Re: Fair Go stuff up

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Boots, May 7, 2011.

  1. Boots

    Boots Guest

    On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:

    > Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
    > and the up/downloading of copyright material.
    >
    > You think they'd get it right....
    >
    > geoff


    Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.

    In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
    question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL) that
    permit sharing. :)


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, May 7, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "Boots" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
    >
    >> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
    >> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
    >>
    >> You think they'd get it right....
    >>
    >> geoff

    >
    > Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
    >
    > In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
    > question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL) that
    > permit sharing. :)
    >


    How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    so?
    What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on "Favourites".
    Is that allowed?

    Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?
     
    Geopelia, May 8, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <iq626f$3tp$>, Geopelia wrote:

    > How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    > so?


    Copyright is supposed to apply to things “fixed in a tangible formâ€
    (whatever that means legally). Any such things are automatically
    copyrighted, no need to put any copyright notice on them.

    Copyright is also only supposed to apply to expressions of ideas, not to
    ideas themselves. But court decisions regularly stretch that distinction to
    breaking point.

    > What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
    > "Favourites". Is that allowed?


    They should be. But sometimes lawyers will come down on you for bogus reasons
    <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/21415213752/greek-site-that-links-to-legal-videos-rightsholders-sued-infringement.shtml>.

    > Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?


    Yes <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 8, 2011
    #3
  4. Boots

    J.Wilson Guest

    "Geopelia" <> wrote in message news:iq626f$3tp$...
    >
    > "Boots" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
    >>
    >>> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
    >>> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
    >>>
    >>> You think they'd get it right....
    >>>
    >>> geoff

    >>
    >> Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
    >>
    >> In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
    >> question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL) that
    >> permit sharing. :)
    >>

    >
    > How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say so?
    > What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on "Favourites". Is that
    > allowed?
    >
    > Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?


    Unlax, if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you expect
    to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued? If you are
    able to watch or listen to anything at all on the web do so with a clear
    conscience.
     
    J.Wilson, May 8, 2011
    #4
  5. In message <4dc71b47$>, J.Wilson wrote:

    > ... if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you
    > expect to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued?


    Paper book or e-book?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9, 2011
    #5
  6. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:iq686c$5ct$...
    > In message <iq626f$3tp$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >
    >> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    >> so?

    >
    > Copyright is supposed to apply to things "fixed in a tangible form"
    > (whatever that means legally). Any such things are automatically
    > copyrighted, no need to put any copyright notice on them.
    >
    > Copyright is also only supposed to apply to expressions of ideas, not to
    > ideas themselves. But court decisions regularly stretch that distinction
    > to
    > breaking point.
    >
    >> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
    >> "Favourites". Is that allowed?

    >
    > They should be. But sometimes lawyers will come down on you for bogus
    > reasons
    > <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/21415213752/greek-site-that-links-to-legal-videos-rightsholders-sued-infringement.shtml>.


    Crazy. The Greeks will be claiming copyright for Pythagoras and Euclid next.

    >
    >> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

    >
    > Yes <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml>.


    Thank you.
    Those are good websites. The whole thing seems very confusing.

    Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial sale?
     
    Geopelia, May 9, 2011
    #6
  7. Boots

    J.Wilson Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:iq7g5h$s6p$...
    > In message <4dc71b47$>, J.Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> ... if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you
    >> expect to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued?

    >
    > Paper book or e-book?


    e-books can be encrypted but apart from that read or not read I
    would'nt make the distinction. We can only be cavalier about the
    whole sorry mess of patent and copyright law. It is up to the owners
    whether or not they put it out there.
     
    J.Wilson, May 9, 2011
    #7
  8. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:iq686c$5ct$...
    > In message <iq626f$3tp$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >
    >> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    >> so?

    >
    > Copyright is supposed to apply to things "fixed in a tangible form"
    > (whatever that means legally). Any such things are automatically
    > copyrighted, no need to put any copyright notice on them.
    >
    > Copyright is also only supposed to apply to expressions of ideas, not to
    > ideas themselves. But court decisions regularly stretch that distinction
    > to
    > breaking point.
    >
    >> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
    >> "Favourites". Is that allowed?

    >
    > They should be. But sometimes lawyers will come down on you for bogus
    > reasons
    > <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/21415213752/greek-site-that-links-to-legal-videos-rightsholders-sued-infringement.shtml>.


    Crazy. The Greeks will be claiming copyright for Pythagoras and Euclid next.

    >
    >> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

    >
    > Yes <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml>.


    Thank you.
    Those are good websites. The whole thing seems very confusing.

    Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial sale?
     
    Geopelia, May 9, 2011
    #8
  9. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:iq686c$5ct$...
    > In message <iq626f$3tp$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >
    >> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    >> so?

    >
    > Copyright is supposed to apply to things "fixed in a tangible form"
    > (whatever that means legally). Any such things are automatically
    > copyrighted, no need to put any copyright notice on them.
    >
    > Copyright is also only supposed to apply to expressions of ideas, not to
    > ideas themselves. But court decisions regularly stretch that distinction
    > to
    > breaking point.
    >
    >> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
    >> "Favourites". Is that allowed?

    >
    > They should be. But sometimes lawyers will come down on you for bogus
    > reasons
    > <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/21415213752/greek-site-that-links-to-legal-videos-rightsholders-sued-infringement.shtml>.


    Crazy. The Greeks will be claiming copyright for Pythagoras and Euclid next.

    >
    >> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

    >
    > Yes <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml>.


    Thank you.
    Those are good websites. The whole thing seems very confusing.

    Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial sale?
     
    Geopelia, May 9, 2011
    #9
  10. Boots

    Possible Guest

    On Mon, 9 May 2011 00:26:46 +1200, "Geopelia" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Boots" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
    >>
    >>> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
    >>> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
    >>>
    >>> You think they'd get it right....
    >>>
    >>> geoff

    >>
    >> Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
    >>
    >> In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
    >> question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL) that
    >> permit sharing. :)
    >>

    >
    >How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    >so?
    >What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on "Favourites".
    >Is that allowed?
    >
    >Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?
    >
    >




    Don't worry just done use P2P/Torrent.

    I don't thing any thing else is monitored
     
    Possible, May 9, 2011
    #10
  11. Boots

    Possible Guest

    On Mon, 9 May 2011 10:38:34 +1200, "J.Wilson" <a@!b.c.ru> wrote:

    >
    >"Geopelia" <> wrote in message news:iq626f$3tp$...
    >>
    >> "Boots" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
    >>>> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
    >>>>
    >>>> You think they'd get it right....
    >>>>
    >>>> geoff
    >>>
    >>> Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
    >>>
    >>> In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
    >>> question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL) that
    >>> permit sharing. :)
    >>>

    >>
    >> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say so?
    >> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on "Favourites". Is that
    >> allowed?
    >>
    >> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

    >
    >Unlax, if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you expect
    >to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued? If you are
    >able to watch or listen to anything at all on the web do so with a clear
    >conscience.
    >



    The Yanks want to ban the sales of Secondhand DVD/CD Games etc because
    of copyright as you do not own them.
     
    Possible, May 9, 2011
    #11
  12. Boots

    Boots Guest

    On Mon, 09 May 2011 19:59:00 +1200, Possible wrote:

    > The Yanks want to ban the sales of Secondhand DVD/CD Games etc because
    > of copyright as you do not own them.


    The only problem with that is the fact that while you don't possess the
    right to make copies for sale or distribution, you DO own the physical
    media that is the Digital Versatile Disc and you can sell or otherwise
    dispose of that in any way you choose - providing you also destroy any
    copies you may have made for the purpose of backing up the contents of
    the disc.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, May 9, 2011
    #12
  13. Boots

    Gordon Guest

    On 2011-05-09, Geopelia <> wrote:
    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:iq686c$5ct$...
    >> In message <iq626f$3tp$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >>
    >>> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    >>> so?

    >>
    >> Copyright is supposed to apply to things "fixed in a tangible form"
    >> (whatever that means legally). Any such things are automatically
    >> copyrighted, no need to put any copyright notice on them.
    >>
    >> Copyright is also only supposed to apply to expressions of ideas, not to
    >> ideas themselves. But court decisions regularly stretch that distinction
    >> to
    >> breaking point.
    >>
    >>> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
    >>> "Favourites". Is that allowed?

    >>
    >> They should be. But sometimes lawyers will come down on you for bogus
    >> reasons
    >> <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/21415213752/greek-site-that-links-to-legal-videos-rightsholders-sued-infringement.shtml>.

    >
    > Crazy. The Greeks will be claiming copyright for Pythagoras and Euclid next.
    >
    >>
    >>> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

    >>
    >> Yes <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml>.

    >
    > Thank you.
    > Those are good websites. The whole thing seems very confusing.
    >
    > Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial sale?
    >
    >

    Simple, as Cyndi Lauper sung, Money changes everything.
     
    Gordon, May 9, 2011
    #13
  14. In message <iq7tcg$9dq$>, Geopelia wrote:

    > Those are good websites.


    techdirt.com is a long-running blog chronicling (mis)adventures of
    copyrights, patents, trademarks and all sorts of things that roughly fall
    under the umbrella of that totally misleading term “intellectual propertyâ€.
    You will find both happy and sad stories there; sad ones of overreach and
    abuse of these rights to shut down harmless, even beneficial activities, and
    happy ones of artists and entrepreneurs discovering how to adapt and even
    thrive in the presence of supposedly evil things like “piracyâ€.

    The guy who runs it also runs an open comment system. He welcomes informed
    discussion, has the patience to keep explaining things to those who
    automatically assume that copyrights and patents are good, therefore even
    more draconian copyright and patent laws must be even better, and is even
    willing to tolerate those who simply refuse to listen to reasoned argument
    and keep on repeating the same bullshit without censoring them.

    > The whole thing seems very confusing.


    In some ways that seems almost planned. It’s like the whole system has
    evolved to favour those with the biggest legal budgets.

    > Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial
    > sale?


    Define “commercialâ€.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9, 2011
    #14
  15. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:iq89l1$aq5$...
    > In message <iq7tcg$9dq$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >
    >> Those are good websites.

    >
    > techdirt.com is a long-running blog chronicling (mis)adventures of
    > copyrights, patents, trademarks and all sorts of things that roughly fall
    > under the umbrella of that totally misleading term "intellectual property".
    > You will find both happy and sad stories there; sad ones of overreach and
    > abuse of these rights to shut down harmless, even beneficial activities,
    > and
    > happy ones of artists and entrepreneurs discovering how to adapt and even
    > thrive in the presence of supposedly evil things like "piracy".
    >
    > The guy who runs it also runs an open comment system. He welcomes informed
    > discussion, has the patience to keep explaining things to those who
    > automatically assume that copyrights and patents are good, therefore even
    > more draconian copyright and patent laws must be even better, and is even
    > willing to tolerate those who simply refuse to listen to reasoned argument
    > and keep on repeating the same bullshit without censoring them.
    >
    >> The whole thing seems very confusing.

    >
    > In some ways that seems almost planned. It's like the whole system has
    > evolved to favour those with the biggest legal budgets.
    >
    >> Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial
    >> sale?

    >
    > Define "commercial".


    To be sold for money?

    I had a lot of trouble getting anything to post with eternal-september
    today.
    Sorry about the duplicates.
     
    Geopelia, May 9, 2011
    #15
  16. In message <iq8k5s$q83$>, Geopelia wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:iq89l1$aq5$...
    >
    >> Define "commercial".

    >
    > To be sold for money?


    What if you make money off the items in question some other way? For
    example, by advertising? Is that still not “commercial�
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9, 2011
    #16
  17. In message <4dc76f86$>, J.Wilson wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:iq7g5h$s6p$...
    >
    >> In message <4dc71b47$>, J.Wilson wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you
    >>> expect to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued?

    >>
    >> Paper book or e-book?

    >
    > e-books can be encrypted but apart from that read or not read I
    > would'nt make the distinction.


    Some would like the distinction to disappear, perhaps in ways you won’t like
    <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090925/0100086317.shtml>
    <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/163148691.shtml>
    <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020410/0044220_F.shtml>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9, 2011
    #17
  18. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:iq8sd3$nca$...
    > In message <iq8k5s$q83$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> news:iq89l1$aq5$...
    >>
    >>> Define "commercial".

    >>
    >> To be sold for money?

    >
    > What if you make money off the items in question some other way? For
    > example, by advertising? Is that still not "commercial"?


    Probably a lot of things could be considered commercial.
     
    Geopelia, May 9, 2011
    #18
  19. Boots

    Geopelia Guest

    "J.Wilson" <a@!b.c.ru> wrote in message news:4dc71b47$...
    >
    > "Geopelia" <> wrote in message
    > news:iq626f$3tp$...
    >>
    >> "Boots" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> On Sat, 07 May 2011 14:41:11 +1200, geoff wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Seems that they don't understand the difference between File Sharing,
    >>>> and the up/downloading of copyright material.
    >>>>
    >>>> You think they'd get it right....
    >>>>
    >>>> geoff
    >>>
    >>> Presumably you mean up/downloading of _copyrightED_ material.
    >>>
    >>> In fact every created work not in the public domain is copyrighted. The
    >>> question is whether or not it is licensed in terms (such as the GPL)
    >>> that
    >>> permit sharing. :)
    >>>

    >>
    >> How do you know whether something is copyright if it doesn't actually say
    >> so?
    >> What about all the sites on Google? I've put a lot of sites on
    >> "Favourites". Is that allowed?
    >>
    >> Is it possible to accidentally copy something copyright and not know it?

    >
    > Unlax, if a friend bought a book and lent it to you to read would you
    > expect
    > to pay a fee to the publisher/author or your friend to be sued? If you
    > are
    > able to watch or listen to anything at all on the web do so with a clear
    > conscience.


    What about library books? I don't think the author gets anything every time
    the book is borrowed.
    And Project Gutenberg seems to be free.
     
    Geopelia, May 9, 2011
    #19
  20. In message <iq9nnf$6jg$>, Geopelia wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:iq8sd3$nca$...
    >
    >> In message <iq8k5s$q83$>, Geopelia wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>> message news:iq89l1$aq5$...

    >
    >>> In message <iq7tcg$9dq$>, Geopelia wrote:

    >
    >>>> Why don't they just keep the law to films, records etc for commercial
    >>>> sale?
    >>>
    >>>> Define "commercial".
    >>>
    >>> To be sold for money?

    >>
    >> What if you make money off the items in question some other way? For
    >> example, by advertising? Is that still not "commercial"?

    >
    > Probably a lot of things could be considered commercial.


    So what does that do to your idea that they should "just keep the law to ...
    commercial sale�
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9, 2011
    #20
    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. Martin Bilgrav

    Weighted Fair-Queuing

    Martin Bilgrav, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,810
    Martin Bilgrav
    Nov 3, 2003
  2. Douw Gerber

    Fair-Queing causes interface resets

    Douw Gerber, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,745
    Douw Gerber
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Bill F

    fair-queue and MLPPP interfaces

    Bill F, Mar 4, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,228
    Aaron Leonard
    Mar 4, 2005
  4. ESM

    fair-queue'ing

    ESM, Mar 8, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,960
  5. CapStick

    Are Freserve Fair Or Foul

    CapStick, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    507
    Monsignor Larville Jones MD
    Aug 10, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page