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

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

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:11:52 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:17:33 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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?

    >
    >
    >
    > Why should they be?
    >


    Because the whole idea of copyright only came into existence when
    people started to employ certain kinds of information technology,
    like the printing press. People had been creating things long before
    that and also making a living that way. Now we have computers
    and they are a form of technology way beyond the printing press
    and so it stands to reason that we might need to update the concept
    of copyright so it takes into account the radical differences between
    a computer and a traditional printing press.

    One of the signs that indicate there might be a problem with
    copyright is that copyright was much easier to enforce back
    in the day when the printing press started to be used by
    publishers.
    Over the course of subsequent technological developments,
    it has become increasingly hard to enforce copyrights and by now
    it's virtually impossible to enforce it at all.

    >
    >
    > Next thing you will be arguing that the intellectual property in a
    >
    > painting depends on its colour, or the composition of the paint.
    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> 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).

    >
    >
    >
    > In other words you think there is nothing morally wrong with what you
    >
    > are doing because you don't like the people who are trying to stop
    >
    > you.


    No, because the people who are opposed to my activities have their head
    stuck up their ass so deep, they have lost all contact with reality.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Similar to how I'm using cannabis, despite cannabis being illegal.

    >
    >
    >
    > Now that may help explain things. How old were you when you started
    >
    > using cannabis?


    I'll just ignore that insinuation.

    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > What's more its a monopoly in the hands of the person who created that
    >
    > 'information'. You think he shouldn't have that right.


    There is no reason whatsoever for creative people to have such a
    monopoly. There is no need for such a monopoly to have a financial
    incentive for people to create things.
    Information can simply be taxed.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > You seem to be quite happy to denigrate anybody to help you justify
    >
    > your misdeeds to yourself.


    Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself how denigrating
    people who enjoy filesharing as thieves and parasites contributes
    anything to a debate about the relationship between intellectual
    property and information technology.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:22:29 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:24:24 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

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


    Not according to the fair use law in the Netherlands.
    People are legally entitled to download most things for personal use,
    even if they obtain it from an unauthorized source.
    There is a special tax on information to ensure creative people get
    paid. Research shows that the people who frequently obtain culture
    from unauthorized sources are the same people (on average) who spend
    the most money on culture from authorized sources. So I'm contributing
    in multiple ways to the income of creative people. On the one hand I
    pay taxes on information (actually on things like harddrives and
    other information storage devices and blank media) and on the other
    hand I'm contributing to the availability of unauthorized sources
    of culture and research demonstrates a clear correlation between
    the habit of obtaining culture from unauthorized sources and
    the habit of obtaining culture from authorized sources.
    So someone who obtains a copy for personal use from an unauthorized
    source like one of my uploads is likely to spend money on a purchase
    from an authorized source.

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


    Your attempts to demonize filesharing only succeed in exposing you as
    a fascist who has been brainwashed by the intellectual property mafia.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:26:34 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:33:07 -0800, Savageduck
    >
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > In this part of the world they call cannabis 'wacky baccy'. I can see
    >
    > why.


    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjmyth/exposing_index_1095.html

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #83
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:18:33 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > You are twisted.


    You are misinformed.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Real creative people would only benefit from having access to the

    >
    > >shared wealth of human culture available via p2p networks.

    >
    >
    >
    > You fool! They have access to p2p networks now. The problem is that
    >
    > rodents like you use p2p networks to deprive them of the benefits of
    >
    > their creativity and innovation.


    No they don't. Most people live in countries with more restricted
    fair use laws. Also, they have been misinformed and brainwashed
    by all the propaganda from the intellectual property mafia.
    So they end up with the misguided delusion that there is something
    morally wrong with sharing information.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > You should contemplate the thought that they would not need their
    >
    > 'masters' nearly so much if the houses of creativity and innovation
    >
    > were not overrun with rats. As it is, only the 'masters' can muster
    >
    > the strength to fight off the worst of the swarm of rats.


    You should contemplate the thought that you're not even living
    in a democracy where people have learned to think for themselves
    and a government that guarantees human rights instead of violating
    them. Corporations own your mind and they are glad they have
    brainwashed sycophants like you who will defend their scam.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #84
  5. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:03:59 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >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.


    What I said is that I include business sense as smarts. In other
    words, you have smarts if you are good in any area...medicine,
    business, whatever. Being smart in one area doesn't mean you are
    smart in other areas. Being dumb in one area doesn't mean you can't
    be smart in another. Very few people are smart in all areas.

    Business sense is just one thing a person can be smart in.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2012
    #85
  6. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    <> wrote:

    >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.


    The more this guy sobriquet says, the more apparent it is that he is
    about as uncreative as anyone can be except in the area of making
    creative excuses for sponging off the work of others.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2012
    #86
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:55:24 AM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:41:02 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >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.

    >
    >
    >
    > The more this guy sobriquet says, the more apparent it is that he is
    >
    > about as uncreative as anyone can be except in the area of making
    >
    > creative excuses for sponging off the work of others.
    >


    Rather typical response from a copyright nazi.
    Whoever questions the propaganda from the intellectual
    property mafia must lack creativity.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #87
  8. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2012-11-16 15:06:11 -0800, DanP <> said:
    >
    > I have been meaning to ask this for some time now.
    > Why does the G2/1.0 usenet client screw up threads so badly in responses?
    > It seems to insert a carriage return at the end of each line,
    > ultimately making posts and responses in a thread an unreadable mess.
    >


    No idea, google knows. Is this better?

    DanP
    DanP, Nov 17, 2012
    #88
  9. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/17/2012 12:52 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:03:59 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > What I said is that I include business sense as smarts. In other
    > words, you have smarts if you are good in any area...medicine,
    > business, whatever. Being smart in one area doesn't mean you are
    > smart in other areas. Being dumb in one area doesn't mean you can't
    > be smart in another. Very few people are smart in all areas.
    >
    > Business sense is just one thing a person can be smart in.
    >

    Obviously, I misunderstood what you originally meant.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 17, 2012
    #89
  10. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    SNIP & stop adding superfluous lines. Ir this was a deliberate attempt
    to discourage reply, you succeeded. Few will bother to read & follow.

    Deliberately top posted for ease of reading



    On 11/16/2012 2:23 PM, sobriquet wrote:
    > 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





    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Nov 17, 2012
    #90
  11. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:34:36 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    <> wrote:

    >> The more this guy sobriquet says, the more apparent it is that he is
    >> about as uncreative as anyone can be except in the area of making
    >> creative excuses for sponging off the work of others.

    >
    >Rather typical response from a copyright nazi.
    >Whoever questions the propaganda from the intellectual
    >property mafia must lack creativity.
    >


    Uncreative insults, too. You should copy/paste some more creative
    insults from some of those insult-sharing sites.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2012
    #91
  12. sobriquet

    DanP Guest

    sobriquet wrote:

    > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:42:29 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:


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

    >
    > Anything? Not exactly. Try to convert a commodity like a car or
    > a screwdriver to a bitstring and share it on p2p networks.
    >
    > They are working on that though, but 3d scanning and printing is far
    > from being able to duplicate things up to molecular details.
    >


    I mill parts on cnc machines using programs. I start with a 3D model and
    a drawing in PDF format and release a program and a tool list. Anyone
    using the same type machine using those files can make the parts and
    they will be identical.

    Anyway, I would not share my work on a p2p network.

    Did you take my statement as you can transform digital information
    into tangible things without using raw materials? And replicate at
    molecular level?

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

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


    You try this, sell a bitstring saying it is just that, a bitstring and
    nothing else. No one will buy it, it has no value. Record a song, encode
    it in MP3 format and someone might buy it.

    You are trying to remove any value from an artwork yet it has enough
    value to you to justify seraching, downloading it and spend time
    enjoying it in some form.

    Bend logic so you can claim your actions ar moral.

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

    >
    > You seem to be confused about the laws in the place where I live.
    > It is not necessarily illegal for me to download an mp3 via p2p
    > networks for free, even though that very same mp3 might be for sale
    > at the itunes webstore.
    > It would be illegal for me to share such an mp3 again via p2p
    > networks, but in practice people tend to share content freely as
    > the chances of getting into legal difficulties because of that are
    > rather minimal.
    >
    > If you allow people to collect bitstrings for personal use, you
    > can't really expect them not to share and exchange bitstrings
    > with other collectors.


    So if you want to avoid breaking the law you should not download through
    a p2p network as this implies uploading.

    Had the legislators made it illegal to download you would had called
    them some nasty names. Give an inch take a mile.

    And stop saying bitstrings, no one is mental enough to get a collection
    of random numbers. Is always a collection of sotware/songs/movies/etc.
    DanP, Nov 17, 2012
    #92
  13. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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.
    |

    I always thought gov't was for the
    smooth operation of a civilized society...all the way
    back to Moses deciding the penalty for stealing one's
    neighbor's pig. You're saying you regard the role of
    gov't as a balancing between the peoples' interests
    and business interests? So the American gov't is
    intended to be a method of making plutocracy run
    smoothly? How bracingly savage. :)
    Mayayana, Nov 17, 2012
    #93
  14. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:04:47 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
    > sobriquet wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:42:29 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > >>

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

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Anything? Not exactly. Try to convert a commodity like a car or

    >
    > > a screwdriver to a bitstring and share it on p2p networks.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > They are working on that though, but 3d scanning and printing is far

    >
    > > from being able to duplicate things up to molecular details.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > I mill parts on cnc machines using programs. I start with a 3D model and
    >
    > a drawing in PDF format and release a program and a tool list. Anyone
    >
    > using the same type machine using those files can make the parts and
    >
    > they will be identical.
    >
    >
    >
    > Anyway, I would not share my work on a p2p network.
    >
    >
    >
    > Did you take my statement as you can transform digital information
    >
    > into tangible things without using raw materials? And replicate at
    >
    > molecular level?
    >


    I don't see how any of this detracts from my statement that it's not
    as easy to duplicate a car or a screwdriver to obtain an identical
    item without significant additional costs in the same way as a piece
    of digital information can be duplicated without additional costs.

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

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You might not realize it, but when you buy an mp3 from itunes, you are

    >
    > > actually buying a bitstring.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > You try this, sell a bitstring saying it is just that, a bitstring and
    >
    > nothing else. No one will buy it, it has no value. Record a song, encode
    >
    > it in MP3 format and someone might buy it.
    >
    >
    >
    > You are trying to remove any value from an artwork yet it has enough
    >
    > value to you to justify seraching, downloading it and spend time
    >
    > enjoying it in some form.
    >
    >
    >
    > Bend logic so you can claim your actions ar moral.
    >


    You're the one who's bending logic. My claim that people who share
    and exchange things on p2p networks are actually exchanging bitstrings is
    simply a fact.

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

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You seem to be confused about the laws in the place where I live.

    >
    > > It is not necessarily illegal for me to download an mp3 via p2p

    >
    > > networks for free, even though that very same mp3 might be for sale

    >
    > > at the itunes webstore.

    >
    > > It would be illegal for me to share such an mp3 again via p2p

    >
    > > networks, but in practice people tend to share content freely as

    >
    > > the chances of getting into legal difficulties because of that are

    >
    > > rather minimal.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > If you allow people to collect bitstrings for personal use, you

    >
    > > can't really expect them not to share and exchange bitstrings

    >
    > > with other collectors.

    >
    >
    >
    > So if you want to avoid breaking the law you should not download through
    >
    > a p2p network as this implies uploading.
    >


    It doesn't. But I deliberately upload besides downloading.

    >
    >
    > Had the legislators made it illegal to download you would had called
    >
    > them some nasty names. Give an inch take a mile.
    >
    >
    >
    > And stop saying bitstrings, no one is mental enough to get a collection
    >
    > of random numbers. Is always a collection of sotware/songs/movies/etc.


    That doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #94
  15. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:30:45 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:53:27 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:26:34 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:33:07 -0800, Savageduck

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> In this part of the world they call cannabis 'wacky baccy'. I can see

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> why.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjmyth/exposing_index_1095.html

    >
    >
    >
    > That's an old one try this and the academic papers behind it
    >
    > http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/7560076/Cannabis-use-damage-differs-with-age-study
    >


    That just confirms my claim that cannabis isn't as harmful as alcohol
    in case of abuse (especially in case of vulnerable groups like adolescents).
    I've never claimed that cannabis is perfectly safe or can't be abused.


    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #95
  16. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:36:18 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:49:13 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >There is a special tax on information to ensure creative people get

    >
    > >paid. Research shows that the people who frequently obtain culture

    >
    > >from unauthorized sources are the same people (on average) who spend

    >
    > >the most money on culture from authorized sources. So I'm contributing

    >
    > >in multiple ways to the income of creative people. On the one hand I

    >
    > >pay taxes on information (actually on things like harddrives and

    >
    > >other information storage devices and blank media) and on the other

    >
    > >hand I'm contributing to the availability of unauthorized sources

    >
    > >of culture and research demonstrates a clear correlation between

    >
    > >the habit of obtaining culture from unauthorized sources and

    >
    > >the habit of obtaining culture from authorized sources.

    >
    > >So someone who obtains a copy for personal use from an unauthorized

    >
    > >source like one of my uploads is likely to spend money on a purchase

    >
    > >from an authorized source.

    >
    >
    >
    > So you claim that the acts of other people make up for the damage you
    >
    > do by your own acts.


    No, I claim that my acts aren't causing any damage whatsoever.
    Sharing information doesn't cause any damage whatsoever, just
    like education doesn't cause any damage whatsoever.
    What's causing damage is the propaganda of the intellectual
    property mafia that tries to demonize sharing information.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #96
  17. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:04:11 -0500, "Mayayana"
    <> wrote:

    >| > 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.
    >|
    >
    > I always thought gov't was for the
    >smooth operation of a civilized society...all the way
    >back to Moses deciding the penalty for stealing one's
    >neighbor's pig. You're saying you regard the role of
    >gov't as a balancing between the peoples' interests
    >and business interests? So the American gov't is
    >intended to be a method of making plutocracy run
    >smoothly? How bracingly savage. :)
    >


    Moses didn't have a pig farm, so there was no need for a government to
    oversee his business. No need for an authority to see that his pig
    farm slurry didn't contaminate his neighbor's property. No need for
    an authority to see that Moses didn't import slave labor and exploit
    those slaves. No need for an authority to determine if Moses was
    grinding up his pigs and making sausages in such a way that would harm
    the buyers of the sausage.

    Government grows and changes as society grows and changes. Ideally,
    government balances the need of a pig farmer to grow and flourish as a
    business and the need for the public to be protected from abuses by
    the pig farmer. It doesn't work ideally in practice because both the
    pig farmer and the public often have opposite goals and needs.

    To allow the pig farmer to operate untrammeled by a protective
    authority would be the savage thing.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 17, 2012
    #97
  18. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:26:13 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:35:38 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:11:52 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:17:33 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > >> <> wrote:

    > >Because the whole idea of copyright only came into existence when

    >
    > >people started to employ certain kinds of information technology,

    >
    > >like the printing press.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's when bulk-copying first became practical. Imagine trying to do
    >
    > it in the days of the pen.
    >


    So because it becomes easier to reproduce information, reproducing
    information suddenly becomes an immoral act?

    >
    >
    > >People had been creating things long before

    >
    > >that and also making a living that way. Now we have computers

    >
    > >and they are a form of technology way beyond the printing press

    >
    > >and so it stands to reason that we might need to update the concept

    >
    > >of copyright so it takes into account the radical differences between

    >
    > >a computer and a traditional printing press.

    >
    >
    >
    > The only difference is ease and speed.


    The most essential difference is that on a computer you can duplicate
    things virtually free from additional costs, while with a printing press
    you can just massively duplicate things, but certainly not free from
    additional costs.
    Also, computers are networked. You can't build a network from printing press
    machines.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >One of the signs that indicate there might be a problem with

    >
    > >copyright is that copyright was much easier to enforce back

    >
    > >in the day when the printing press started to be used by

    >
    > >publishers.

    >
    > >Over the course of subsequent technological developments,

    >
    > >it has become increasingly hard to enforce copyrights and by now

    >
    > >it's virtually impossible to enforce it at all.

    >
    >
    >
    > So?


    So futile attempts to enforce copyrights just undermine the authority
    of the government. Seems about time to reform the system so the laws
    regarding intellectual property actually make some sense again.
    But corporations have been scamming people so long that they cling on
    to their old ways and refuse to accept the new situation where information
    technology has exposed their scam.

    > [..]
    > >> You seem to be quite happy to denigrate anybody to help you justify

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> your misdeeds to yourself.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself how denigrating

    >
    > >people who enjoy filesharing as thieves and parasites contributes

    >
    > >anything to a debate about the relationship between intellectual

    >
    > >property and information technology.

    >
    >
    >
    > Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself how denigrating
    >
    > people who enjoy burgling houses as thieves and parasites contributes
    >
    > anything to a debate about the relationship between property rights
    >
    > and information.


    People don't burgle houses to copy bitstrings.
    When bitstrings are copied, nothing is being taken away from anyone.
    So comparing copyright infringement to theft is just as silly as
    comparing copyright infringement to murder or rape.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #98
  19. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:18:04 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-11-17 07:33:05 -0800, sobriquet <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:30:45 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:53:27 -0800 (PST), sobriquet

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 5:26:34 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:33:07 -0800, Savageduck

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> In this part of the world they call cannabis 'wacky baccy'. I can see

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> why.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjmyth/exposing_index_1095.html

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > That's
    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >> an old one try this and the academic papers behind it

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/7560076/Cannabis-use-damage-differs-with-age-study

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > That
    >
    > >>

    >
    > > just confirms my claim that cannabis isn't as harmful as alcohol

    >
    > > in case of abuse (especially in case of vulnerable groups like adolescents).

    >
    > > I've never claimed that cannabis is perfectly safe or can't be abused.

    >
    >
    >
    > What the Hell is wrong with your usenet client, G2/1.0???
    >
    >
    >
    > Every time you respond to a post it adds a carriage return to every
    >
    > line of text. By the third cycle in one of these pissing contests the
    >
    > post becomes an unreadable scrolling nightmare. just use the current
    >
    > sub-thread above my remark to see what I am talking about.
    >


    Indeed, very annoying.. I had already submitted a complaint
    about this issue to google.groups.
    It wasn't like this before, so it seems to be an issue with the new
    version of google groups that has more annoying 'features'.

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    #99
  20. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:13:42 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > With regard to the "What" and "That's" you refer to above.
    >
    > The "What" immediately above in "What the Hell is wrong with your
    >
    > usenet client, G2/1.0???" is mine, but appears as it should in its
    >
    > first appearance.
    >
    >
    >
    > The "That's" was not my original typing and had already been displaced
    >
    > by our Dutch anarchist's G2/1.0 butchery
    >


    Not as far as I can see:

    http://i.imgur.com/SM4qx.jpg

    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=

    Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    798
    |{evin
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. slylittlei

    Potentially funny...

    slylittlei, May 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    493
    Juan PĂ©rez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    489
    Michael S. Cooper
    Nov 8, 2003
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    2,925
    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:
    704
    RichA
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page