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

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

  1. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 8:46 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

    >
    > It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
    > software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
    > engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
    > of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
    >


    Whoosh!

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 8:48 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > If you needed financing for your work that only they could provide, you could
    > have never signed a deal with anyone.


    Or, if I'm good enough, I can have them bidding against each other for
    my services.


    >
    >> I am also free to give it away, or sell it.

    >
    > Not after you sign with a corporation.
    >
    >> You, OTOH, are not free to use my work without my express written
    >> permission.

    >
    > Sometimes. I can still claim fair use or de minimis in some circumstances, and
    > in some cases you must grant me a license whether you want to or not.
    >

    You may also use it for fair comment. But that is not what I was
    referring to.
    Tell me the circumstances under which I MUST grant a license for my work?
    I am not aware of that provision in law. And give me a specific
    reference, with short explanation.
    --

    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 8:49 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Mayayana writes:
    >
    >> ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
    >> DVDs as much as they like.

    >
    > Not software.
    >
    >> But it's true that
    >> some ebooks, software and digital music are currently
    >> cheating the law and getting away with it.

    >
    > Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they have
    > bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.
    >


    If you have evidence of such bribery, you have a moral obligation to
    bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #43
  4. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:46:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper writes:
    >
    >> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

    >
    >It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
    >software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
    >engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
    >of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.


    Of course. That's why people go into business and start corporations.
    If you had the smarts, you'd do the same thing. If you don't have the
    smarts, you work for someone else and they make the money.


    >> Of course it's ethical. Anyone can demand an employment contract with
    >> any provision in it they want.

    >
    >Such as a provision that prohibits contact with black people, for example? Or
    >a provision that gives the company custody of an employee's first-born child?


    As I said, you can demand anything. That doesn't mean you'll get it.

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

    >
    >Which makes it a contract of adhesion, and thus not always enforceable.


    No it doesn't. One of the elements of a contract is mutual agreement.
    "Send in the next applicant" is a refusal to agree.

    >> 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.

    >
    >18 x $60,000 = $1,080,000
    >2 x $2,000,000 = $4,000,000
    >
    >They don't need a return of 18 years' salary.


    Tough titty even if you didn't include compound interest.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2012
    #44
  5. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:06:22 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/15/2012 8:46 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> tony cooper writes:
    >>
    >>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

    >>
    >> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
    >> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
    >> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
    >> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
    >>

    >
    >Whoosh!


    I'm glad someone "got it".


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2012
    #45
  6. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
    | > DVDs as much as they like.
    |
    | Not software.
    |

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

    The EU recently confirmed First Sale Doctrine for software.
    In the US it's up in the air. The law says you have the rights
    of First Sale, but some software companies have won in
    cases where they've claimed that the software is licensed
    and not sold. That's an example of what I would call cheating
    the law. No one would get away with "licensing" a book to
    skirt FSD, but digital media are a new issue that's not really
    settled. Software companies have a genuine concern, but
    that's no excuse for cheating their customers out of the
    product they've bought. The EU judgement concurs:

    " it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital
    good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale
    doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an
    unlimited amount of time, ..."

    "The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use
    the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical
    difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to
    authorizing resale..."

    In the American corporatocracy we probably can't hope
    for such civilized judgements. The only choice is to refuse
    to enter into such deals, but that's difficult when nearly
    all sources of digital media are running the same scam.
    One would have to give up products from Microsoft and Apple,
    as well as ebooks and digital music. Personally I've never
    considered buying from the latter 3 categories, and
    I don't buy anything more than absolutely necessary from
    Microsoft. But most people haven't even thought about
    this issue, much less resolved to hold out for a fair deal.
    It's hard to lay all blame on the snake oil salesman when
    his income derives from people willingly fooling themselves.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 16, 2012
    #46
  7. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they
    have
    | > bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.
    | >
    |
    | If you have evidence of such bribery, you have a moral obligation to
    | bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
    |

    That's quaint. Lobbying *is* bribery. And it's perfectly
    legal. What authorities are you going to report to?
     
    Mayayana, Nov 16, 2012
    #47
  8. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:45:22 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:29:19 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:
    > >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:
    > >> >
    > >> >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..

    >
    > For your information the word 'book' has referred to a bound
    > collection of paper for about 2000 years. And no, I'm not a computer
    > illiterate. My experience with computers and computer programming goes
    > back to 1961. Were you even born then?


    So your point is what? That people get into real trouble when they try
    to share an ebook via p2p networks?
    You can scan a bound collection on paper to convert it to a
    bitstring (like an ebook in pdf format) and you can print an ebook
    and bind the printed pages to convert it back to a book on paper.
    So I don't see what your point is about the word 'book' referring
    to a bound collection of papers when an ebook boils down to
    the same thing. There is no significant difference between an
    ebook in pdf format you can read on an ereader and the same content
    in a book as a bound collection of papers.
    The only difference is that it's rather cumbersome to convert a
    bound collection of papers to a digital format (compared to ripping
    an audio cd for instance). But your statement about getting into
    real trouble for sharing a book on p2p networks seemed to imply
    you were referring to an ebook, as only books in digital form can
    be shared on p2p networks.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #48
  9. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:13:53 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:02:01 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > But you are not entirely free to share information.


    Perhaps not entirely, but you can't really claim to live in a free
    country if you aren't free to share information.
    Just like you can't really claim to live in a free country when you
    get criminalized or marginalized by your government because of your
    choice of lifestyle (like whether you prefer beer or pot), religious orientation, sexual preference, political conviction, etc..

    >
    > >

    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > Apart from the fact that this is how you feel about it, what is there
    >
    > about sharing information that makes it a fundamental right?
    >


    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

    "Article 19.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

    So this right (freedom of expression) includes the freedom to seek, receive
    and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    That's exactly the right that people who enjoy filesharing exercise. They seek,
    receive and impart information through p2p networks.

    >
    >
    > >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 can always set up a bureaucracy.


    I think we already have a bureaucracy.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > 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,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #49
  10. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:16:28 PM UTC, 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?


    No .

    >
    > 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.


    As far as I know the library buys the book so why should I object to that.
    You're the one that doesn't want libraries to buy books.


    >
    > >

    >
    > > 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.


    Then share your bitstream with me, share your bank accoutn details and any PIN or other bitstream information, you say boitstings are free and can be shared so do it, or is it that it;'s only others that have tto share their bitsrtrweam with you ?
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 16, 2012
    #50
  11. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | >
    | > The EU recently confirmed First Sale Doctrine for software.
    | >In the US it's up in the air. The law says you have the rights
    | >of First Sale, but some software companies have won in
    | >cases where they've claimed that the software is licensed
    | >and not sold. That's an example of what I would call cheating
    | >the law. No one would get away with "licensing" a book to
    | >skirt FSD, but digital media are a new issue that's not really
    | >settled. Software companies have a genuine concern, but
    | >that's no excuse for cheating their customers out of the
    | >product they've bought. The EU judgement concurs:
    |
    | I've been 'buying' and using software for a hell of a long time. I
    | can't think of any software where I have actually bought it. I've
    | always licensed it.

    Why so coy? Are you trying to say that you believe
    the idea of licensing software to prevent FSD rights
    is a valid practice? You have every right to keep buying
    licenses over and over. And if you're lucky enough to
    live in the US then the law won't prevent you from
    doing that. :)
     
    Mayayana, Nov 16, 2012
    #51
  12. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 10:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


    <snip>

    >
    > Have a look at what happens to countries which don't have governments.
    > Even the worst government is better than none.
    >


    We first have to define "country."

    However, without getting into technical distinctions, groups of people
    with "no government" become tribal societies. The tribe then becomes the
    governmental equivalent.
    Therefore, it can be argued that there is no such thing as a society
    without government.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #52
  13. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 10:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:46:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> tony cooper writes:
    >>
    >>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.

    >>
    >> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
    >> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
    >> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
    >> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.

    >
    > Of course. That's why people go into business and start corporations.
    > If you had the smarts, you'd do the same thing. If you don't have the
    > smarts, you work for someone else and they make the money.
    >


    I's not only a matter of smarts. One must have some reasonable amount of
    business sense as well. There are many brilliant individuals, who work
    for an organization. For one reason or another, they prefer not to be in
    their own business. They are simply not entrepreneurs.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #53
  14. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:06:22 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 11/15/2012 8:46 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >>> tony cooper writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.
    >>>
    >>> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
    >>> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
    >>> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
    >>> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Whoosh!

    >
    > I'm glad someone "got it".
    >
    >


    I thought it pretty obvious.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #54
  15. sobriquet

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:36:03 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-16 02:25:59 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2012-11-15 20:09:17 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:57:27 +0100, Mxsmanic <>

    >
    > >>>> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>> David Dyer-Bennet writes:

    >
    > >>>>>

    >
    > >>>>>> Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their

    >
    > >>>>>> career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes

    >
    > >>>>>> drastically.

    >
    > >>>>>

    >
    > >>>>> Which changes are those?

    >
    > >>>>>

    >
    > >>>>> E-books are on the rise, and they have much tighter controls on distribution

    >
    > >>>>> than books on paper. You can give a paper book away, or you can sell it, and

    >
    > >>>>> you can keep it forever. Not so for e-books.

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>> The terms under which you buy e-books are quite different from those

    >
    > >>>> which apply to paper:

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>> "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright

    >
    > >>>> herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form

    >
    > >>>> or by any means ... "

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Take note of that statement, and the *specifics* of what it says.

    >
    >
    >
    > I did, and that was the reason I added the Westview Press notification below.
    >
    >
    >
    > >>> Or maybe that isn't actually what they put in any book?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > And then look at what it actually is they put into a book:

    >
    >
    >
    > That is the reason I took the time to type it. ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    > >> All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

    >
    > >> reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,

    >
    > >> electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,

    >
    > >> recording, or any information storage and retrieval

    >
    > >> system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> I think that pretty much spells out what they had in mind to cover their butts.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Maybe the distinction between the nonsense that Eric posted

    >
    > > and the actual statement as above is lost on you,

    >
    >
    >
    > I know you don't particularly like me, but that was an assumption on your part.
    >
    >
    >
    > > but a

    >
    > > careful reading of the two shows they have an entirely

    >
    > > different legal meaning.

    >
    >
    >
    > No doubt. However Eric might well have posted what was available
    >
    > regarding publisher statements in the e-book, considering that the
    >
    > Random House e-book I checked was quite vague. So I have a feeling the
    >
    > download sites, be it iTunes, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or the
    >
    > publisher's site, is going to be a tad more specific in that rolling
    >
    > screen of TOS agreements that the majority never read, but blindly
    >
    > click on the "I Agree" button.


    Yep, and can you blame them with some being over 20,000 words that's longer than a lot of novels, cetanly longer than any I've read IIRC. :)
    It's not like those that write them read them ;-)


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 16, 2012
    #55
  16. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 10:25 PM, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
    > | > DVDs as much as they like.
    > |
    > | Not software.
    > |
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    >
    > The EU recently confirmed First Sale Doctrine for software.
    > In the US it's up in the air. The law says you have the rights
    > of First Sale, but some software companies have won in
    > cases where they've claimed that the software is licensed
    > and not sold. That's an example of what I would call cheating
    > the law. No one would get away with "licensing" a book to
    > skirt FSD, but digital media are a new issue that's not really
    > settled. Software companies have a genuine concern, but
    > that's no excuse for cheating their customers out of the
    > product they've bought. The EU judgement concurs:
    >
    > " it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital
    > good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale
    > doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an
    > unlimited amount of time, ..."
    >
    > "The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use
    > the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical
    > difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to
    > authorizing resale..."
    >
    > In the American corporatocracy we probably can't hope
    > for such civilized judgements. The only choice is to refuse
    > to enter into such deals, but that's difficult when nearly
    > all sources of digital media are running the same scam.
    > One would have to give up products from Microsoft and Apple,
    > as well as ebooks and digital music. Personally I've never
    > considered buying from the latter 3 categories, and
    > I don't buy anything more than absolutely necessary from
    > Microsoft. But most people haven't even thought about
    > this issue, much less resolved to hold out for a fair deal.
    > It's hard to lay all blame on the snake oil salesman when
    > his income derives from people willingly fooling themselves.
    >
    >


    Absent some express provision to the contrary, purchase of a book is a
    purchase of a limited right to the contents of that book. While I may
    freely sell, or lend the book, generally, I may not resell copies of the
    contents of that book. similarly, if I purchase sheet music, I may not
    make extra copies for simultaneous use by others. I may lend or sell you
    my copy of the sheet music, but if I do so, I may not retain a copy.
    Also, in most cases, I may have limits on my public performance of the
    music.
    When they sing Happy Birthday to you, in a public place, a royalty
    should be paid. ASCAP has a formula for computing the royalty. I do not
    know the formula.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #56
  17. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 10:33 PM, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they
    > have
    > | > bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.
    > | >
    > |
    > | If you have evidence of such bribery, you have a moral obligation to
    > | bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
    > |
    >
    > That's quaint. Lobbying *is* bribery. And it's perfectly
    > legal. What authorities are you going to report to?
    >
    >


    It's obvious that you have little understanding of the regulatory
    process, under which governmental regulations should be designed to work
    with business, not stifle it. There is a balance between public good
    and business that must be struck during the regulatory process. Yes, it
    is, and can be abused. Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie, bought
    McKinley. He was assassinated and Teddy Roosevelt became their worst
    nightmare. Those matters have a way of running in cycles, due to our
    very human tendency to abuse.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #57
  18. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/15/2012 11:09 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:57:27 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
    >>>> career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
    >>>> drastically.
    >>>
    >>> Which changes are those?
    >>>
    >>> E-books are on the rise, and they have much tighter controls on distribution
    >>> than books on paper. You can give a paper book away, or you can sell it, and
    >>> you can keep it forever. Not so for e-books.

    >>
    >> The terms under which you buy e-books are quite different from those
    >> which apply to paper:
    >>
    >> "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright
    >> herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form
    >> or by any means ... "
    >>
    >> Words to more or less that effect may be found in almost any paper
    >> book you buy.

    >
    > So you can't put your book on a shelf for storage? And you can't
    > read it either?
    >
    > Or maybe that isn't actually what they put in any book?
    >


    Your "point" has as much relevance to those words as if I interpret the
    language "..may not be disassembled....' as meaning I am prohibited from
    crunching the disk the software came on.
    Comon Floyd, you know better than interpreting the word "stored," as
    meaning you can't put it on a shelf.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 16, 2012
    #58
  19. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:47:28 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 11/15/2012 10:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:46:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> tony cooper writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.
    >>>
    >>> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
    >>> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
    >>> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
    >>> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.

    >>
    >> Of course. That's why people go into business and start corporations.
    >> If you had the smarts, you'd do the same thing. If you don't have the
    >> smarts, you work for someone else and they make the money.
    >>

    >
    >I's not only a matter of smarts. One must have some reasonable amount of
    >business sense as well. There are many brilliant individuals, who work
    >for an organization. For one reason or another, they prefer not to be in
    >their own business. They are simply not entrepreneurs.


    I include business sense under the general umbrella of "smarts". It
    is just one of the things people can be smart about.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 16, 2012
    #59
  20. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    >> Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
    >> career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
    >> drastically.

    >
    > Which changes are those?
    >
    > E-books are on the rise, and they have much tighter controls on distribution
    > than books on paper. You can give a paper book away, or you can sell it, and
    > you can keep it forever. Not so for e-books.


    Distribution controlled by a smaller and smaller number of companies,
    mostly. First the consolidation of the Independent Distributor system,
    now the big move to ebooks mostly through Amazon.

    I can do all those things with every ebook I have, and for all but I
    think three that's without my even having to break DRM first (Baen books
    and TOR sell their books without DRM).

    --
    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 16, 2012
    #60
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?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:
    511
    Juan PĂ©rez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    530
    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