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

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

  1. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:42:22 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>

    >
    > >>Eric Stevens <> writes:

    >
    >
    >
    > >>> Reproducing creative works (what you call 'information') has probably

    >
    > >>> always regarded as immoral. The idea of copyright was introduced only

    >
    > >>> when the mass copying of original works became a practical

    >
    > >>> proposition.

    >
    >
    >
    > >>Sorry, you're historically wrong. That's why monks devoted their lives

    >
    > >>to copying manuscripts by hand -- it was almost an act of worship for

    >
    > >>them. Certainly NOT an immoral act.

    >
    >
    >
    > > As I've already remarked, you've opened a can of worms.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Monasteries used to have a system where one monk (the 'Reader' which

    >
    > > title is still preserved in some universities) would read from an

    >
    > > original text and a room full of scribes would write down his words as

    >
    > > he read them aloud. The original authors were long since dead and were

    >
    > > not being deprived of anything by the copying. The idea generally was

    >
    > > to try and preserve ancient knowledge for posterity.

    >
    >
    >
    > So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
    >
    > till the original author was safely dead, then started
    >
    > copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
    >
    > that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
    >
    > another monastery.


    I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
    so when did God die ;-)

    >
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 6, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:48:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:51:58 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 18:51:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:13:24 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>>>PeterN <> wrote:


    >>>>>>>>> Absent some express provision to the contrary, purchase of a book is a
    >>>>>>>>> purchase of a limited right to the contents of that book.


    >>>>>>>>Only with ebooks.


    >>>>>>> Not so. If you look inside the cover of most books you will find a
    >>>>>>> detailed copyright notice limiting your rights as to what you can do
    >>>>>>> with it.


    >>>>>>The notice is only that: a notice. It's not a contract.
    >>>>>>You did not enter into it. You did not agree to it. You did
    >>>>>>not sign it.


    >>>>> I think you will find that under Copyright law, you are bound by those
    >>>>> terms if you choose to buy the book.


    >>>>Go ask your lawyer if
    >>>>- the notes in a book you bought carry any legal weight.
    >>>>- US copyright law applies to other countries with not only
    >>>> different laws but a different law tradition (common law
    >>>> versus civil law).


    >>>>Report back.


    >>>>If the notes in the book happen to state exactly what the law
    >>>>says, that's a happy circumstance, nothing else.


    >>> I'm sure you know that copyright laws vary with time and place. Things
    >>> have been stabilised by the Berne Convention of 1988 which applies
    >>> almost uniformly to signatory countries. See
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
    >>> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention
    >>> A copyright notice is still required in the USA if you are to succeed
    >>> in recovering damages. Consequently any book likely to be sold in the
    >>> USA will have such a notice.


    >>So basically you agree that the notice of a book may be correct
    >>for one place and only sorta-correct for other places.


    > Basically yes, when the details of the various laws are considered.
    > But I'm sure you knew that already.


    *I* knew that. *Your*:
    | If you look inside the cover of most books you will find a
    | detailed copyright notice limiting your rights as to what you can do
    | with it.
    read like *the notice* did limit your rights.

    But maybe it's just my rather limited English skills.


    >>>>>>You purchased the physical thing, and you have the same rights
    >>>>>>to the content as if you loaned it from a library or a friend
    >>>>>>or if you stole the book.


    >>>>> Not so.


    >>>>So which additional rights to the content does buying
    >>>>(compared to lending) grant one?


    >>>>Ask your lawyer.
    >>>>Report back.


    >>> Once again it depends whereabouts in the world you are.


    >>OK, so "which additional rights to the content does buying

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>(compared to lending) grant one" where *you* reside. You
    >>claim that there's a difference ... which one is it?


    > The biggest one is that you can keep the book.


    I underlined the part of the question you seem to be completely
    missing. Please reread the question carefully before answering.


    >>> However the
    >>> recent fuss over the illegitimate copying of music and videos should
    >>> give you some idea of the complexity of the various rights and
    >>> responsibilities. (OK I know you don't recognise any of these and can
    >>> be expected to deny they exist.)


    >>'recent'? The music industry was self-proclaimed dying ever
    >>since ther was radio and/or tape recorders. "Home recording
    >>kills music!"


    > We both know that already.


    Ok, so what does the 'recent' fuzz over the illegitimate
    copying of music and videos teach us --- in regard to the
    contents of books?


    >>>>There it is again: if the US is a signatory, then every
    >>>>country must be a signatory. Typical.


    >>> (Nearly) every country _is_ a signatory to the Berne Convention of
    >>> 1988.


    >>(Nearly) everyone has never ended the life of a human being,
    >>therefore, no murderers exist. Let's do away with all the
    >>unneccessary laws about that topic. Right?


    > It would make life easier but I wonder how long people with your
    > ethical outlook would last.


    What on Earth made you think that this was my ethical outlook?


    >>>>>>Note that there is no "if you personally bought this book,
    >>>>>>you may copy the pages 110-125 and sell them, if you name the
    >>>>>>source" or similar text in the notice, which would give you
    >>>>>>limited rights to the contents of that book if you purchased it.


    >>>>> I would love to see you trying to tell that to the judge.


    >>>>You probably should closely reread what I wrote, you seem not
    >>>>to get it. In case you think you do:


    >>>>Print a book with that notice, I'll buy it, copy and sell
    >>>>pages 110-125 naming the souce, you sue me, I tell that to
    >>>>the judge (and show him the notice), I prove that I bought the
    >>>>book personally --- as stipulated --- and the judge will
    >>>>agree with me and laugh you out of court.


    >>> Its the selling that will land you in trouble.


    >>WHY should doing exactly as you permit me --- in writing, no
    >>less --- land ME in trouble? Care to explain how you propose
    >>to tell the judge "I didn't mean what I wrote when I granted
    >>that right"?


    > Because the copyright law of virtually every significant country gives
    > you limited rights to copy but does not give you rights to copy for
    > resale. But I'm sure you know that already.


    Could you kindly point out where in the copyright law it is
    written that a copyright owner cannot unilaterally (in writing)
    grant any affitional rights to his works outside what copyright
    allows? I'm sure I didn't know about that part ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 9, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:42:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:42:22 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> writes:


    >>>>> Reproducing creative works (what you call 'information') has probably
    >>>>> always regarded as immoral. The idea of copyright was introduced only
    >>>>> when the mass copying of original works became a practical
    >>>>> proposition.


    >>>>Sorry, you're historically wrong. That's why monks devoted their lives
    >>>>to copying manuscripts by hand -- it was almost an act of worship for
    >>>>them. Certainly NOT an immoral act.


    >>> As I've already remarked, you've opened a can of worms.


    >>> Monasteries used to have a system where one monk (the 'Reader' which
    >>> title is still preserved in some universities) would read from an
    >>> original text and a room full of scribes would write down his words as
    >>> he read them aloud. The original authors were long since dead and were
    >>> not being deprived of anything by the copying. The idea generally was
    >>> to try and preserve ancient knowledge for posterity.


    >>So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
    >>till the original author was safely dead, then started
    >>copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
    >>that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
    >>another monastery.


    >>I think not.


    > Quite rightly. That's not what I'm saying. But I'm sure you know that.


    So you retract your "The original authors were long since
    dead" part?

    >>Oh, authorship wasn't nearly as important then as it is today.
    >>Many books were anonymous.


    > They still had a title.


    non sequitur.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 9, 2012
  4. Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
    >> till the original author was safely dead, then started
    >> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
    >> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
    >> another monastery.


    > I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
    > so when did God die ;-)


    Some say he never existed.

    Others would say he let humans write.

    Yet others could explain that since God made the world and
    everything (including the humans), he's got the ownership of
    everything from his creation anyway --- and thus humans copying
    his works is as much a copyright problem as a copying machine
    copying on the button press of the author.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 9, 2012
  5. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>> Yes it is. The person who has just ripped off a copy is eliminated as
    >>> as customer. Why should they buy? They've already got one.


    >>Logical fail. You assume everyone who has NOT ripped off a
    >>copy (yet) is a customer.


    > That's nothing to do with what I said.


    That's the foundation of your claim.


    >> Most people are decent. If they
    >>want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,
    >>they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay
    >>and don't get stones laid in their way there.


    > And if they haven't already ripped off a copy.


    If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily.


    >>Logical fail, second: For most creators the problem is not
    >>people not wanting to buy, but people not knowing there exists
    >>something they'd want to buy. A free sample, a test drive,
    >>so to say, is an effective way of finding out if the pig in a
    >>poke is actually something they'd enjoy. Paying 20 bucks on
    >>the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    >>joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    >>quite different ....


    > Yeah, people buy music they have never heard all the time.


    Yes, they just walk into a CD shop and grab a bunch of CDs at
    random, hoping they'll like 1 or maybe 2 of the whole bunch.

    > If
    > something new comes on the radio they close their ears so they don't
    > have a chance to decide whether or not they want it.


    You really must feel clever, reducing music to the top 40 pops,
    top 40 Country and top 40 Rock-n-Roll. When was the last
    time you heard Gregorian Chants on radio? Or Early Music?


    >>>>They can sell their creations just the same, ...


    >>> Yes, not to the people who have already stolen a copy.


    >>Yes, people who go into brick and motar stores to take a copy
    >>without paying are thieves. They're not the decent majority.


    > Buy your definition, the decent people take a copy from outside the

    ^^^
    > store.


    Your freudian slip shows perfectly clear that you know
    exactly what decent people want to do.


    >>Do you really want them as your customers?


    > If they have got money and are prepared to pay - yes.


    More brain damage? If they had money and were prepared to
    pay, why would they take physical copies from shops? Can you
    explain that or is that just you being contrary?


    >>>>... but
    >>>>they can't expect to impose a monopoly on the reproduction or
    >>>>distribution of their creations.


    >>> Not even when it has been legally granted to them?


    >>Naah, it's been granted to the publishers and labels.
    >>At least in the real world, if not in the letters of the law.


    > The "publishers and labels" buy the monopoly on the reproduction and
    > distribution with the intention of selling copies.


    Nope.
    Wrong on several counts.
    Their main goal is (usually) making money, not selling copies
    (selling copies is just one means, especially for labels).
    And not even that is a given.


    > If they can't sell
    > copies because people have ripped them off then they will pay the
    > original copyright holders less. But I'm sure you know that.


    Please find your way to the Baen Free Libary and read the
    Prime Palaver articles.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 9, 2012
  6. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:02:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:49:38 -0800 (PST), sobriquet


    >>>>> This is where your argument falls down. Your copy is only as legal as
    >>>>> the 'bitstring' you copied to obtain it.


    >>>>Wrong, I'm even legally allowed to make a copy for personal use
    >>>>from an unauthorized source (e.g. a free download via a p2p network).


    >>> And from where does the p2p network obtain it?


    >>Does it matter? Why?


    > Because you are copying stolen property.


    Wrong. Ask your lawyer to explain.

    > But I'm sure you knew that
    > already.


    I know that you cannot steal intellectual property, since
    it's not physical. You can only steal an embodyment or
    unauthorizedly copy intellectual property, but you cannot
    steal it as such.


    >>If I tell a business secret (even if I'm forbidden), are you
    >>bound by law not to listen to it and not to repeat it?


    > No law can stop me hearing it if the circumstances are right but it
    > may be illegal for me to pass it on.


    So under which conditions may it be illegal for you to pass
    it on?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 9, 2012
  7. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 00:25:25 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:


    >>> So in just two interchanges you explain why I am right and you are
    >>> wrong when you denied that is not correct to say "Your copy is only as
    >>> legal as the 'bitstring' you copied to obtain it".


    >>> Stolen goods are stolen goods. You can't have any rights, license or
    >>> ownership in stolen goods.


    >>However, you cannot steal intellectual property.


    > Nonsense.


    Absolutely true.

    >> At most you
    >>can steal a physical object embodying intellectual property, say
    >>a DVD embodying a film or blueprints embodying some invention.


    > You should look up the "Yes, we have no bananas" case. The tune was
    > inadvertantly copied


    != stolen
    That *is* the point.

    > and built into another piece of music by someone
    > who had done no more than listen to it. There is no need to steal a
    > physical object to infringe copyright. All that has to be transferred
    > is the idea itself.


    True but irrelevant. You can infringe copyright, but that is
    != *theft*.

    >>You *can* copy intellectual property without permission, but
    >>that's not theft or stealing[1]. Nor is it robbery on a ship
    >>on the high seas cutlass between your teeth, no matter what
    >>some quarters would like you to believe.


    >>-Wolfgang


    >>[1] Ask your lawyer. "stealing" as a moral issue is something
    >> else, and often shouted most loud by people who think
    >> digital downloads need to have a downward adjustment in pay
    >> to the creator for "grampohone records broken in transit".


    > You really do have a blind spot.


    Not calling infringing copyright "murder" or "terrorism" or
    "theft" --- because these are completely different crimes ---
    is a blind spot?

    Really, DO ask your lawyer.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 9, 2012
  8. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:52:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    >
    >>> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
    >>> till the original author was safely dead, then started
    >>> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
    >>> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
    >>> another monastery.

    >
    >> I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
    >> so when did God die ;-)

    >
    >Some say he never existed.
    >
    >Others would say he let humans write.


    While not a religious person, I have been around them. I've never
    heard even the most devoutly religious claim the Bible was written by
    God. The usual attribution is "inspired by God".


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 9, 2012
  9. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:03:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:26:38 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:52:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:42:08 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
    >>>>> till the original author was safely dead, then started
    >>>>> copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
    >>>>> that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
    >>>>> another monastery.
    >>>
    >>>> I wonder how that works with the Bible I thought it was the Word of God,
    >>>> so when did God die ;-)
    >>>
    >>>Some say he never existed.
    >>>
    >>>Others would say he let humans write.

    >>
    >>While not a religious person, I have been around them. I've never
    >>heard even the most devoutly religious claim the Bible was written by
    >>God. The usual attribution is "inspired by God".

    >
    > ... "the word of God".


    I am not, by any means, a religious person. I am a person who is
    interested in words, word meaning, and word connotation, though.
    "Inspired by God" implies that a human wrote something, but God was
    indirectly guiding his thoughts. "The word of God" implies a
    transcription of an actual conversation with God.

    "Inspired" gives the writer a lot of latitude. He can claim God put
    the idea in his head, but he can elaborate or embellish on that.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 9, 2012
  10. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:20:25 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:


    >>> One reason is that digital copying is much easier and the effort
    >>> required is much less. One can quickly do the deed and then pat your
    >>> concience on the head telling it that you haven't done anything of
    >>> significance.


    >>The significance IS the work needed.


    > So it's OK to burgle your house as long as the burglar doesn't raise a
    > sweat in the process. I think not.


    If someone burgles my bicycle, I don't have any and have to walk.
    If someone COPIES my bicycle, I STILL have mine and will ride it.

    See any difference?

    (Of course you cannot admit there is one. Because you would
    then have to admit that your "burgle" example has been dragged
    in by the hair.)


    >>I can download Debian easily, put it on a couple sticks and
    >>share them with my friends and neighbours. The only significant
    >>parts are
    >>a) I share something and thereby help my friends and neighbours
    >>b) I probably want the sticks back


    >>Now compare that to, say, a functionally equivalent Windows.
    >>Not only do I need to spend months finding all the software
    >>to get the function I got out of the box (and some of the
    >>functionality isn't even available[1]), I also need to spend
    >>tens of thousands of USD on software. Then I need to have
    >>lots of CDs and key codes and so on.


    >>Installing the whole mess is lots of work (instead of just
    >>choosing the packages and letting the computer do all the
    >>work while I'm away from it). And it doesn't update itself
    >>automatically, only a few parts do.


    >>Oh, and I'm not allowed to share. And even if I were, there
    >>are lots of technical barriers.


    >>Now, tell me, what is the significance of THAT?


    > Rather than do it the easy way but which costs you money, you would
    > rather go out and steal.


    Do you have to work hard to find such completely idiotic and
    wrong interpretations, or are you just naturally blonde?


    >>And tell me a society that makes it artifically hard to help
    >>your friends and neighbours (and thinks the profits of a
    >>convicted monopolist more important) is on the right way.


    > Nothing to do with convicted monopolists.


    So microsoft was never in court and judged guilty for that
    crime? Even if all they got was a slap on the wrist as
    punishment?


    > You would be quite happy to
    > steal from a totally blameless person.


    And the Earth *is* flat and I killed Kennedy *and* Genghis
    Khan, too.


    >>>>So to solve the problems associated with copyright, we
    >>>>first should strive towards a transparent government that is
    >>>>able to draft sensible laws and only then can we expect people
    >>>>to take such laws seriously.


    >>> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they
    >>> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.


    >>Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?


    > They lose sum or all of the value of the intillectual property.


    Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?

    Or can you point me to where the law says "Theft is ... the
    copying of intellectual property"?


    >>[1] Try to get Windows to understand sloppy focus (i.e. the
    >> window last touched by the mouse is active) *and* not to
    >> raise the active window.


    > The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but that
    > you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely
    > honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is.


    The manner in which you try your hand in character assassination
    tells me that you are either too stupid to know what you are
    doing, or you know fully well that you have lost the argument
    and resort to beating the messenger to a virtual pulp to save
    your hide.

    The way in which you avoid answering questions when the answer
    is bad for you rules out the "too stupid" part.

    Which means that --- I am sorry to say that --- you are
    intellectual dishonest and should pursue a career where lying
    and sidestepping reality and attacking everyone who challenges
    you is an advantage. Extremist politican, terrorist ("We had
    to kill them, it's your fault for not doing as we ordered you
    to") or war crimes apologist come to mind.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 10, 2012
  11. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>> Most people are decent. If they
    >>>>want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,
    >>>>they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay
    >>>>and don't get stones laid in their way there.


    >>> And if they haven't already ripped off a copy.


    >>If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily.


    > Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with
    > the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died
    > recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how
    > I feel about ripping off.


    So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    for that old version.

    Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
    you STOLE from Adobe. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
    since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


    >>>>people not wanting to buy, but people not knowing there exists
    >>>>something they'd want to buy. A free sample, a test drive,
    >>>>so to say, is an effective way of finding out if the pig in a
    >>>>poke is actually something they'd enjoy. Paying 20 bucks on
    >>>>the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    >>>>joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    >>>>quite different ....


    >>> Yeah, people buy music they have never heard all the time.


    >>Yes, they just walk into a CD shop and grab a bunch of CDs at
    >>random, hoping they'll like 1 or maybe 2 of the whole bunch.


    > You are taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I've stopped buying
    > recently but I used to regularly go in and buy music by composer even
    > though I had never heard it.


    OK, so now you're cutting down your own straw man ...
    .... let me quote the original:
    | Paying 20 bucks on
    | the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    | joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    | quite different ....

    See ... you admit you were buying by group (or composer), not
    randomly.


    >>> If
    >>> something new comes on the radio they close their ears so they don't
    >>> have a chance to decide whether or not they want it.


    >>You really must feel clever, reducing music to the top 40 pops,
    >>top 40 Country and top 40 Rock-n-Roll. When was the last
    >>time you heard Gregorian Chants on radio? Or Early Music?


    > 7:10 am this morning, I woke up to a choral by one of the lesser Bachs
    > (I can't quite remember each one). We do have a 'Concert Program' in
    > this part of the world.


    Bach is a superstar.
    So which one of the ones named here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_composers_by_era
    did you hear this year on your concert program?

    How many of
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medieval_composers
    have you ever heard on radio?


    >>>>Do you really want them as your customers?


    >>> If they have got money and are prepared to pay - yes.


    >>More brain damage? If they had money and were prepared to
    >>pay, why would they take physical copies from shops? Can you
    >>explain that or is that just you being contrary?


    > The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can
    > afford to pay for it but are determined not to.


    Which evidence?

    Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
    (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
    more than average on music.

    Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
    books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
    the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
    and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
    #11).

    Where's youre evidence?


    >>> If they can't sell
    >>> copies because people have ripped them off then they will pay the
    >>> original copyright holders less. But I'm sure you know that.


    >>Please find your way to the Baen Free Libary and read the
    >>Prime Palaver articles.


    It seems you haven't found the way yet, even though it's just
    a google away. Here's one for you:
    http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp

    No more excuses now. Go read.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 10, 2012
  12. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:00:54 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    > >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    >
    >
    > >>>> Most people are decent. If they

    >
    > >>>>want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,

    >
    > >>>>they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay

    >
    > >>>>and don't get stones laid in their way there.

    >
    >
    >
    > >>> And if they haven't already ripped off a copy.

    >
    >
    >
    > >>If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with

    >
    > > the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died

    >
    > > recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how

    >
    > > I feel about ripping off.

    >
    >
    >
    > So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    >
    > You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    >
    > for that old version.
    >
    >
    >
    > Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
    >
    > you STOLE from Adobe.


    Is that really true as the word stole can't be applied to IP.
    he can't have stolen it as it was given to him too.



    > And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
    >
    > since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


    He didn;t rip off the copy.




    >
    >
    >
    > Bach is a superstar.


    Sebastian's a superstar :-0



    >
    > > The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can

    >
    > > afford to pay for it but are determined not to.

    >
    >
    >
    > Which evidence?


    Yes I'd like to see that evidence, not the stories or the fertile imagination of the music or software industry but real evidence.



    > Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
    >
    > (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
    >
    > more than average on music.
    >
    >
    >
    > Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
    >
    > books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
    >
    > the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
    >
    > and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
    >
    > #11).
    >
    >
    >
    > Where's youre evidence?
    >



    The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 11, 2012
  13. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:20:25 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:


    >>>>> One reason is that digital copying is much easier and the effort
    >>>>> required is much less. One can quickly do the deed and then pat your
    >>>>> concience on the head telling it that you haven't done anything of
    >>>>> significance.


    >>>>The significance IS the work needed.


    >>> So it's OK to burgle your house as long as the burglar doesn't raise a
    >>> sweat in the process. I think not.


    >>If someone burgles my bicycle, I don't have any and have to walk.
    >>If someone COPIES my bicycle, I STILL have mine and will ride it.


    > Actually, I've got this bicycle shop and there is a guy outside the
    > door who has a machine which copies the bikes in my window and he
    > gives them away for free.


    What's your address? I want to shake the hands of the guy
    outside who managed to win several Nobel prices upending all
    of our physics, singlehandedly solving the problem of free,
    clean energy for everyone, teaching us how to transmute atoms at
    will and form them into any possible shape, near instantly ---
    thus solving world hunger (just transform atoms into food),
    nature catastophy help (just transform the atoms into houses,
    new roads, phone lines, or whatever is needed), solving the
    problem of limited parking space (just transform your car into
    air or something small and compact --- and transform it back
    again when you need it), solving the problem of pollution
    (just transform the pollution into inert or useful stuff),
    solving worldwide access to clean water everywhere (even in
    the driest desert: just transform some sand into a bottle
    full of good water --- or a full luxury meal with fine wine
    in a clima controlled restaurant (minus patrons and personal
    outside yourself)), solving all poverty (just transform air
    or ground into whatever you want right now) --- and thereby
    instantly solving (almost) all problems of theft or other
    property crimes (people who are mentally ill and steal because
    of that exempted), solve all and any oil crisis (transmute water
    or air or rocks to fuel), freeing everyone from drudgery and
    jobs where little creativity is needed, and so on and so on.
    Never mind opening the solar system for easy travel and easy
    colonization of the Moon (transform the regolith to air and
    water and shelters and food) and Mars (send in a couple of
    machines --- powering the rocket on the way --- in 15 days
    on a fuel saving 0.01g brachistochrone course, landing and
    starting to transform the Martian soil to more such machines
    and transporters for them, which then in a couple months are
    everywhere over the planet and create a breathable athmosphere,
    while the new settlers (on more zero-cost-per-unit rockets
    and fuel come in at a 1g brachistochrone transfer in 4 days.))

    And all YOU do is "whine whine he's giving away bicycles
    whine whine in front of my bicycle shop whine whine we need
    him stopped whine my outdated business model must be protected
    whine whine he's a thief, a pirate whine whine".

    So where's your bicycle shop?


    I guess your kind was the same that made laws so that at least
    one person had to walk or run in front of an autombile waving
    a flag to warn everyone ... because otherwise buggy whip makers
    might suffer.


    >>See any difference?


    >>(Of course you cannot admit there is one. Because you would
    >>then have to admit that your "burgle" example has been dragged
    >>in by the hair.)


    > And you have twisted it away from the actual line of argument.


    Your actual line of argument, which insists that there is no
    difference between physical objects and information, and that
    copying is theft (it's not, just like libel isn't slander).


    >>>>I can download Debian easily, put it on a couple sticks and
    >>>>share them with my friends and neighbours. The only significant
    >>>>parts are
    >>>>a) I share something and thereby help my friends and neighbours
    >>>>b) I probably want the sticks back


    >>>>Now compare that to, say, a functionally equivalent Windows.
    >>>>Not only do I need to spend months finding all the software
    >>>>to get the function I got out of the box (and some of the
    >>>>functionality isn't even available[1]), I also need to spend
    >>>>tens of thousands of USD on software. Then I need to have
    >>>>lots of CDs and key codes and so on.


    >>>>Installing the whole mess is lots of work (instead of just
    >>>>choosing the packages and letting the computer do all the
    >>>>work while I'm away from it). And it doesn't update itself
    >>>>automatically, only a few parts do.


    >>>>Oh, and I'm not allowed to share. And even if I were, there
    >>>>are lots of technical barriers.


    >>>>Now, tell me, what is the significance of THAT?


    >>> Rather than do it the easy way but which costs you money, you would
    >>> rather go out and steal.


    >>Do you have to work hard to find such completely idiotic and
    >>wrong interpretations, or are you just naturally blonde?


    >>>>And tell me a society that makes it artifically hard to help
    >>>>your friends and neighbours (and thinks the profits of a
    >>>>convicted monopolist more important) is on the right way.


    >>> Nothing to do with convicted monopolists.


    >>So microsoft was never in court and judged guilty for that
    >>crime? Even if all they got was a slap on the wrist as
    >>punishment?


    > I'm saying the fundamental question of theft of intellectual property
    > has nothing to do with anyone being convicted as a monopolist.


    What's fundamental about the simple fact you have to remove
    the last copy an entity owns to perform something similar to
    a theft[1] of intellectual property?

    As to your poor bicycle shop: You loosing money because someone
    can produce bicycles for much cheaper than you can is not
    theft either. Even if they build identical copies.

    >>> You would be quite happy to
    >>> steal from a totally blameless person.


    >>And the Earth *is* flat and I killed Kennedy *and* Genghis
    >>Khan, too.


    >>>>>>So to solve the problems associated with copyright, we
    >>>>>>first should strive towards a transparent government that is
    >>>>>>able to draft sensible laws and only then can we expect people
    >>>>>>to take such laws seriously.


    >>>>> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they
    >>>>> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.


    >>>>Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?


    >>> They lose sum or all of the value of the intillectual property.


    >>Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?


    >>Or can you point me to where the law says "Theft is ... the
    >>copying of intellectual property"?


    I notice your silence. Stunning.


    >>>>[1] Try to get Windows to understand sloppy focus (i.e. the
    >>>> window last touched by the mouse is active) *and* not to
    >>>> raise the active window.


    >>> The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but that
    >>> you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely
    >>> honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is.


    >>The manner in which you try your hand in character assassination
    >>tells me that you are either too stupid to know what you are
    >>doing, or you know fully well that you have lost the argument
    >>and resort to beating the messenger to a virtual pulp to save
    >>your hide.


    > It's not character assassination by me. Your arguments speak for
    > themselves.


    What my arguments speak is something completely different from
    what you want them to say.


    >>The way in which you avoid answering questions when the answer
    >>is bad for you rules out the "too stupid" part.


    >>Which means that --- I am sorry to say that --- you are
    >>intellectual dishonest and should pursue a career where lying
    >>and sidestepping reality and attacking everyone who challenges
    >>you is an advantage. Extremist politican, terrorist ("We had
    >>to kill them, it's your fault for not doing as we ordered you
    >>to") or war crimes apologist come to mind.


    > A freedom fighter I see.


    Nope. Just someone who's looking through your rethoric and
    lies (you might have a bicycle shop --- but I doubt it --- and
    there ISN'T someone copying your bikes for free. The latter
    is not simply doable with our technology. That you feel the
    need to invent the impossible[2] ... well, your arguments
    speak for themselves.


    -Wolfgang

    [1] in as much as then the taker has an embodyment of the
    intellectual property and the takee doesn't have one.

    [2] and very badly. An SF writer would have seen implications.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  14. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>> The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but that
    >>> you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely
    >>> honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is.


    >>The manner in which you try your hand in character assassination
    >>tells me that you are either too stupid to know what you are
    >>doing, or you know fully well that you have lost the argument
    >>and resort to beating the messenger to a virtual pulp to save
    >>your hide.


    > What I wrote wasn't character assassination. It was an opinion reached
    > on the basis of your own words.


    In the same way in which hate mongers preaching that God wants
    all others but their own sect dead use the Bible or the Quran
    as the basis.

    > Irrespective of the words used, the
    > argument all along has been about the unauthorized copying of
    > intellectual property. It doesn't matter whether it is music or a book
    > The law gives the creator the right to control the use of their own
    > work (intellectual property).


    What argument? That's not an argument but a statement of facts.
    One of the arguments is whether the current parameters of
    these laws are good for society as they are.


    > They are entitled to limit the number of people who have access to the
    > work,


    No, they are not, not after the first sale.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

    One copy is all that is needed, it just needs to be passed
    along a lot.

    > they can license the use of a specified number of copies under
    > specific terms of their choice,


    They can try.
    Try licensing a physical book that way.
    Try licensing a music sheet that way.
    Those were your examples: a book and music.


    > they can sell the rights to control
    > the use of the intellectual property to others etc.


    And?

    > At the root of the argument is the fact that unauthorized copying
    > causes the creator to lose control of the use of their property.

    ^
    intellectual

    A sale also causes the creator to lose control of the use of
    their INTELLECTUAL property.

    > That's what copyright is all about: control of the use of the
    > property. I am sure you understand this.

    ^
    intellectual

    Nope, that's not what copyright is all about.

    Copyright is all about maximising the works available to the
    public --- for which purpose a limited monopoly is granted.


    > You are a strong advocate of the unauthorized copying of intellectual
    > copying.


    If you really, honestly think that, I question your ability to
    impartially read what other write when they disagree with you.

    But I don't think you could be that dense.

    > You have consistently avoided the problems caused to the
    > creator by the loss of control of their intellectual property by
    > arguing:


    > 1. It's only copying, you haven't deprived the creator of the
    > intellectual property or its use.


    And that's a fact.

    It does however hurt artifical scarity and prices seen as
    unfair by the broad public --- which one could claim is harmful
    to society.

    > 2. You determinedly ignore the loss of opportunity cost and argue
    > that copying does no harm.


    Where would I have claimed that? I've claimed that a copyright
    over the current period of time causes loss and cost to the
    public in a bad relation to the wins of a few.

    I also claim that trivial patents --- as they are extremely
    common these days --- cause extremely high costs and hinders
    innovation instead of promoting it.


    > 3. You argue that the creator has already been ripped off by the fat
    > cats of the record companies so the damage to them might be a form of
    > social reparation.


    I am saying that in the case of record companies --- one of
    the parties really screaming bloody murder regarding illegal
    copying --- do in no way fight "for the artists" as they claim,
    but rip them off whereever they can. True. But where did
    you get the "so" part? Please show me where I said that, or
    stop smoking whatever you are smoking!


    > 4. You argue that the creators obtain the benefits from a wider
    > dissemination of their work as a result of unauthorized copying.


    I argue --- and point to the numbers --- that prove that (given
    quality works) wider dissemination does cause people to get
    interested and buy, which otherwise would not have done that,
    causing an overall win.

    I don't argue that that has to be by unauthorized copying,
    in fact, my main example uses completely authorized copying.


    > ... and similar arguments. None of these arguments can be regarded as
    > honest


    read: You found that I have real numbers from real people living
    by their creativity and have nothing at all to counter them,
    so you go ad hominem.


    > and your persistent use of them paints an unfortunate picture
    > of your personal ethics.


    You probably cannot comprehend that one can argue for a change
    of laws without breaking the very same laws one wants changed.

    Or do you understand that and therefore like your character
    assassination? Demonizing people thinking or being differently
    from one is a tactic extremists, racists, tyrants and terrorists
    of all kinds like.

    Either way: you're either too stupid or evil, and neither
    paints a fortunate picture of your character.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  15. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>>> Most people are decent. If they
    >>>>>>want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,
    >>>>>>they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay
    >>>>>>and don't get stones laid in their way there.


    >>>>> And if they haven't already ripped off a copy.


    >>>>If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily.


    >>> Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with
    >>> the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died
    >>> recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how
    >>> I feel about ripping off.


    >>So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    >>You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    >>for that old version.


    > I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
    > tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics.


    So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
    theoretically punch your face?

    > I kept it around so
    > I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
    > explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".


    *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
    upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
    face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
    control freak.


    >>Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
    >>you STOLE from Adobe. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
    >>since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


    > I didn't steal. I received a copy of stolen intellectual property.


    A receiver of stolen goods is also a thief and worse than a
    thief, for they form the financial basis of theft.

    > You
    > almost got it right.


    Just aping your logic, thief.

    > Having that copy in my possession put Adobe at
    > risk of never selling me CS2. :)


    Yep. It absolutely was a lost sale for Adobe.


    > In fact Adobe puts themselves at risk of never having me as a customer
    > by their pricing policy, but that's a different matter.


    And you're stealing from Adobe again, by not buying for the
    price they're asking.


    >>>>>>people not wanting to buy, but people not knowing there exists
    >>>>>>something they'd want to buy. A free sample, a test drive,
    >>>>>>so to say, is an effective way of finding out if the pig in a
    >>>>>>poke is actually something they'd enjoy. Paying 20 bucks on
    >>>>>>the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    >>>>>>joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    >>>>>>quite different ....


    >>>>> Yeah, people buy music they have never heard all the time.


    >>>>Yes, they just walk into a CD shop and grab a bunch of CDs at
    >>>>random, hoping they'll like 1 or maybe 2 of the whole bunch.


    >>> You are taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I've stopped buying
    >>> recently but I used to regularly go in and buy music by composer even
    >>> though I had never heard it.


    >>OK, so now you're cutting down your own straw man ...
    >>... let me quote the original:
    >>| Paying 20 bucks on
    >>| the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    >>| joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    >>| quite different ....


    >>See ... you admit you were buying by group (or composer), not
    >>randomly.


    > You are confused. Those are your own words you were quoting.


    I am confused: What is your point? Do you agree that a "test
    drive" of some group or composer's work is valuable when you
    don't know them, or not?


    >>>>> If
    >>>>> something new comes on the radio they close their ears so they don't
    >>>>> have a chance to decide whether or not they want it.


    >>>>You really must feel clever, reducing music to the top 40 pops,
    >>>>top 40 Country and top 40 Rock-n-Roll. When was the last
    >>>>time you heard Gregorian Chants on radio? Or Early Music?


    >>> 7:10 am this morning, I woke up to a choral by one of the lesser Bachs
    >>> (I can't quite remember each one). We do have a 'Concert Program' in
    >>> this part of the world.


    >>Bach is a superstar.
    >>So which one of the ones named here
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_composers_by_era
    >>did you hear this year on your concert program?


    > Not that many.


    See?

    >>How many of
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medieval_composers
    >>have you ever heard on radio?


    > Certainly Hildegard of Bingen, Bernard of Cluny, Albertus Parisiensis,
    > Chrétien de Troyes among others.


    4 out of 198 (unless I miscounted).

    "If something new comes on the radio they close their ears so
    they don't have a chance to decide whether or not they want it."
    said you. Well, there's not much need to close ones ears if
    most of the stuff never even comes on non-mainstream radio.

    And the situation is much worse with contemporary bands.
    You probably couldn't find all the bands in the surroundings
    of the next large city, never mind hearing them or their music.


    >>>>>>Do you really want them as your customers?


    >>>>> If they have got money and are prepared to pay - yes.


    >>>>More brain damage? If they had money and were prepared to
    >>>>pay, why would they take physical copies from shops? Can you
    >>>>explain that or is that just you being contrary?


    >>> The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can
    >>> afford to pay for it but are determined not to.


    >>Which evidence?


    > Well, this discussion for a start.


    Where exactly?

    And don't dare to point at me: I don't download music unless
    it's been put up with consent from the copyright holder for
    that express purpose.


    So: where is your "many/most" evidence?

    >>Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
    >>(i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
    >>more than average on music.


    > Which evidence?


    For example here:
    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-243463.html

    See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Promotional_power


    >>Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
    >>books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
    >>the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
    >>and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
    >>#11).


    >>Where's youre evidence?


    > Same place as yours.


    http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp

    Your URL please?


    >>>>> If they can't sell
    >>>>> copies because people have ripped them off then they will pay the
    >>>>> original copyright holders less. But I'm sure you know that.


    >>>>Please find your way to the Baen Free Libary and read the
    >>>>Prime Palaver articles.


    >>It seems you haven't found the way yet, even though it's just
    >>a google away. Here's one for you:
    >> http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp


    >>No more excuses now. Go read.


    > Why does he keep using the word 'theft'?


    Is that ALL you have to say? No other comment? Really?

    If you genuinely wonder why an author may choose to use a word
    which, even though technically incorrect, is commonly used by
    those who think different ... send him an email.

    If you honestly declare you're too stupid to differenciate
    between a very specifc crime of a certain name and something
    else, namely illegal copying, I'll use the word as well.
    Wouldn't what to overtax your brain.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  16. Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:00:54 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> >>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >> >>>> Most people are decent. If they
    >> >>>>want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,
    >> >>>>they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay
    >> >>>>and don't get stones laid in their way there.
    >> >>> And if they haven't already ripped off a copy.
    >> >>If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily.


    >> > Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with
    >> > the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died
    >> > recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how
    >> > I feel about ripping off.


    >> So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    >> You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    >> for that old version.
    >> Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
    >> you STOLE from Adobe.


    > Is that really true as the word stole can't be applied to IP.


    Eric doesn't believe in that.

    > he can't have stolen it as it was given to him too.


    A fence is just as bad as a thief.


    >> And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
    >> since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.


    > He didn;t rip off the copy.


    He had one, and it was not legal. Ergo: ripped off.


    >> > The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can
    >> > afford to pay for it but are determined not to.


    >> Which evidence?


    > Yes I'd like to see that evidence, not the stories or the fertile imagination of the music or software industry but real evidence.


    Well, maybe some people are barely held in check by the threat
    of punishment and they think everyone is that way.

    Or maybe they are paranoid and think everyone but themselves
    is evil.

    Would that count as evidence?


    >> Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
    >> (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
    >> more than average on music.
    >> Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
    >> books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
    >> the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
    >> and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave
    >> #11).


    >> Where's youre evidence?


    > The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.


    Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and
    therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  17. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:00:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>> The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.


    >>Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and
    >>therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off.


    > I would never claim "every copy" is a lost sale but the industry
    > argument is that a significant proportion of them are.


    "significant" is such a ... variable word. As seen by the
    last Space Shuttle disaster, it can mean --- on the very same
    powerpoint slide! --- "just measurable, no ill effect at all"
    and "everybody dies". (Look up the statistical meaning of
    significant.)

    I guess there are a few sales that are lost and they probably
    could be measured[1]. I also guess that there is a siginificant
    number of sales which were only made because of the copy.
    Which people arguing for "lost sales" conveniently tend to
    forget in public.

    In fact, every company that offers student and education
    versions and/or pricing is voluntarily losing part of a sale
    (namely the difference to the full price) on the recognition
    that students one day earn income and, once used to or addicted
    to a product (say Windows) will continue to buy the product or
    it's replacements and on the recognition that students often
    aren't rich and therefore the full price would mean a fully
    lost sale as well.


    > What's more
    > they have produced evidence to support that argument.


    see [1]. What evidence did they produce that does not
    immediately fail with glaring obvious mistakes to anyone
    skilled in the art of economics and statistics?
    Name URLs.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] Not that e.g. the music industry who always flogs that horse
    ever seriously did. Assuming an economic downturn does not
    affect CD sales is pretty stupid even for them. But maybe
    they did and on purpose never admitted the real effect ...
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  18. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    >>>>You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    >>>>for that old version.


    >>> I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
    >>> tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics.


    >>So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
    >>theoretically punch your face?


    > We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of
    > CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and
    > why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him.


    So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently
    isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it.

    > In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either
    > personally or for a long time.


    So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you
    receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word,
    but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who
    disagrees with you might do the same ....

    THAT casts an interesting light on your morality.

    We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their
    own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that
    person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware
    if the opposition does something not *fully* right ...

    .... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard
    that's being applied, and rightly so.

    > I have no hesitation in telling you my
    > analysis of what you have said to me.


    And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments.
    Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that.


    > As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a
    > logical argument.


    Your characterisation of me is not an argument.
    You might think the path to that characterization "logical",
    but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken".

    > I presume you desire to punch me


    See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such
    a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave
    the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone
    taking offense in a way that hurt you directly.

    > comes from me
    > saying to you:


    > "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but

    ^^^^^^^^
    > that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not
    > entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it
    > is."


    > Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of
    > arguing leaves the impression

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question.

    At least you got that your characterization might be considered
    offensive by some recipients.

    > that you are not entirely honest or
    > trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your

    ^^^^^^^^
    I *think* it's backpaddeling.

    > fists.




    >>> I kept it around so
    >>> I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
    >>> explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".


    >>*rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
    >>upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
    >>face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
    >>control freak.


    > I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to
    > wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen.


    You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a
    lot ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 20, 2012
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:42:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>>>So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    >>>>>>You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    >>>>>>for that old version.


    >>>>> I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
    >>>>> tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics.


    >>>>So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
    >>>>theoretically punch your face?


    >>> We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of
    >>> CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and
    >>> why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him.


    >>So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently
    >>isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it.


    No comment?


    >>> In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either
    >>> personally or for a long time.


    >>So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you
    >>receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word,
    >>but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who
    >>disagrees with you might do the same ....


    > The copying had already been done and the chain of events stopped with
    > me.


    You did nothing to undo the untold damage (just look at what
    a single song costs when copied, and you get them at less than
    a dollar! Compare that to the damages awarded. Compare that
    to the retail price of a full Photoshop. Connect the dots.).

    > My criticism of you is based not on my suspicions but on your own
    > words.


    The same way that killing people who don't convert to their
    religion is based on the holy books by fanatists: sloppy, willfully
    misreading and ignoring what doesn't fit the preconceived results.


    >>THAT casts an interesting light on your morality.


    >>We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their
    >>own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that
    >>person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware
    >>if the opposition does something not *fully* right ...


    >>... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard
    >>that's being applied, and rightly so.


    No comment? Well, at least you seem to have the sense to
    stop digging sometimes.

    >>> I have no hesitation in telling you my
    >>> analysis of what you have said to me.


    >>And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments.
    >>Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that.


    > Of course I dislike your arguments in this case: they are dishonest


    So for you arguments are people, have morality, etc. instead of
    having some truth or not and being logically correct or incorrect,
    supporting or not supporting some position?

    > and I have told you so to your face.>


    When did we meet where, then?
    Perhaps you did tell my arguments when they were displayed on
    your screen ...


    >>> As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a
    >>> logical argument.


    >>Your characterisation of me is not an argument.
    >>You might think the path to that characterization "logical",
    >>but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken".


    > You laid the path.


    As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water ...

    You need to *follow* the path, not stumble off it after a few
    steps and run off in circles. I've done my part, more than that.
    Now it's your job.


    >>> I presume you desire to punch me


    >>See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such
    >>a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave
    >>the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone
    >>taking offense in a way that hurt you directly.


    > If you felt no urge to punch me, why did you raise the question?


    To test a hypothesis. Which turned out to be true.

    Seeing you jump from a hypothetical possibility to a desire is
    merely a bonus, and a nice insight into your psyche.


    >>> comes from me
    >>> saying to you:


    >>> "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but

    >> ^^^^^^^^
    >>> that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not
    >>> entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it
    >>> is."


    >>> Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of
    >>> arguing leaves the impression

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question.


    >>At least you got that your characterization might be considered
    >>offensive by some recipients.


    > I knew damned well you wouldn't like it.


    Let's play Eric: "I presume you are itching for a beating".

    > But neither did the burglar
    > when I told him to stop trying to break into my house.


    You objected to him copying your CD collection and you sued
    him on the wear and tear of your CDs and CD cases.


    >>> that you are not entirely honest or
    >>> trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your

    >> ^^^^^^^^
    >>I *think* it's backpaddeling.


    > What you think doesn't matter.


    So why do you spill your tinking all over the place, even
    after being repeatedly told you're wrong? Who died and made
    *you* king?

    BTW: thanks for telling me I'm on the right track. It *is*
    backpaddeling.

    >>>>> I kept it around so
    >>>>> I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
    >>>>> explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".


    >>>>*rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
    >>>>upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
    >>>>face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
    >>>>control freak.


    >>> I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to
    >>> wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen.


    >>You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a
    >>lot ...

    > --


    > Regards,


    Liar.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 27, 2012
    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:
    838
    |{evin
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. slylittlei

    Potentially funny...

    slylittlei, May 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    529
    Juan Pérez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    547
    Michael S. Cooper
    Nov 8, 2003
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,184
    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:
    772
    RichA
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page