You might not realize it, but when you buy an mp3 from itunes, you are
    actually buying a bitstring.

    >
    >
    > The song can be encoded into a very big number, and you are free to write it down or say it but it is illegal for you to play a MP3 file with that number in it (unless you legally own it) or sell it on mentioning it is in fact a song.


    You seem to be confused about the laws in the place where I live.
    It is not necessarily illegal for me to download an mp3 via p2p
    networks for free, even though that very same mp3 might be for sale
    at the itunes webstore.
    It would be illegal for me to share such an mp3 again via p2p
    networks, but in practice people tend to share content freely as
    the chances of getting into legal difficulties because of that are
    rather minimal.

    If you allow people to collect bitstrings for personal use, you
    can't really expect them not to share and exchange bitstrings
    with other collectors.

    >
    > DanP
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #18
  19. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    >> So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    >> "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    >> "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    >> production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    >> hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    >> millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

    >
    > Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed.
    > As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem.


    Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
    career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
    drastically.

    What are the "major uses" of a book, anyway? Everybody either reads it, or
    doesn't.

    > And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway,
    > so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is
    > the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating
    > software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties.


    Well, stuff I've worked on hasn't brought in that much, but that's how
    *I* make my living. But I'm not particularly worried about that,
    because mostly what I do is for custom uses, or to drive custom
    hardware, so people will still need it.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 15, 2012
    #19
  20. sobriquet <> writes:

    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> sobriquet <> writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

    >>
    >> > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

    >>
    >> > it theft.

    >>
    >> > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

    >>
    >> > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

    >>
    >> > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

    >>
    >> > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

    >>
    >> > information".

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    >>
    >> "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    >>
    >> "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    >>
    >> production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    >>
    >> hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    >>
    >> millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
    >>

    >
    > You missed this part?
    >
    > "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
    > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
    > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
    > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "


    Any idea what such a system could be? In particular, how do you decide
    how worthwhile some fresh content is, in the face of people aggressively
    working to muddy the waters (as we already see on the web, in sites
    trolling for search hits to drive ad revenue)?
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 15, 2012
    #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. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=

    Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    816
    |{evin
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. slylittlei

    Potentially funny...

    slylittlei, May 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    502
    Juan Pérez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    517
    Michael S. Cooper
    Nov 8, 2003
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,025
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  5. RichA

    Olympus's OM-D potentially defective problem?

    RichA, Apr 21, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    722
    RichA
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page