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

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

  1. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > Whisky-dave 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.

    >
    > This type of compulsory licensing is already in place for cover versions of
    > songs, which is why so many people cover songs written by others. It works
    > just fine.


    Not at all clear on that. Musicians at all levels are pretty displeased
    with the system, and it's blocking use of music in a lot of cases due to
    the size of the ASCAP fees.
    --
    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
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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.

    That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone
    who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based
    on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out. You
    can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at
    the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author
    can apply to libraries for a paycheck. You can borrow
    a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was
    worth buying a copy, and *if* that copy isn't already on
    loan. Then you have to bring that book back without
    keeping a copy.

    In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think
    anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material
    legally and don't make further copies.


    | 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..),

    That's an interesting idea, though it's hard to translate
    it to different countries. I saw a TV show once about how
    in the Netherlands you can claim to be an artist and get
    supported. They showed warehouses full of paintings that
    the government had bought from painters as a kind of
    welfare payment. Maybe that's where your "information
    tax" is going: To put failed painters on the gov't payroll.
    (We have a saying in the US: "Nice work if you can get it.")

    You're not paying people outside the Netherlands with your
    "art tax", but I suppose that as long as you're only copying
    those paintings in Dutch warehouses, or playing songs
    by failed Dutch musicians, then you do have a right to take
    them. :)
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mayayana" <> 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?
    > |
    >
    > 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.


    Well, I might agree about the definition -- but it doesn't matter. I
    *want* people to continue producing the type of entertainment I enjoy!
    And most of them won't if they don't get paid.

    > 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?


    They *do* deserve to make millions of dollars, in the only way such a
    question is meaningful: the path from the audience enjoying the
    performance, to the money leaving the audience's pocket, is about as
    short and direct as it ever gets.

    Society would not suffer much without them, I don't think. But society
    *would* suffer, terribly, if it were structured so people like us got to
    make that decision *for others*.

    > 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.


    The trouble with this is that defining "art" and distinguishing it is
    completely hopeless.

    The other problem is that it's actually the "entertainment" category I
    really care about.
    --
    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
    #23
  4. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 2:11 AM, 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?
    >



    He forgets that the key to file sharing is that the first person
    posting, must have the right to share it.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 15, 2012
    #24
  5. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >


    So stealing from a corporation is OK?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 15, 2012
    #25
  6. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:14:26 PM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > sobriquet <> writes:
    > > "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)?


    Well, they already have such a system where I live in the Netherlands.
    But I suspect there is a lot of room for improvement and it is likely
    to work better when it's done on a global scale.
    But like other people have mentioned, there are technological
    solutions, like bots that traverse the internet and do pattern
    recognition to detect the nature of content and statistically
    monitor the relative popularity of certain creations, but there should
    probably be a kind of international institution that keeps track of who
    contributed to any particular creation.

    I might as well ask the proponents of traditional interpretations
    of intellectual property how one is supposed to assess who exactly
    owns the rights to impose a monopoly on the distribution or reproduction
    of any particular bitstring, as people can easily modify such
    bitstrings (change the included information about the associated
    license or whatever) before redistributing them online.

    >
    > --
    >
    > 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
    #26
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:19:18 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    > That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone
    >
    > who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based
    >
    > on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out. You
    >
    > can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at
    >
    > the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author
    >
    > can apply to libraries for a paycheck. You can borrow
    >
    > a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was
    >
    > worth buying a copy, and *if* that copy isn't already on
    >
    > loan. Then you have to bring that book back without
    >
    > keeping a copy.
    >
    >
    >
    > In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think
    >
    > anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material
    >
    > legally and don't make further copies.



    They offer free access to information, similar to how people can
    download information for free online.
    If I want to read a book, I have a number of options. I can buy
    the book at a bookstore and then I pay for the book. I can go to
    the library and read the book there for free. I can also go
    online and download that book for free in digital form from
    a p2p network.

    Whether I access the content of that book for free by
    reading it at the library or downloading a copy from a
    p2p network, in both cases I'm accessing the content of
    the book without directly paying the author of that book
    and yet in both cases it would be legal (at least in the
    Netherlands where I live).

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > | 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..),
    >
    >
    >
    > That's an interesting idea, though it's hard to translate
    >
    > it to different countries. I saw a TV show once about how
    >
    > in the Netherlands you can claim to be an artist and get
    >
    > supported. They showed warehouses full of paintings that
    >
    > the government had bought from painters as a kind of
    >
    > welfare payment. Maybe that's where your "information
    >
    > tax" is going: To put failed painters on the gov't payroll.
    >
    > (We have a saying in the US: "Nice work if you can get it.")
    >
    >
    >
    > You're not paying people outside the Netherlands with your
    >
    > "art tax", but I suppose that as long as you're only copying
    >
    > those paintings in Dutch warehouses, or playing songs
    >
    > by failed Dutch musicians, then you do have a right to take
    >
    > them. :)


    Actually, I can download just about any content online for
    personal use, regardless of where it originated.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #27
  8. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:29:26 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    >[..]
    > You sir, remain a thief at heart, and continue to rationalize your
    > criminal intent.
    >[..]


    That sums up your misguided position. Fine. As far as I'm
    concerned, you are a nazi who advocates a fascistic and
    unrealistic interpretation of intellectual property.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #28
  9. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > So stealing from a corporation is OK?
    >


    Corporations are the real criminals, because they abuse their
    influence on the government to subvert laws and regulations
    to suit their interests, at the expense of the rights of
    individual people (regardless whether they are creative or
    not).

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Peter
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #29
  10. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > ...Do those people really deserve to
    | > make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?
    |
    | They *do* deserve to make millions of dollars, in the only way such a
    | question is meaningful: the path from the audience enjoying the
    | performance, to the money leaving the audience's pocket, is about as
    | short and direct as it ever gets.

    Copyright law is premised on the idea that creative
    output serves society, therefore people who do it need
    to get some compensation. Their compensation will
    depend on the terms and duration of copyright protection.
    So the artistic value of a work *is* meaningful in deciding
    whether someone deserves to make millions, from society's
    point of view.

    | Society would not suffer much without them, I don't think. But society
    | *would* suffer, terribly, if it were structured so people like us got to
    | make that decision *for others*.
    |

    Disney managed to get a big extension of copyright
    duration, simply because they had the money and lobbyists
    to buy the vote. So there are already people making these
    decisions for others.

    I'm not saying rock stars and such should be blocked
    from such high profits. I'm just pointing out that the whole
    system has problems and there's dishonesty on both sides.
    We ask teenagers to be honest and pay for their music, yet
    low quality digital versions that are essentially rented
    cost as much per song as CD recordings. And they have
    to pay upward of $100 to see their favorite music stars
    on a giant TV in a stadium, because they're too far away
    from the performance to actually see the musicians
    themselves! It's their choice to pay those fees, but given
    that situation I don't have much sympathy for the so-called
    "artists" and their corporate handlers. The kids are being
    taught that exploiting others in any way you can is smart
    business. So they exploit the exploiters.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #30
  11. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:35:11 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>

    This kind of thinking, the above is somehow wrong, somewhat baffles
    me. That software engineer was paid for his services and agreed to
    perform those services when he took the job.

    If the software engineer was capable of designing software that would
    bring in millions, but was not capable of starting his own company to
    sell that software for millions, whose fault is that?

    The company that hired the software engineer most probably hired other
    software engineers, maybe even this one, that were unable to develop
    successful software applications. The company still paid them despite
    losing money by doing so.

    I have an acquaintance who has worked for a company for over twenty
    years. He designed a product two years ago that was patented and
    licensed. My acquaintance's employment contract requires that all
    patent rights be assigned to the company if the product is developed
    as a result of the employment.

    My acquaintance is very bitter that he was not rewarded for the
    development of the product. He doesn't see that the company provided
    him with a very good job with very good benefits for the 18 years
    prior to this development.





    >So stealing from a corporation is OK?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2012
    #31
  12. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:57:54 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:16:27 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > If you try doing that with a book you will find you are in real
    >
    > trouble.


    You've got to be joking. It seems you're some kind of computer
    illiterate person or something.
    I can assure you that books in digital form (ebooks or audiobooks) are
    shared and exchanged on p2p networks just as easily as music,
    software, video, etc..

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #32
  13. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:56:00 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:22:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > >> So stealing from a corporation is OK?

    >
    > >Corporations are the real criminals, because they abuse their

    >
    > >influence on the government to subvert laws and regulations

    >
    > >to suit their interests, at the expense of the rights of

    >
    > >individual people (regardless whether they are creative or

    >
    > >not).

    >
    >
    >
    > "individual people" also have the ability "to subvert laws and
    >
    > regulations to suit their interests", whether illegally or through the
    >
    > ballot box. If an individual finds they don't have enough clout on
    >
    > their own they can always gang up with others and form a corporation
    >
    > or even a political party.
    >
    > --
    >


    Sure, they can even take over an entire country and start
    exterminating 'unwanted' minorities on an industrial scale,
    as we've seen in former Nazi Germany. But my point was that
    we need a government that is a neutral institution that
    guarantees human rights, rather than violating human rights.

    Why the **** do we have a government anyway? Isn't that to ensure
    that it's not just a matter of who has more power, money or weapons
    so they get to impose their will on others?


    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #33
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:17:02 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-15 12:16:51 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:29:26 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >> [..]

    >
    > >> You sir, remain a thief at heart, and continue to rationalize your

    >
    > >> criminal intent.

    >
    > >> [..]

    >
    > >

    >
    > > That sums up your misguided position. Fine. As far as I'm

    >
    > > concerned, you are a nazi who advocates a fascistic and

    >
    > > unrealistic interpretation of intellectual property.

    >
    >
    >
    > Well it seems to be time to invoke "Godwin's Law".
    >
    >
    >
    > ...and you living in a country which has suffered under nazi
    >
    > occupation, has had its share of nazi collaborators, and it continues
    >
    > with contemporary nazi political groups such as the NVU, seem to be
    >
    > ignorant of just what nazi philosophy represents.
    >
    >
    >
    > I sir, am not remotely close to accepting the label "nazi" and you also
    >
    > seem to be ignorant of the true meaning of the term "fascistic". Most
    >
    > importantly, regardless of your inconsequential thoughts, I am not
    >
    > misguided about much.
    >
    >
    >
    > BTW: Have you considered getting a job so you can actually buy these
    >
    > things you desire so much?
    >
    > ...or do you prefer to remain a freeloader?
    >


    The real freeloaders are the corporate criminals responsible for
    all that intellectual property nonsense.
    You're obviously clueless about the nature of information
    technology.

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #34
  15. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:46:49 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-15 14:36:42 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    > >

    >
    > > Sure, they can even take over an entire country and start

    >
    > > exterminating 'unwanted' minorities on an industrial scale,

    >
    > > as we've seen in former Nazi Germany. But my point was that

    >
    > > we need a government that is a neutral institution that

    >
    > > guarantees human rights, rather than violating human rights.

    >
    >
    >
    > Oh! like the right to demand royalties for the use or sale of
    >
    > intellectual property such as recorded music, original movies,
    >
    > software, ...?
    >


    Such economic considerations take a back seat compared to more
    fundamental human rights, like the freedom to share information.

    I'm not necessarily against rights associated with creativity/innovation,
    but such rights can never detract from more fundamental human rights
    like the freedom to share information.
    There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we can only have financial
    incentives to create new content, provided that authors/creators get
    to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of their
    creations.

    >
    >
    > > Why the **** do we have a government anyway? Isn't that to ensure

    >
    > > that it's not just a matter of who has more power, money or weapons

    >
    > > so they get to impose their will on others?

    >
    >
    >
    > OK! I get it! You are actually a self professed anarchist.
    >


    Sure, I'm an anarchist, but I'm not necessarily opposed to having a
    government as a temporary solution in the transition towards a society
    where people take full responsibility for their actions and have acquired
    a sufficient level of education which ensures they can enjoy
    freedom while respecting the freedom of others.

    So ultimately, only a government that strives to make itself
    redundant by emancipating its citizens would be acceptable for me.

    But my point was that we don't really need a government when
    it's just a fake government as a store-front to confuse people
    about the fact that corporations are calling the shots behind
    the scenes.

    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #35
  16. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think
    | > anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material
    | > legally and don't make further copies.
    |
    | But they are allowed to loan these materials out, whereas ordinary people
    are
    | not. It's a gray area.

    ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
    DVDs as much as they like. According to the law you
    can do anything but make a copy. But it's true that
    some ebooks, software and digital music are currently
    cheating the law and getting away with it.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #36
  17. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:02:47 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> This kind of thinking, the above is somehow wrong, somewhat baffles
    >> me. That software engineer was paid for his services and agreed to
    >> perform those services when he took the job.

    >
    >But the work he did was creative work that produced something subject to
    >copyright. Usually, when people do creative work, they retain the copyrights
    >to what they've done, but not in the software industry. Musicians retain their
    >rights even after signing with a label (although this changed briefly, when a
    >change was made to legislation, until musicians found out about it and
    >screamed to have it changed back), but software engineers have no rights after
    >signing with a software company. And this is enshrined in the text of the law.
    >
    >> If the software engineer was capable of designing software that would
    >> bring in millions, but was not capable of starting his own company to
    >> sell that software for millions, whose fault is that?

    >
    >If the musician were capable of writing music that would bring in millions,
    >but were not capable of starting his own company to distribute it, whose fault
    >is that?
    >
    >Why aren't musicians and software engineers treated the same?


    Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

    >> The company that hired the software engineer most probably hired other
    >> software engineers, maybe even this one, that were unable to develop
    >> successful software applications. The company still paid them despite
    >> losing money by doing so.

    >
    >Record labels do the same with musicians. So why are they treated differently?
    >
    >> I have an acquaintance who has worked for a company for over twenty
    >> years. He designed a product two years ago that was patented and
    >> licensed. My acquaintance's employment contract requires that all
    >> patent rights be assigned to the company if the product is developed
    >> as a result of the employment.

    >
    >Yes, that's routine, even if it's not very ethical.


    Of course it's ethical. Anyone can demand an employment contract with
    any provision in it they want. They can demand an employment contract
    that gives the 25% of any license fees or royalties of any product
    they develop on company time using company facilities.

    Of course, the employer's reply to such a demand will be "Send in the
    next applicant".

    >> My acquaintance is very bitter that he was not rewarded for the
    >> development of the product. He doesn't see that the company provided
    >> him with a very good job with very good benefits for the 18 years
    >> prior to this development.

    >
    >That may be only a tiny fraction of the income tha the invention actually
    >generates.


    So what? The company didn't ask for a return of the salary and
    benefit costs for the 18 years when the guy didn't produce a
    money-making design.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 15, 2012
    #37
  18. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 12:32:58 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-15 15:02:01 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:46:49 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2012-11-15 14:36:42 -0800, sobriquet <> said:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> Sure, they can even take over an entire country and start

    >
    > >>> exterminating 'unwanted' minorities on an industrial scale,

    >
    > >>> as we've seen in former Nazi Germany. But my point was that

    >
    > >>> we need a government that is a neutral institution that

    >
    > >>> guarantees human rights, rather than violating human rights.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Oh! like the right to demand royalties for the use or sale of

    >
    > >> intellectual property such as recorded music, original movies,

    >
    > >> software, ...?

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Such economic considerations take a back seat compared to more

    >
    > > fundamental human rights, like the freedom to share information.

    >
    >
    >
    > However you want to define privately & corporate owned intellectual and
    >
    > copyrighted property as public domain "information" which it is not.
    >
    > Not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination is that a valid
    >
    > proposition.
    >


    Not for people who are clueless about information technology like you.

    >
    >
    > > I'm not necessarily against rights associated with creativity/innovation,

    >
    > > but such rights can never detract from more fundamental human rights

    >
    > > like the freedom to share information.

    >
    > > There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we can only have financial

    >
    > > incentives to create new content, provided that authors/creators get

    >
    > > to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of their

    >
    > > creations.

    >
    >
    >
    > You are in fact a hypocrite with an unworkable solution. You have put
    >
    > this argument into play so as to justify your own particular free
    >
    > loading philosophy.
    >


    I've started out participating in this discussion defending that same
    position.

    >
    >
    > >>> Why the **** do we have a government anyway? Isn't that to ensure

    >
    > >>> that it's not just a matter of who has more power, money or weapons

    >
    > >>> so they get to impose their will on others?

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> OK! I get it! You are actually a self professed anarchist.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Sure, I'm an anarchist, but I'm n....

    >
    >
    >
    > Then further debate on this issue is pointless since you are locked
    >
    > into a philosophy without a point of reason or compromise.
    >


    Indeed, it's pointless to discuss the implications of information
    technology with people who are clueless about the nature of information
    technology. Especially in case of clueless people like you who have
    been thoroughly brainwashed by the propaganda of the intellectual
    property mafia.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #38
  19. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 6:11 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > sobriquet writes:
    >
    >> The real freeloaders are the corporate criminals responsible for
    >> all that intellectual property nonsense.

    >
    > Entirely true, unfortunately. The real entities profiting from ever more
    > restrictive copyright legislation are corporate rights holders, such as movie
    > studios and record companies. Very little has changed for individual artists.
    >


    As an artist I am free to do what I want with my work. If I make a deal
    with any corporation, and that company benefits, great. They expect to.
    Otherwise they would not have financed my work.
    I am also free to give it away, or sell it.
    You, OTOH, are not free to use my work without my express written
    permission. What is so difficult to understand about that?
    I may or may not own stock in those corporations you seem to despise. If
    you are planning a pension, your plan and you will benefit from such
    ownership, if the corporations are profitable.
    What is evil, is stealing from those companies.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #39
  20. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 5:58 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> So stealing from a corporation is OK?

    >
    > I fail to see what leads you to this conclusion.
    >


    If you check your attribution, you will see that my one line question is
    directed at you, where you seem to be saying exactly that.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?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:
    822
    |{evin
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. slylittlei

    Potentially funny...

    slylittlei, May 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    513
    Juan PĂ©rez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    531
    Michael S. Cooper
    Nov 8, 2003
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,084
    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:
    745
    RichA
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page