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

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

  1. David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 16, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > ASCAP doesn't manage the compulsory licensing. You're thinking of performance
    > royalties, which are something quite different.
    >
    > You can get a compulsory license for a cover version of a song simply by
    > notifying the artist and paying him a statutory fee.


    It's all part of the compulsory licensing system. And you need to go
    through somebody like ASCAP for using recorded music, which is almost
    always what's needed.
    --
    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
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mayayana" <> writes:

    > | > ...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.


    The duration is not at issue, really, except in a TINY minority of
    cases. The income from a work is nearly always largely in the first
    decade or so of life. Books remaining in print beyond the life of the
    author are *extremely* rare.

    > So the artistic value of a work *is* meaningful in deciding
    > whether someone deserves to make millions, from society's
    > point of view.


    Artistic value? Or popularity?

    > | 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.


    Extending is far less damaging than contracting.

    > 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.


    But the proposed changes to bring down the big acts often completely
    destroy any chance of making a living for the smaller acts.
    --
    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
    #63
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 12:06:18 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    I'm not opposed to libraries buying books. I'm just pointing out they
    offer free access to information, similar to how people can download
    information for free online.
    Either of those options can be an alternative for buying a book.
    Yet research shows that people who obtain a free version of things
    online are the same people who spend most money on buying such things.
    So encouraging people to share information freely doesn't necessarily
    detract from people who try to earn money from their creative skills.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > 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 ?


    I've never claimed that everybody should be forced to share all
    information with everybody else. All I've claimed is that once people
    publish information (regardless whether they sell it or give it
    away), they can no longer realistically expect to impose a
    monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of such
    information.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #64
  5. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:37:26 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:36:53 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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?

    >
    >
    >
    > I was responding to your reaction to my statement "If you try doing
    >
    > that with a book you will find you are in real trouble". You don't
    >
    > seem to be able to distinguish between a bokk and an e-book.
    >


    That's clear from the context of the discussion (sharing books on
    p2p networks implies I'm talking about digital versions of books).

    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's because you haven't read, understand and compared the rights
    >
    > you are granted when you buy a 'book' and an 'e-book'. They are quite
    >
    > different.
    >


    Those rights are irrelevant. Local legislation grants me the right to
    copy ebooks for personal use, regardless of whether or not the authors of
    such ebooks grant me that right.

    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > There may or may not be but there is a significant difference in what
    >
    > you are allowed to do with them.
    >


    Again, that's irrelevant, because local legislation takes precedence
    regarding what I'm allowed to do.

    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > Your response seems to indicate that you don't understand the
    >
    > difference between your rights as the owner of a book and the owner of
    >
    > an e-book.


    There are no such differences according to local legislation.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #65
  6. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:29:09 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:13:10 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > You can't claim to live in an 'absolutely' free country if you can't
    >
    > share information. Most people want one form or another of a 'Privacy
    >
    > Act'. Then there is the question of treason. Unless you insist in
    >
    > living in a vacuum you can't share all information without hurting
    >
    > someone.
    >


    I think it's not the information that hurts people. For instance, take the
    Mohammed cartoons. It's not those cartoons that hurt people (nobody
    is forced to view them if they find them distasteful or insulting), but
    people who overreact to such cartoons and start a riot where people get
    hurt.

    >
    >
    > >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..

    >
    >
    >
    > Most governments have come down first on people who want to abuse
    >
    > property rights.


    Most governments are corrupt. I can't really think of any country that has a truly transparent
    government that is really able to guarantee human rights.
    I suppose this isn't even possible without having citizens who are well-informed and
    able to think autonomously and critically.
    In such a society, one expects people to be more free to share just about any
    information they like.

    >
    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >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 within the context of "the right to freedom of opinion and
    >
    > expression".
    >


    Yes, so? I think sharing a bitstring online counts as a form of expression,
    regardless whether the person who shares it was also the person who
    can be said to be the creator of the bitstring or merely someone who obtained
    that bitstring from someone else.

    >
    >
    > You have your work cut out if you want to use "the right to freedom of
    >
    > opinion and expression" to justify the wholesale copying of a song
    >
    > (any song).


    Not really. People already enjoy that freedom on p2p networks.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >That's exactly the right that people who enjoy filesharing exercise. They seek,

    >
    > >receive and impart information through p2p networks.

    >
    >
    >
    > 'Information' maybe. But not all of it is 'opinion and expression'.
    >


    Surely every possible bitstring expresses 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 can always set up a bureaucracy.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >I think we already have a bureaucracy.

    >
    >
    >
    > Then why hasn't it solved all our problems?
    >


    Because of corruption and lack of transparency?

    >
    >
    > -- snip ---
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #66
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:31:38 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-16 10:47:19 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Those rights are irrelevant. Local legislation grants me the right to

    >
    > > copy ebooks for personal use, regardless of whether or not the authors of

    >
    > > such ebooks grant me that right.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > You keep talking about this "local legislation" which grants you the
    >
    > right to copy ebooks, regardless of the author or publisher granting
    >
    > you the right to do so, but all you have done is blurt this out. The
    >
    > time has come for you to show a proper cite for this legislation, even
    >
    > if it might be written in Dutch. I am sure we should be able to deal
    >
    > with the issue of translation.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck



    http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/


    "Een kopie voor strikt eigen gebruik (een "thuiskopie") mag altijd worden gemaakt, ook als het werk van
    een illegale bron afkomstig is.

    Door ICT-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    Op grond van artikel 16b en 16c Auteurswet 1912 mag men enkele exemplaren van een werk maken voor
    eigen oefening, studie of gebruik. Dit heet een thuiskopie. Een dergelijke kopie mag niet aan derden ter
    beschikking worden gesteld. Het is niet vereist dat je het origineel zelf gekocht hebt om een thuiskopie
    van een werk te mogen maken."

    My translation:
    "A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is
    obtained from an illegal source.
    By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed to make a few copies of a work for
    personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to
    others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one to be allowed to make a homecopy
    of a work."
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #67
  8. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:22:19 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-16 11:46:25 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:31:38 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > You keep talking about this "local legislation" which grants you the

    >
    > > right to copy ebooks, regardless of the author or publisher granting

    >
    > > you the right to do so, but all you have done is blurt this out. The

    >
    > > time has come for you to show a proper cite for this legislation, even

    >
    > > if it might be written in Dutch. I am sure we should be able to deal

    >
    > > with the issue of translation.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/

    >
    >
    >
    > OK! Thanks for that.
    >
    > It is an interesting site and working my way through it using Babylon I
    >
    > have a pretty good Idea of the content;
    >
    >
    >
    > I find it quaint that a 1912 Law has been stretched to cover modern
    >
    > times, and that you choose to read it selectively.
    >
    >
    >
    > While it certainly permits you to make your "thuiskopie" that is a
    >
    > single copy for personal use. When it comes to literature, science, art
    >
    > the right to copy is limited.
    >
    >
    >
    > Here is a section I translated:
    >
    > "As the name implies, it must relate to a copy for your home. In the
    >
    > terminology of the law there must be a copy of "own exercise, study or
    >
    > use". This is a very broad wording. There are very few acts to think
    >
    > that you could carry out a work which are not covered. It is essential
    >
    > that the their own copy. The copy should not be made available to third
    >
    > parties. It is in fact no longer an own use copy."
    >
    >
    >
    > The Law also precludes you making a "thuiskopie" for a third party.
    >
    > Strangely enough they don't seem to be bothered with you downloading
    >
    > the original of the "thuiskopie" from an illegal source.
    >
    >
    >
    > Now when it comes to that other piece of information you are fond of,
    >
    > computer programs, your Law permits only the legitimate owner of the
    >
    > program to create a backup, as the Legislature to make Article 45k more
    >
    > restrictive as the "thuiskopie" is NOT allowed for computer programs.
    >
    >
    >
    > The site also notes the following:
    >
    >
    >
    > "There are a number of categories of works where thuiskopie may not be
    >
    > made. Also in some categories of restrictions. Of the following
    >
    > categories thuiskopie may not be made:
    >
    > Electronic databases (see Article 10 (3)
    >
    > Buildings (see Article 16b (7) - you may not reverse engineer a house
    >
    > under architecture therefore, also not for yourself.
    >
    > Computer programs (see Article 45 (n) - on the basis of Article 45k
    >
    > only the legitimate purchasers may create a backup copy of the program."
    >
    >
    >
    > When it comes to documents it gets more interesting:
    >
    > "A 'thuiskopie' of publications (books, brochures, newspapers,
    >
    > magazines, music scores and such) is allowed. However, this should
    >
    > normally be limited to a small portion of the work. This is not the
    >
    > case for a day-, news- or tribune newspaper or magazine published short
    >
    > articles, messages, or other documents. For these you may make just a
    >
    > 'thuiskopie'."
    >
    >
    >
    > When it comes to a graphic work (such as character-, painting, and
    >
    > sculpture, lithographs, engrave and other plater work, but no
    >
    > photographic works), then the reproduction must show a clear difference
    >
    > from the original work. This difference must be in the size or in the
    >
    > method by which the copy was made."
    >
    >
    >
    > Now he has an interesting section on photographs which you should read:
    >
    > "On almost all of the photos and pictures on the Internet permission
    >
    > rests in copyright. Rules regarding subjects of portraits may also play
    >
    > a role."
    >
    >
    >
    > "It is also not always allowed to use your own photos on your own web
    >
    > site. For example, when using a photo you have taken of someone else's
    >
    > work of art, you need permission of the artist. And if there are other
    >
    > people who can be identified in the photo, then you, as a photographer,
    >
    > must take into account the Rules regarding subjects of portraits.
    >
    >
    >
    > All very interesting, but not quite the free access to all, information
    >
    > you have claimed.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck


    I've never claimed that it was legal for me to share things I'm
    allowed to copy for personal use. I've just claimed that it is
    legal for me to copy most things for personal use, but that in
    practice one can expect people to exchange things with other
    collectors when people are allowed to collect things for personal
    use.
    Also, software might be an exception to the homecopy rule, in
    practice people are very unlikely to get into trouble, even when
    they are not just downloading software for personal use from
    unauthorized sources, but also uploading such software via p2p
    networks.

    So there is the law on one side and there is the practical situation
    on the other and there is a huge discrepancy between the two.
    I expect the law to match up with the practical situation at some
    point, but I'm not holding my breath until that is going to happen.

    As information technology is developing and making it ever more easy
    to share and exchange information, it's inevitable that traditional
    interpretations of intellectual property will gradually change.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #68
  9. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Friday, 16 November 2012 19:46:26 UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:31:38 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2012-11-16 10:47:19 -0800, sobriquet <> said:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Those rights are irrelevant. Local legislation grants me the right to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > copy ebooks for personal use, regardless of whether or not the authors of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > such ebooks grant me that right.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You keep talking about this "local legislation" which grants you the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > right to copy ebooks, regardless of the author or publisher granting

    >
    > >

    >
    > > you the right to do so, but all you have done is blurt this out. The

    >
    > >

    >
    > > time has come for you to show a proper cite for this legislation, even

    >
    > >

    >
    > > if it might be written in Dutch. I am sure we should be able to deal

    >
    > >

    >
    > > with the issue of translation.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > --

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Regards,

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Savageduck

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Een kopie voor strikt eigen gebruik (een "thuiskopie") mag altijd worden gemaakt, ook als het werk van
    >
    > een illegale bron afkomstig is.
    >
    >
    >
    > Door ICT-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).
    >
    >
    >
    > Op grond van artikel 16b en 16c Auteurswet 1912 mag men enkele exemplaren van een werk maken voor
    >
    > eigen oefening, studie of gebruik. Dit heet een thuiskopie. Een dergelijke kopie mag niet aan derden ter
    >
    > beschikking worden gesteld. Het is niet vereist dat je het origineel zelf gekocht hebt om een thuiskopie
    >
    > van een werk te mogen maken."
    >
    >
    >
    > My translation:
    >
    > "A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is
    >
    > obtained from an illegal source.
    >
    > By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).
    >
    >
    >
    > On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed to make a few copies of a work for
    >
    > personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to
    >
    > others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one to be allowed to make a homecopy
    >
    > of a work."



    According to that law you can steal a book and legally make a personal copy. The stealing remains a crime and if you share your copy that is another crime. It only means you will not be punished for making a copy of that book for personal use.

    Stop telling other people is OK to download anything they find on the net. One day a sucker who believed you will be caught and suffer some nasty consequences.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 16, 2012
    #69
  10. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:44:53 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Friday, 16 November 2012 19:46:26 UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:31:38 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On 2012-11-16 10:47:19 -0800, sobriquet <> said:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > Those rights are irrelevant. Local legislation grants me the right to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > copy ebooks for personal use, regardless of whether or not the authors of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > such ebooks grant me that right.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > You keep talking about this "local legislation" which grants you the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > right to copy ebooks, regardless of the author or publisher granting

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > you the right to do so, but all you have done is blurt this out. The

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > time has come for you to show a proper cite for this legislation, even

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > if it might be written in Dutch. I am sure we should be able to deal

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > with the issue of translation.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > --

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Regards,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Savageduck

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "Een kopie voor strikt eigen gebruik (een "thuiskopie") mag altijd worden gemaakt, ook als het werk van

    >
    > >

    >
    > > een illegale bron afkomstig is.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Door ICT-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Op grond van artikel 16b en 16c Auteurswet 1912 mag men enkele exemplaren van een werk maken voor

    >
    > >

    >
    > > eigen oefening, studie of gebruik. Dit heet een thuiskopie. Een dergelijke kopie mag niet aan derden ter

    >
    > >

    >
    > > beschikking worden gesteld. Het is niet vereist dat je het origineel zelf gekocht hebt om een thuiskopie

    >
    > >

    >
    > > van een werk te mogen maken."

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > My translation:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > "A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is

    >
    > >

    >
    > > obtained from an illegal source.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed to make a few copies of a work for

    >
    > >

    >
    > > personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one to be allowed to make a homecopy

    >
    > >

    >
    > > of a work."

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > According to that law you can steal a book and legally make a personal copy. The stealing remains a crime and if you share your copy that is another crime. It only means you will not be punished for making a copy of that book for personal use.
    >
    >
    >
    > Stop telling other people is OK to download anything they find on the net. One day a sucker who believed you will be caught and suffer some nasty consequences.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > DanP


    The law clearly states that when I find an ebook on p2p networks, even
    when it's obviously not an authorized source, I'm legally allowed to
    download a copy for personal use (provided I'm only downloading and
    not uploading that content).

    There is no need to steal anything. If a friend or acquantance has bought
    an ebook, he can allow me to borrow the ebook to enable me to make a
    copy for personal use.

    In practice people share and exchange ebooks (but also pictures, music,
    movies, software, etc..) freely on p2p networks and the chances of
    getting into legal difficulties because of that are virtually zero.
    At least in countries with more liberal fair-use laws, like the
    Netherlands.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #70
  11. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:07:23 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-16 13:39:36 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:22:19 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2012-11-16 11:46:25 -0800, sobriquet <> said:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> All very interesting, but not quite the free access to all, information

    >
    > >> you have claimed.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I've never claimed that it was legal for me to share things I'm

    >
    > > allowed to copy for personal use. I've just claimed that it is

    >
    > > legal for me to copy most things for personal use, but that in

    >
    > > practice one can expect people to exchange things with other

    >
    > > collectors when people are allowed to collect things for personal

    >
    > > use.

    >
    >
    >
    > However the Law you cite does not permit such an exchange of the "homecopy".
    >
    >
    >
    > > Also, software might be an exception to the homecopy rule,

    >
    >
    >
    > Not might be, it is an exception. You need to OWN the software
    >
    > legitimately, and only then does the Law permit you to make a backup
    >
    > copy, which is not a "homecopy". You still have to buy the software.
    >
    > This is not a free pass to pirate it.
    >
    >
    >
    > > in

    >
    > > practice people are very unlikely to get into trouble, even when

    >
    > > they are not just downloading software for personal use from

    >
    > > unauthorized sources, but also uploading such software via p2p

    >
    > > networks.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So there is the law on one side and there is the practical situation

    >
    > > on the other and there is a huge discrepancy between the two.

    >
    > > I expect the law to match up with the practical situation at some

    >
    > > point, but I'm not holding my breath until that is going to happen.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > As information technology is developing and making it ever more easy

    >
    > > to share and exchange information, it's inevitable that traditional

    >
    > > interpretations of intellectual property will gradually change.

    >
    >
    >
    > Just stay on the right side of that Law, knowing that you have done the
    >
    > right thing.
    >
    > ...unless you truly entertain your piratical, anarchic nature.
    >
    > Strange that a self professed anarchist would cite the Law of the land
    >
    > to justify his behavior.
    >
    >
    >
    > I once knew this quite bright guy in California, in his late 40's, who
    >
    > had been in and out of prison all his life. He would tell me how much
    >
    > he enjoyed the high life with fine dining and expensive women on his
    >
    > arm. I asked him if he had ever considered a profession or trade which
    >
    > could support the lifestyle he so enjoyed. He looked at me as if I was
    >
    > crazy, and said, "I don't work, I'm a thief."
    >
    > This is the type of guy who would take a girl out for a date, and on
    >
    > the way to the restaurant would rob a Seven-Eleven to pay for his night
    >
    > out. A dangerous man.
    >


    I'm just saying that the fact that something is illegal
    doesn't say anything by itself. For instance, homosexuality is
    illegal in many countries, but that doesn't mean that people who
    are homosexuals are necessarily immoral, even if they live in a
    country where they are criminalized.

    What this discussion should be about instead is whether or not it
    is moral to share information, even when the creator of that
    information objects to it. As far as I'm concerned, my opinion
    is that people can't even own information to begin with.
    They can claim to be the first to create it, and they can
    keep it to themselves to prevent other people from having
    access to it, but what they can't do is publish it and still
    expect to have a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution
    of that information.
    That is simply a position that is incompatible with modern
    information technology, regardless what the law says.

    Which gives rise to the question why the law doesn't make
    any sense, given the availability of modern information
    technology and the answer is that these laws are subverted
    by corporate interests.

    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.

    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #71
  12. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Friday, November 16, 2012 11:44:18 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:46:25 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:31:38 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >> On 2012-11-16 10:47:19 -0800, sobriquet <> said:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > Those rights are irrelevant. Local legislation grants me the right to

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > copy ebooks for personal use, regardless of whether or not the authors of

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > such ebooks grant me that right.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> You keep talking about this "local legislation" which grants you the

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> right to copy ebooks, regardless of the author or publisher granting

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> you the right to do so, but all you have done is blurt this out. The

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> time has come for you to show a proper cite for this legislation, even

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> if it might be written in Dutch. I am sure we should be able to deal

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> with the issue of translation.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> --

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Savageduck

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >"Een kopie voor strikt eigen gebruik (een "thuiskopie") mag altijd worden gemaakt, ook als het werk van

    >
    > >een illegale bron afkomstig is.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Door ICT-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Op grond van artikel 16b en 16c Auteurswet 1912 mag men enkele exemplaren van een werk maken voor

    >
    > >eigen oefening, studie of gebruik. Dit heet een thuiskopie. Een dergelijke kopie mag niet aan derden ter

    >
    > >beschikking worden gesteld. Het is niet vereist dat je het origineel zelf gekocht hebt om een thuiskopie

    >
    > >van een werk te mogen maken."

    >
    > >

    >
    > >My translation:

    >
    > >"A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is

    >
    > >obtained from an illegal source.

    >
    > >By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >

    >
    > >On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed to make a few copies of a work for

    >
    > >personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to

    >
    > >others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one to be allowed to make a homecopy

    >
    > >of a work."

    >
    >
    >
    > 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).

    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #72
  13. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:51:12 UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:44:53 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    >
    > > On Friday, 16 November 2012 19:46:26 UTC, sobriquet wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:31:38 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > On 2012-11-16 10:47:19 -0800, sobriquet <> said:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > > Those rights are irrelevant. Local legislation grants me the right to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > > copy ebooks for personal use, regardless of whether or not the authors of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > > such ebooks grant me that right.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > You keep talking about this "local legislation" which grants you the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > right to copy ebooks, regardless of the author or publisher granting

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > you the right to do so, but all you have done is blurt this out. The

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > time has come for you to show a proper cite for this legislation, even

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > if it might be written in Dutch. I am sure we should be able to deal

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > with the issue of translation.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > --

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > Regards,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > > Savageduck

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > "Een kopie voor strikt eigen gebruik (een "thuiskopie") mag altijd worden gemaakt, ook als het werk van

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > een illegale bron afkomstig is.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Door ICT-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > Op grond van artikel 16b en 16c Auteurswet 1912 mag men enkele exemplaren van een werk maken voor

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > eigen oefening, studie of gebruik. Dit heet een thuiskopie. Een dergelijke kopie mag niet aan derden ter

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > beschikking worden gesteld. Het is niet vereist dat je het origineel zelf gekocht hebt om een thuiskopie

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > van een werk te mogen maken."

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > My translation:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > "A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > obtained from an illegal source.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed tomake a few copies of a work for

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one tobe allowed to make a homecopy

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > of a work."

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > According to that law you can steal a book and legally make a personal copy. The stealing remains a crime and if you share your copy that is another crime. It only means you will not be punished for making a copy of that book for personal use.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Stop telling other people is OK to download anything they find on the net. One day a sucker who believed you will be caught and suffer some nasty consequences.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > DanP

    >
    >
    >
    > The law clearly states that when I find an ebook on p2p networks, even
    >
    > when it's obviously not an authorized source, I'm legally allowed to
    >
    > download a copy for personal use (provided I'm only downloading and
    >
    > not uploading that content).
    >


    There is no way a law made in 1912 would refer to an ebook.

    > There is no need to steal anything. If a friend or acquantance has bought
    >
    > an ebook, he can allow me to borrow the ebook to enable me to make a
    >
    > copy for personal use.
    >


    I have said theft because the law specified books like in hard copy.

    Copying digital is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Netherlands hasdecided to tackle this problem by stopping the big offenders, hosting sites, not the individual p2p user. Technology to stop encrypted p2p traffic ishard to create but I bet one day it will be available and Dutch ISPs will have to use it.


    > In practice people share and exchange ebooks (but also pictures, music,
    >
    > movies, software, etc..) freely on p2p networks and the chances of
    >
    > getting into legal difficulties because of that are virtually zero.
    >
    > At least in countries with more liberal fair-use laws, like the
    >
    > Netherlands.


    How can you say fair use if this "fair use" denies an artist the reward forhis/her work as no one will ever have to pay to enjoy the music/movie/etc.
    China does the same and is far off from being a liberal country.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 16, 2012
    #73
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:06:11 AM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > On Friday, 16 November 2012 21:51:12 UTC, sobriquet wrote:
    > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:44:53 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > > > On Friday, 16 November 2012 19:46:26 UTC, sobriquet wrote:

    >
    > > The law clearly states that when I find an ebook on p2p networks, even

    >
    > >

    >
    > > when it's obviously not an authorized source, I'm legally allowed to

    >
    > >

    >
    > > download a copy for personal use (provided I'm only downloading and

    >
    > >

    >
    > > not uploading that content).

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > There is no way a law made in 1912 would refer to an ebook.
    >


    That's irrelevant. The law deals with intellectual property in
    general. There are some exceptions, like software, but ebooks are not
    mentioned as an exception. Also, there have been further regulations
    in addition to that 1912 law (for instance to allow for an
    exception regarding software, since software didn't exist either
    in 1912).

    >
    >
    > > There is no need to steal anything. If a friend or acquantance has bought

    >
    > >

    >
    > > an ebook, he can allow me to borrow the ebook to enable me to make a

    >
    > >

    >
    > > copy for personal use.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > I have said theft because the law specified books like in hard copy.
    >


    I don't care about hard copy books.. I'm only interested in digital content..

    >
    >
    > Copying digital is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Netherlands has decided to tackle this problem by stopping the big offenders, hosting sites, not the individual p2p user. Technology to stop encrypted p2p traffic is hard to create but I bet one day it will be available and Dutch ISPs will have to use it.
    >


    They try to sensor websites like piratebay where people can easily access
    information. But such censorship is rather futile as it can easily
    be circumvented.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In practice people share and exchange ebooks (but also pictures, music,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > movies, software, etc..) freely on p2p networks and the chances of

    >
    > >

    >
    > > getting into legal difficulties because of that are virtually zero.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > At least in countries with more liberal fair-use laws, like the

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Netherlands.

    >
    >
    >
    > How can you say fair use if this "fair use" denies an artist the reward for his/her work as no one will ever have to pay to enjoy the music/movie/etc.
    >
    > China does the same and is far off from being a liberal country.
    >


    Piratebay was censored in China long before it was censored in the Netherlands.
    Besides, fair use doesn't deny artists the reward for his/her work, as theyhave
    specifically created a special tax on information that is distributed amongst
    creative people as compensation for the fact that their creations can be freely
    copied for personal use.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > DanP
     
    sobriquet, Nov 16, 2012
    #74
  15. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:46:50 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > --- snip ---
    >
    >
    >
    > >I'm just saying that the fact that something is illegal

    >
    > >doesn't say anything by itself. For instance, homosexuality is

    >
    > >illegal in many countries, but that doesn't mean that people who

    >
    > >are homosexuals are necessarily immoral, even if they live in a

    >
    > >country where they are criminalized.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >What this discussion should be about instead is whether or not it

    >
    > >is moral to share information, even when the creator of that

    >
    > >information objects to it. As far as I'm concerned, my opinion

    >
    > >is that people can't even own information to begin with.

    >
    > >They can claim to be the first to create it, and they can

    >
    > >keep it to themselves to prevent other people from having

    >
    > >access to it, but what they can't do is publish it and still

    >
    > >expect to have a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution

    >
    > >of that information.

    >
    > >That is simply a position that is incompatible with modern

    >
    > >information technology, regardless what the law says.

    >
    >
    >
    > It is equally incompatible with medieval printing technology, also. It
    >
    > more or less works with printing. Why shouldn't it work just as well
    >
    > with digital information?
    >


    Why wouldn't interpretations of intellectual property be subject
    to change under influence of technological developments?

    >
    >
    > 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.


    Like I've said. I'm convinced that there is nothing morally wrong
    with so-called copyright violations. You can think of it as a kind
    of civil disobedience to protest against the way corporations
    are subverting copyright legislation (e.g. via secret negotiations,
    like we've seen with the ACTA proposals to criminalize filesharing).

    Similar to how I'm using cannabis, despite cannabis being illegal.
    I think there is nothing morally wrong with responsible and
    well-informed adults using cannabis and the laws that criminalize
    cannabis are a travesty of justice, given that adults are free
    to drink booze which has more harmful consequences for one's health
    in case of abuse.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Which gives rise to the question why the law doesn't make

    >
    > >any sense, given the availability of modern information

    >
    > >technology and the answer is that these laws are subverted

    >
    > >by corporate interests.

    >
    >
    >
    > It seems to me that they are morally subverted more by people with
    >
    > quick and easy self-serving morals like your own.


    It seems to me that you lack a basic understanding of the nature
    of information technology and the implications it has for the
    traditional idea of copyright boiling down to a monopoly on the
    reproduction and distribution of information.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >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.


    These creative prostitutes are primarily damaged by their corporate pimps.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #75
  16. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:54:59 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:49:38 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > --- snip ---
    >
    > >> >My translation:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >"A copy for strictly personal use (a "homecopy") is allways allowed to be made, even when the work is

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >obtained from an illegal source.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >By ICT-lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet (blog, contact).

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >On the basis of article 16b and 16c Authorslaw 1912 one is allowed to make a few copies of a work for

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >personal practice, study or use. This is called a homecopy. Such a copy can not be supplied to

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >others. It's not required that one has bought the original for one to be allowed to make a homecopy

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >of a work."

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> 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?


    Probably from people like me who deliberately violate copyrights by
    sharing information via p2p networks with others to protest against
    unjust, unreasonable and unrealistic laws regarding intellectual
    property.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #76
  17. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:27:44 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-16 18:17:33 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:46:50 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> There are many people who take them seriously now. Unfortunately they

    >
    > >> are generally the creative people who are damaged by thieves.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > These creative prostitutes are primarily damaged by their corporate pimps.

    >
    >
    >
    > ...and yet it is these "creative prostitutes" who have done the work
    >
    > you value enough to steal.
    >
    > What an insulting, parasitic, hypocrite you are!
    >


    Nonsense. Quite the other way around. These so called intellectual
    property laws are having an enormous negative impact on creativity and innovation.

    Real creative people would only benefit from having access to the
    shared wealth of human culture available via p2p networks.

    Many creative people however, have been brainwashed by the
    intellectual property mafia however and they are in the same
    position as slaves who were opposed to the abolishment of
    slavery, because their masters managed to manipulate them
    into accepting their subservient position.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #77
  18. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:33:08 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-16 18:24:24 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:54:59 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

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

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Probably from people like me who deliberately violate copyrights by

    >
    > > sharing information via p2p networks with others to protest against

    >
    > > unjust, unreasonable and unrealistic laws regarding intellectual

    >
    > > property.

    >
    >
    >
    > Your hypocrisy knows no bounds! Yours is not a protest, it is unabashed
    >
    > thievery.
    >
    > Your behavior looks more and more sociopathic.
    >


    Your fascistic opinion is perfectly understandable given your
    lack of understanding the basic nature of information technology.
    You were obviously successfully brainwashed by the intellectual
    property mafia.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #78
  19. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/16/2012 11:46 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >

    That's an inclusion I am not so sure about. I know many brilliant people
    who clearly have the smarts, but they are lousy business people. I would
    place medical doctors at the top of the list.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 17, 2012
    #79
  20. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/16/2012 11:04 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > Look up the words you use in dictionary. That's nonsense.
    >
    > A tribe *is* government, by definition. The distinction
    > is that the people are related by a common origin.


    Not always true. Historically, people have been adopted into tribes.
    Also, I used the term in its broadest a bunch of people form a group,
    they develop a set of rules for living together. The authority that
    enforces those rules is a governmental equivalent. think outside your
    pre-defined concepts and my simple meaning becomes clear.


    >
    > "No government" does not equate to tribalism.





    >
    >> Therefore, it can be argued that there is no such thing
    >> as a society without government.

    >
    > That is quite true. A pure anarchy never lasts for
    > any length of time.
    >


    And that is my point.
    OMG Floyd actually agrees.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 17, 2012
    #80
    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:
    837
    |{evin
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. slylittlei

    Potentially funny...

    slylittlei, May 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    528
    Juan Pérez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    546
    Michael S. Cooper
    Nov 8, 2003
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,179
    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:
    770
    RichA
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page