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

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

  1. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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.

    I don't disagree with what you've said, but you misread
    what I wrote. What I was getting at is that government
    is for people. Business is people. There's no need or interest
    of business that's opposed to the interests of the people.
    (Except under the current perversion of law that judges
    a corporation to be a person.)

    The Old Testament, in some ways, reads like a history
    of the birth of civilization.
    People with complaints (like "the neighbor stole my pig")
    would go to Moses and he would pass judgement, gradually
    developing basic eye-for-an-eye laws to provide for a
    stable society. The point I was trying to make to PeterN
    is that business never had nor has a primary role in gov't.
    When it does that's plutocracy. But PeterN seems to
    believe plutocracy is a good system, and from that point
    of view I suppose lobbying/bribery is, in fact, the proper
    conduct of gov't. It's not personal; just business. :)

    (Though I don't see how anyone can say lobbying is
    not a polite-company word for bribery. Corporate reps
    wine and dine Congresspeople, while their bosses write
    checks for campaigns. They wouldn't do it if they didn't
    expect favors in return. The fact that the payment is
    slightly indirect doesn't change that.)

    All of this gets back to the original issue of copyright.
    The intent of that was to reward useful creation for
    the sake of society, not to protect business profits.
    With "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" extending
    copyright, and the DMCA to create criminal penalties for
    infringement, it *has* become a system to protect business
    profits.

    I don't intend any criticism of business, per se.
    Rather, my point was that the copyright problem is a
    problem on both sides of the issue: Corporate interests
    on one side try to exploit it to maximize profits (partly
    via lobbying to distort laws in their favor) while
    people like sobriquet, on the other side, use that
    corruption as an excuse to exploit the situation for
    their own purposes. People won't respect unjust laws.
    If they end up "owing their soul" to the company
    licensing outlet they'll feel justified in stealing from the
    company whenever they have a chance, to the moral
    detriment of both sides.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 17, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | > To allow the pig farmer to operate untrammeled by a protective
    | > authority would be the savage thing.
    |
    | Somehow that concept doesn't seem kosher.
    |

    Actually, don't you need a license to officially make
    that determination? :)
     
    Mayayana, Nov 17, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from
    > other sites.


    "Steal" is the wrong word.

    If I 'steal' your only bicycle the way these people 'steal'
    content, then there are now two bikes --- you keep yours and I get
    one[1]. If I steal your bicycle, I've got one and you must walk.

    Illegal coyping is not theft, just like theft is not extortion.
    Different crimes.


    If people were really stealing the content from other sites,
    they'd need to break into the webhoster's facility, rip out the
    hard drives containing that content and for good measure trash
    all the backups. And then repeat that for everyone who also has
    a copy, like the original uploader.

    You may call it piracy if the webhoster's facility is on a ship
    and say, in international waters.

    And yes, I happen to make my living creating intellectual
    "property" which is trivially copied.


    -Wolfgang

    [1] I agree that having another bike just like yours in existence
    may ruin your day, if you plan to sell your bike (because
    there may be one buyer less now[2]), especially if you planned to
    sell it as a unique item.
    [2] but by far not everyone who might clone your bicycle for free
    would have been interested or have the money to buy yours.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 17, 2012
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:30:42 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > 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.
    >
    > I don't disagree with what you've said, but you misread
    > what I wrote. What I was getting at is that government
    > is for people. Business is people. There's no need or interest
    > of business that's opposed to the interests of the people.
    > (Except under the current perversion of law that judges
    > a corporation to be a person.)
    >
    > The Old Testament, in some ways, reads like a history
    > of the birth of civilization.
    > People with complaints (like "the neighbor stole my pig")
    > would go to Moses and he would pass judgement, gradually
    > developing basic eye-for-an-eye laws to provide for a
    > stable society. The point I was trying to make to PeterN
    > is that business never had nor has a primary role in gov't.
    > When it does that's plutocracy. But PeterN seems to
    > believe plutocracy is a good system, and from that point
    > of view I suppose lobbying/bribery is, in fact, the proper
    > conduct of gov't. It's not personal; just business. :)
    >
    > (Though I don't see how anyone can say lobbying is
    > not a polite-company word for bribery. Corporate reps
    > wine and dine Congresspeople, while their bosses write
    > checks for campaigns. They wouldn't do it if they didn't
    > expect favors in return. The fact that the payment is
    > slightly indirect doesn't change that.)
    >
    > All of this gets back to the original issue of copyright.
    > The intent of that was to reward useful creation for
    > the sake of society, not to protect business profits.
    > With "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" extending
    > copyright, and the DMCA to create criminal penalties for
    > infringement, it *has* become a system to protect business
    > profits.
    >
    > I don't intend any criticism of business, per se.
    > Rather, my point was that the copyright problem is a
    > problem on both sides of the issue: Corporate interests
    > on one side try to exploit it to maximize profits (partly
    > via lobbying to distort laws in their favor) while
    > people like sobriquet, on the other side, use that
    > corruption as an excuse to exploit the situation for
    > their own purposes. People won't respect unjust laws.
    > If they end up "owing their soul" to the company
    > licensing outlet they'll feel justified in stealing from the
    > company whenever they have a chance, to the moral
    > detriment of both sides.


    I don't need any excuse for any of my activities.
    Sharing information is a human right. People who
    share information are merely collecting bitstrings and are
    not interfering with other people's rights or freedom in any
    way.
    They in fact contribute to the availability of information
    (culture, knowledge, etc..) which is in the interest of anyone
    who seriously claims to have creative aspirations.

    I can't expect laws to change, as businesses own the government and
    the media, so they get to perpetuate their scam indefinitely.
    So all I can do is expose the myths perpetuated by the intellectual
    property mafia by employing information technology for its intended
    purpose.

    What you're saying is similar to someone who would be claiming that
    jews in former Nazi Germany were doing something wrong and
    exploiting the situation in response to abuse of power by the nazis.
    When there is a conflict of interests (e.g. between the nazis and
    the jews) , that doesn't necessarily imply that both sides are to blame.

    The blame in the copyright conflict solely lies by the corporate
    scum who are inflicting a great deal of damage to society by
    the way the are scamming people with their copyright myth.

    That damage extends way beyond the damage done to creativity
    and innovation. It precludes society from having a fair and
    effective system to promote creativity and innovation and
    instead stifles and frustrates true creativity.

    Creativity isn't something that thrives in an intellectual vacuum, but
    something that builds upon the creations that precede it.

    So you can only cultivate a truly creative atmosphere, when
    people who strive to create new things are free to employ
    the creations of others (building upon them, recombining
    them, modifying them, etc.).
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
  5. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > sobriquet <> writes:


    >> There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    >> might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    >> it theft.
    >> But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    >> infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    >> copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    >> actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    >> information".


    > So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    > "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    > "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    > production, and so forth?


    Do they really depend on all the money they're supposed to make
    through copyright many decades after they died? And does their
    profession really depend on "Steam Boat Willie" being eternally
    Disney-Only?

    > You think people will create art that takes
    > hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    > millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?


    What's the natural law that says "No art was ever created before
    copyright and copy-restrictions and none ever will without"?

    There are lots of ways to get the viewers to pay for the content
    without draconian copyright. So why not have a flat rate for
    every internet connection and the money gets paid by the number of
    different users that download/fileshare/... the item? So if 100
    million people download/view the newest Madonna clip that clip
    gets 100 million points (times a multiplier for it being music
    and video and it's length) and my photo, being downloaded/viewed
    by 10 people gets 10 points (times a multiplier for being a photo
    and it's displayed/downloaded size), and the film "Iron Skies",
    being still downloaded by a number of people ...

    Then there's so-and-so much money to go around for online stuff
    and it's divided by the points each work has gathered.

    Or have the same flat rate and have the users vote for the
    works of art they enjoy --- somewhat like Flattr.

    (Yes, any scheme can be bend or broken. Like substracting an
    amount for "shellac records broken in transit" from what the
    musicians are to receive --- for digital downloads. I understand
    that's an usual method in the music industry of today.)

    Theoretically you could also use a "per view" licence, but that
    would be too intrusive for private homes (but does work for TV
    and radio for ad selling).

    Then there's stuff like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo for
    crowdfunding.

    Studies have shown at least for music that those who share much
    also buy much. Which may be because they care about music or
    because they want the extras like booklets. It's similar with
    books: the problem for almost everyone is not being copied,
    it's not being found. Either because someone has stolen the
    last copy of the book in a brick&motar shop ("noone buys this
    author/book! So why order more?") or because most of the people
    who would potentially be interested never heard of the author.

    (Of course, a search engine for finding creative people interesting
    to 'me' (sort of what google is for finding webpages when given
    some cues) would be grand! There's so many things out there worth
    to be found ... and so little time and so little direction in
    the sea of uninteresting parts that most people stay with what
    they know. Or use filesharing to at least lower the costs of
    their initial research.)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 17, 2012
  6. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:22:01 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:33:05 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:
    > --- snip ---
    > >> >> 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > My point didn't have anything to do with the relative safety of
    >
    > cannabis and alcohol.
    >
    >
    >
    > My point was that the use of cannabis at a young age will stunt
    >
    > intelligence.
    >


    So what? The use of alcohol at a young age will stunt intelligence
    even more.

    Drugs like alcohol and cannabis are unsuitable for kids.

    When a liquor store sells booze to kids, their sales license will
    soon be revoked.
    Criminals who sell cannabis have no reason to care about the age
    of their customers and they can also provide such young customers
    with more harmful drugs like cocaine or meth.


    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:14:02 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:01:01 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:
    > >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?

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


    So those monks who were copying books by hand before the
    printing press was invented were actually being regarded as
    immoral parasites and thieves?

    > >> >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.

    >
    > You know little about society if you don't know that trading
    > enterprises were networked long before the introduction of the
    > computer.
    >

    You know little about information technology if you think the
    internet is not much different from an interrelated group of
    trading enterprises.

    > >> [..]

    > >People don't burgle houses to copy bitstrings.
    > >When bitstrings are copied, nothing is being taken away from anyone.

    >
    > The ability of the original creator to sell a copy of his work is
    > taken away.
    >

    No, it's not. They can sell their creations just the same, but
    they can't expect to impose a monopoly on the reproduction or
    distribution of their creations.
    Hence, they are dependent on the government for a system that
    provides a fair and transparent financial compensation for their
    creative output, but the government couldn't care less about
    individual creative people, because the government is owned by
    the corporate pimps who have been exploiting creative people.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
  8. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:34:12 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > [..]
    > To further complicate matters, I have just discovered that Google's
    > Advanced Group Search seems no longer to work.


    Things have been going downhill with webbased access to the usenet
    archives ever since google took over dejanews.

    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
  9. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:37:48 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:38:52 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
    > <> wrote:
    > >No, I claim that my acts aren't causing any damage whatsoever.

    >
    > Then why do the creators or owners of the 'bitstrings' you have copied
    > feel damaged?
    >


    Because they have been successfully brainwashed by the intellectual
    property mafia to believe that their exploitation by that corporate
    scum is in their own interest.

    Why would there be slaves who were opposed to the abolition of slavery?
    Seems rather obvious that they were manipulated into their misguided
    beliefs by their masters.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 17, 2012
  10. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | What you're saying is similar to someone who would be claiming that
    | jews in former Nazi Germany were doing something wrong and
    | exploiting the situation in response to abuse of power by the nazis.
    | When there is a conflict of interests (e.g. between the nazis and
    | the jews) , that doesn't necessarily imply that both sides are to blame.
    |
    | The blame in the copyright conflict solely lies by the corporate
    | scum who are inflicting a great deal of damage to society by
    | the way the are scamming people with their copyright myth.
    |

    I think it's more simple than all that. If you have
    a neighbor who's got a big pile of firewood that he's
    willing to share, it's common courtesy to ask him
    before you take some. It's also common courtesy
    to then try to do something for him. Before the Internet
    got commercialized there were lots of people just
    building websites and offering anything they thought
    other people might be able to use. But in all of your
    posts I haven't seen you talk about contributing
    anything. You've only talked about your "right" to
    take what you want.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 17, 2012
  11. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:31:23 AM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | What you're saying is similar to someone who would be claiming that
    > | jews in former Nazi Germany were doing something wrong and
    > | exploiting the situation in response to abuse of power by the nazis.
    > | When there is a conflict of interests (e.g. between the nazis and
    > | the jews) , that doesn't necessarily imply that both sides are to blame.
    > |
    > | The blame in the copyright conflict solely lies by the corporate
    > | scum who are inflicting a great deal of damage to society by
    > | the way the are scamming people with their copyright myth.
    > |
    > I think it's more simple than all that. If you have
    > a neighbor who's got a big pile of firewood that he's
    > willing to share, it's common courtesy to ask him
    > before you take some. It's also common courtesy
    > to then try to do something for him. Before the Internet
    > got commercialized there were lots of people just
    > building websites and offering anything they thought
    > other people might be able to use. But in all of your
    > posts I haven't seen you talk about contributing
    > anything. You've only talked about your "right" to
    > take what you want.


    It's not just *my* right. I'm not talking about about
    *human* rights.

    I'm talking about the rights of people in general, not
    just creative people, independent of corporate interests.
    But I feel the urge to create things myself and I feel
    that as a creative person, I have the right to create
    things and employ the creations of others in my
    creative output.

    I think people in this discussion have a very misguided
    idea of creativity, as if creativity has to start from
    scratch and somehow if you create something based on
    the creation of someone else, that supposedly isn't
    creative but some kind of intellectual parasitism.

    That is totally opposed to my idea of creativity. I
    think there can be no sensible idea of creative freedom
    if it doesn't include the freedom to freely incorporate
    the creations of others in one's creative output.

    For instance, I like to use images in photoshop and
    recombine them to create new images:
    https://picasaweb.google.com/114882846033118696357/Photoshop

    For that purpose, I collect images from p2p networks.
    Artworks, photo's, stock pictures, etc..
    However, when I would use pictures freely, I risk
    being sued and harassed by people who feel that I'm
    violating their copyright by using their pictures in
    my own creations.

    Now I would certainly like to make a living
    somehow from my creative skills, but I think the whole
    creative industry has been so perverted by corporate
    interests, that I feel like I want nothing to do with
    those scumbags, except that they proclaim to own
    virtually all culture, because they manipulate people
    into the idea that more or less all information out
    there is the intellectual property of some corporation
    and hence people can never touch anything to use it in
    their own work.

    So I take the opposite position where I claim that
    all information belongs to the public domain instead
    and I really feel this is the case, because when you
    really think about it, it's insane to assume that people
    can own something like a bitstring as intellectual property.

    Consequently, that also means that whatever I create
    or would ever create also belongs to the public domain,
    but I think that for creative people this would be a
    more advantageous position than prostituting themselves
    to some corporate pimp and taking the position that
    virtually all of human culture is off limits to anyone
    who feels they might like to contribute some creative
    output to the shared wealth of human culture.

    Regarding your analogy about the neighbor who has
    some firewood to share, I think a better analogy would
    be that the neighbor has created a nice artwork and put
    it on the outside wall of his house, so it's visible from
    the street. Now my opinion is that this image belongs to
    the public domain in the sense that I can walk by that
    outside wall and take a picture with my digital camera
    and I don't even feel I would need to ask the neighbor
    if that's ok. If that neighbor had issues with that, he
    shouldn't put the artwork on the outside of his house,
    but he should hang it in his house, where it's not
    visible from the street. Because then I would certainly not
    break into his house just to take a picture of that artwork.

    I think the government should support creativity, but not
    in a way where they primarily support the exploitation
    of creativity by corporations at the expense of individual
    creative freedom.
    I can imagine they might stimulate creativity instead by taxing
    information and distributing that money in a fair and transparent
    way to people who contribute new content (based on the
    relative popularity of those creations among people who
    share it online).
    That would allow creative people to make a living based
    on their creative skills without prostituting themselves to
    some corporate pimp that ruthlessly exploits them and
    declares their creative output to be their intellectual property
    virtually indefinitely and suing anyone who dares to even
    point at it without paying a fee.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 18, 2012
  12. sobriquet

    Mayayana Guest

    | Regarding your analogy about the neighbor who has
    | some firewood to share, I think a better analogy would
    | be that the neighbor has created a nice artwork and put
    | it on the outside wall of his house, so it's visible from
    | the street. Now my opinion is that this image belongs to
    | the public domain in the sense that I can walk by that
    | outside wall and take a picture with my digital camera
    | and I don't even feel I would need to ask the neighbor
    | if that's ok. If that neighbor had issues with that, he
    | shouldn't put the artwork on the outside of his house,

    Even in your analogy you have no gratitude or appreciation
    of your neighbor's generosity. You have no impulse to
    return the favor, perhaps dropping off a box of chocolates
    to thank him for his beautiful work. And you have no thought
    of contributing to the "common wealth" yourself. Your only
    thought is about your right to take.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 18, 2012
  13. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:39:36 AM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | Regarding your analogy about the neighbor who has
    >
    > | some firewood to share, I think a better analogy would
    >
    > | be that the neighbor has created a nice artwork and put
    >
    > | it on the outside wall of his house, so it's visible from
    >
    > | the street. Now my opinion is that this image belongs to
    >
    > | the public domain in the sense that I can walk by that
    >
    > | outside wall and take a picture with my digital camera
    >
    > | and I don't even feel I would need to ask the neighbor
    >
    > | if that's ok. If that neighbor had issues with that, he
    >
    > | shouldn't put the artwork on the outside of his house,
    >
    >
    >
    > Even in your analogy you have no gratitude or appreciation
    >
    > of your neighbor's generosity. You have no impulse to
    >
    > return the favor, perhaps dropping off a box of chocolates
    >
    > to thank him for his beautiful work. And you have no thought
    >
    > of contributing to the "common wealth" yourself. Your only
    >
    > thought is about your right to take.


    That is just prejudice on your part.
    Perhaps later I find the urge to employ his artwork in something
    I create and share online. Perhaps that neighbor happens to encounter
    it online and he's pleased to see that someone apparently enjoyed his
    artwork so much that they felt inspired to create a new artwork that
    employs elements from his artwork.

    So all kinds of scenarios can be envisioned and you have no idea about
    how that neighbor feels about people who enjoy his art so much that
    they take a picture of it, regardless whether or not they feel
    compelled to say thanks.. perhaps he's allergic to chocolate.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 18, 2012
  14. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > "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.


    In which case a duration of a decade or so would be perfectly fine.
    Make that 1.5 or 2 decades, for the TINY minority few people
    care about.

    Actually, from what I hear, books sell in 3 weeks or not at all,
    at least in most common cases.

    >> 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?


    Copyright as it is is *pure* popularity, so what's your point?


    >> | 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.


    Yep, let's extend to infinity. That's not damaging at all.
    But contracting it to what it was when the works were made and
    published, that's pure evil, because all the creative people back
    then banked on ever increasing extensions and would retroactively
    unmake the works if we contract anything.

    *YOU* said "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." So why is contracting from
    near a century *after death* back to, say 10, 20, even 30 years
    after release of the work damaging?

    And how comes you speak for all public that being excluded from
    works (of which well over 99% have not been available for decades)
    is not as damaging as cutting a couple years of protection decades
    after the creator has died, and probably his children too?

    >> 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.


    You mean those musicians that never get a cent past the advances
    for their CDs from the labels (and may have to pay back part of
    the advances) and live by playing for life audiences? Yep,
    they'll be hurt badly if noone would pay for their CDs any more,
    and they'd be hard pressed if more people heard about them and
    wanted to see them perform ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 2012
  15. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > ...and your point is?
    > Just another torrent of words to rationalize your criminal thinking.


    Is that where rabid copyright leads to? Thought-crimes?


    And how comes all laws (i.e. that which defines what's criminal)
    are above reproach? What would the abolitionists say if you told
    them that talking about undoing slavery was 'criminal thinking'
    and doing so certainly was theft --- after all, the slave owners
    would have more expenditures due to that ...

    I don't know about those who helped slaves, but those who helped
    jews in the Third Reich are usually not seen as criminals nowadays
    --- even though they were. They broke laws and were harshly
    punished if caught.


    I agree that in a democratic system the often better way is to
    change the laws. But is a system democratic when votes and ballots
    are bought --- and most people do not have the means to buy them?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 2012
  16. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 11/15/2012 6:11 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> sobriquet writes:


    >>> The real freeloaders are the corporate criminals responsible for
    >>> all that intellectual property nonsense.


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


    > As an artist I am free to do what I want with my work. If I make a deal
    > with any corporation, and that company benefits, great. They expect to.
    > Otherwise they would not have financed my work.
    > I am also free to give it away, or sell it.


    A worker is free to work for whomever he chooses, at the price
    they agree. The company he works for sure wants benefits.

    A worker is also free to work for free, or set up his own shop.

    Now explain why unions are needed. Far as you put it,
    there's no need for them.

    > You, OTOH, are not free to use my work without my express written
    > permission. What is so difficult to understand about that?


    That you insist on a written permission from you, when
    a) you have probably already sold all your rights to a corporation
    b) there's no need for a written permission, just for a
    permission by whomever holds the rights
    c) all that is moot if you work for the government and are
    paid with taxes
    d) there is, at least in the US, something like "fair use"
    which does NOT require permission, even if it uses your
    works to mock you.

    > I may or may not own stock in those corporations you seem to despise. If
    > you are planning a pension, your plan and you will benefit from such
    > ownership, if the corporations are profitable.
    > What is evil, is stealing from those companies.


    So stealing from individuals is fine? But copying Steam Boat
    Willie is the end of the Western Civilisation?

    {insert standard rant about theft != copying. Different laws.
    Different crimes.}

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 2012
  17. Mayayana <> wrote:

    > use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
    > everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
    > Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
    > like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
    > wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
    > So I see no justification for the public paying her way.


    I hope you do have some insurance. Say for your car, should
    you produce a nasty accident. Now, if you rarely or never are
    involved in an accident (or are not at fault), you pay a 'tax'
    for the more careless drivers.

    Tell me if that is fair. If so, why are you paying fior
    something you don't need nor want to happen? If not, tell me
    why haven't you removed yourself from that insurance?


    As for copyright: That only helps a limited number of people.
    Everyone else is *only* hampered by it and needs to pay more.
    Yet you consider that fair ...


    >| Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    >| information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
    >| are not a paying member from that library)?


    > Libraries do not make copies.


    Have you ever seen a library without a copying machine?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 2012
  18. Mayayana <> wrote:
    >| > So I see no justification for the public paying her way.
    >| >
    >| Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
    >| regardless of whether they read books or not.


    > That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone
    > who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based
    > on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out.


    They pay more than you and I on a given book. Because they
    are lending it out.

    > You
    > can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at
    > the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author
    > can apply to libraries for a paycheck.


    No, they get their share automatically.
    It's the less well knowns who get disproportionally less ---
    at least over here. And yet most authors are happy to have
    their books in a library, because that means exposure, and
    exposure turns into sales. These sales can be *much* later,
    when a child has grown up and a steady job to pay for the
    books he read in his adolescence.

    > You can borrow
    > a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was
    > worth buying a copy,


    Interlibrary loan.

    > and *if* that copy isn't already on
    > loan. Then you have to bring that book back without
    > keeping a copy.


    But you've read the book then. You've had your fun.


    >| Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax
    >| on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed
    >| to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..),


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


    Look up van Gogh and check out how many paintings he sold in
    life. Then look up the current prices.

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


    There are also enough componists who were not understood in
    their lifetime, but today are well thought of.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 2012
  19. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 11/15/2012 10:33 PM, Mayayana wrote:
    >> | > Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they have
    >> | > bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.


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


    >> That's quaint. Lobbying *is* bribery. And it's perfectly
    >> legal. What authorities are you going to report to?


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


    So when can we expect to see, oh, the worst nightmare of Disney's
    copyright extensions as president? Will that be before copyright's
    retroactively declared to last for at least 1000 years?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 2012
  20. PeterN <> wrote:

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


    Only with ebooks.

    > While I may
    > freely sell, or lend the book, generally, I may not resell copies of the
    > contents of that book.


    You may also not use the book to assault someone.

    Same reason. Pesky laws prohibit it.

    > similarly, if I purchase sheet music, I may not
    > make extra copies for simultaneous use by others. I may lend or sell you
    > my copy of the sheet music, but if I do so, I may not retain a copy.


    > Also, in most cases, I may have limits on my public performance of the
    > music.


    Nope. You haved all rights unless limited by laws.

    > When they sing Happy Birthday to you, in a public place, a royalty
    > should be paid.


    Because Patty Hill dearly needs the money, 66 years after her
    death!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 18, 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:
    824
    |{evin
    Aug 26, 2003
  2. slylittlei

    Potentially funny...

    slylittlei, May 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    516
    Juan PĂ©rez
    May 26, 2004
  3. henry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    533
    Michael S. Cooper
    Nov 8, 2003
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,094
    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:
    748
    RichA
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page