Pornography: The secret history of civilization
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco
From: whisky-dave on 28 Apr 2010 08:40 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0b1acbd5-7e1e-43c4-be4e-2c87a30c21f7(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On 28 apr, 13:06, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1497672f-4bf4-4bfa-8fb8-ced35b263ed6(a)j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> >> > You're forgetting one important point. Those people have given >> > permission >> > for their work to be shared. Others have only given limited permission. >> > Still others require payment of some sort for any use of their work. >> > Just >> > because it is on the internet is no ticket - no free access to that >> > property. Hence, the frequent "terms of use" you see on websites. >> }So where are people supposed to check if a bitstring happens to be the >> }intellectual property of somebody? >> >> Sometimes they're called read me, or UELA or some license agreement. >> Nowadays they can be found on-line. > > Nobody ever reads those.. Not strictly true, I've read some, back in teh days when I was auditing software. sometimes those that write them don't actually read them.But you are meant to as a user(s) of the software. In my case at work the users isn;t always teh purchaser that holds the licence. >those are for corporate scum who have money > to spend > on legal assistance to decipher them. They do seem to be written with that in mind. >> }People can manipulate information at home and add or remove spurious >> }intellectual property claims as they see fit and share the manipulated >> }content online. >> >> They can but that doesn't make it valid. >> Just liemk you can add a zero to a dollar bill or UK pound >> but does thatr make it worth 10X more > > With banknotes, it's easy to tell if people have added one or more > zeros. So you're saying only if it's easy to tell, well how would someoen tell if tehy've never seen the original agreement. > With digital information, there is no easy way to tell if an > accompanying > copyright notice is genuine or fake. It's not that difficult, and usually quite easy. Although sometimes you have to think about it. >> }Or is it just a matter of the people with the most cash who can >> }exploit the legal system to their advantage, so they can exert some >> }control over the bitstrings they produce, whereas individual artists >> }who are struggling to make a living can't expect to remain in control >> }of their creations once they have made them public? >> >> The more you're worth the more control you have, or is that should have. > > I think the worth is also something that has to do with the relative > scarcity > of an item. A unique oil painting is usually worth more than a digital > artwork, regardless > of the artistic qualities involved in those works, because of the > nature of the medium used > to create the artwork. It's also more of a big deal if you take it, i.e thieve it. But if yuo asked adobe which is worth more the mona lisa or photoshop 5 I wonder what they'd say ;-) You see PS 5 can be stored on a DVD and if copied I could give it to either no one (in which cased the DVD would be worth it's original value) or I could duplicate that DVD a million times, does that make PS 5 less valuable because there are more of them than the mona lisa > >> >> }The public domain is under constant threat from corporate nazi scum >> }who have been stretching the limits of copyright to ever more absurd >> }degrees, at the expense of the interests of the general public. >> >> If there's money in it, it'll get done. > > Making money at the expense of the interests of the general public is > unethical. Why should that stop anyone ? >> }At this point, people have been brainwashed by so much propaganda, you >> }can expect people to stop thinking soon, >> >> I thought they had. ;-) > > Most likely.. it seems they don't have a mind of their own, capable of > independent critical thought.
From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 11:06 On 28 apr, 15:58, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-28 03:14:41 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: > -- > > Well, I am the slime from your video > > > Oozin along on your livinroom floor > > > I am the slime from your video > > Cant stop the slime, people, lookit me go > > Not exactly an orignal thought. > You had to steal that from a dead man. > > Frank would be proud of you. > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck -- Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. Howard Aiken
From: Henry Olson on 28 Apr 2010 11:10 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:15:50 +1000, "Atheist Chaplain" <abused(a)cia.gov> wrote: > >Now just sit back and tell me why you hate your father, is it because he >made you swallow his semen? or because he always went first when you gang >banged your mother?? It is interesting that you would project these thoughts of yours to the whole world. Are these the kind of thing that you think of all the time, or just a few times a day? It's rather amazing where people's minds go sometimes. Always revealing their own crippled and twisted psyche and nobody else's.
From: Kev Hubbard on 28 Apr 2010 11:38 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:06:43 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 28 apr, 15:58, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-04-28 03:14:41 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >> -- >> >> Well, I am the slime from your video >> >> > Oozin along on your livinroom floor >> >> > I am the slime from your video >> > Cant stop the slime, people, lookit me go >> >> Not exactly an orignal thought. >> You had to steal that from a dead man. >> >> Frank would be proud of you. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Savageduck > > >-- Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any >good, > you'll have to ram them down people's throats. > >Howard Aiken I like this shortened version: "If it ain't worth stealing, it sure as hell ain't worth buying!"
From: sobriquet on 28 Apr 2010 11:52
On 28 apr, 14:40, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:0b1acbd5-7e1e-43c4-be4e-2c87a30c21f7(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 28 apr, 13:06, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1497672f-4bf4-4bfa-8fb8-ced35b263ed6(a)j17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > >> > You're forgetting one important point. Those people have given > >> > permission > >> > for their work to be shared. Others have only given limited permission. > >> > Still others require payment of some sort for any use of their work. > >> > Just > >> > because it is on the internet is no ticket - no free access to that > >> > property. Hence, the frequent "terms of use" you see on websites. > >> }So where are people supposed to check if a bitstring happens to be the > >> }intellectual property of somebody? > > >> Sometimes they're called read me, or UELA or some license agreement. > >> Nowadays they can be found on-line. > > > Nobody ever reads those.. > > Not strictly true, I've read some, back in teh days when I was auditing > software. > sometimes those that write them don't actually read them.But you are meant > to > as a user(s) of the software. In my case at work the users isn;t always teh > purchaser that > holds the licence. I doubt that file sharers read these licenses. I never read them, but I only use pirated software if possible, so in that case there wouldn't be much of a point to study the license anyway. > > >those are for corporate scum who have money > > to spend > > on legal assistance to decipher them. > > They do seem to be written with that in mind. > > >> }People can manipulate information at home and add or remove spurious > >> }intellectual property claims as they see fit and share the manipulated > >> }content online. > > >> They can but that doesn't make it valid. > >> Just liemk you can add a zero to a dollar bill or UK pound > >> but does thatr make it worth 10X more > > > With banknotes, it's easy to tell if people have added one or more > > zeros. > > So you're saying only if it's easy to tell, well how would someoen tell > if tehy've never seen the original agreement. I'm saying you can't expect people to take these licenses seriously. Suppose you buy a bread at the supermarket and they want you to sign a 34 page end-user-license agreement that specifies what you're allowed to do with the bread? You'd probably sign it to get it over with, ignore it and use the bread as you see fit. > > > With digital information, there is no easy way to tell if an > > accompanying > > copyright notice is genuine or fake. > > It's not that difficult, and usually quite easy. > Although sometimes you have to think about it. If you think about it and the nature of digital information, you'll see that there is no justice involved with the concept of licensing whatsoever.. it's just a matter of having enough cash to exploit the legal system to your advantage. If you are a big corporation, it makes sense to have an extensive user- license-agreement to cover all potential legal eventualities, but all this legal mumbo jumbo is completely irrelevant to the user, as they wouldn't stand a chance in case of conflicting interests between them and a major corporation anyway. Major corporations have the financial resources to abuse the legal system endlessly. > > >> }Or is it just a matter of the people with the most cash who can > >> }exploit the legal system to their advantage, so they can exert some > >> }control over the bitstrings they produce, whereas individual artists > >> }who are struggling to make a living can't expect to remain in control > >> }of their creations once they have made them public? > > >> The more you're worth the more control you have, or is that should have. > > > I think the worth is also something that has to do with the relative > > scarcity > > of an item. A unique oil painting is usually worth more than a digital > > artwork, regardless > > of the artistic qualities involved in those works, because of the > > nature of the medium used > > to create the artwork. > > It's also more of a big deal if you take it, i.e thieve it. You mean breaking into their house and taking it away or something? > But if yuo asked adobe which is worth more the mona lisa or photoshop 5 > I wonder what they'd say ;-) > > You see PS 5 can be stored on a DVD and if copied I could give it to > either no one (in which cased the DVD would be worth it's original value) > or I could duplicate that DVD a million times, does that make PS 5 less > valuable > because there are more of them than the mona lisa I think Adobe CS5 actually would be more valuable if everybody was allowed to use and share it freely, provided that there is a tax on information that is distributed partially amongst rightsholders like Adobe, based on how popular their creations are amongst the p2p community. That way, you can expect a bigger financial compensation for producing quality software that people appreciate, because they will feel more compelled to share it and the more people share it, the more Adobe can expect to earn as a substantial part of these taxes on information. The internet is simply the ultimate virtual library, where you can find virtually everything and you never need to return anything. Libraries play a vital role in society in the dissemination of information, knowledge and culture and they should be cherished for this, as knowledgeable people tend to behave more civilized and responsibly than short sighted ignorant people who are happy with a beer in front of the tv to watch sports. > > >> }The public domain is under constant threat from corporate nazi scum > >> }who have been stretching the limits of copyright to ever more absurd > >> }degrees, at the expense of the interests of the general public. > > >> If there's money in it, it'll get done. > > > Making money at the expense of the interests of the general public is > > unethical. > > Why should that stop anyone ? > That's a good reason to strive towards a neutral and transparent government that provides a framework that allows for fair competition in a (partially) capitalistic system. If the government is a mere extension of corporations, you will have problems like the recent financial crisis and corporations scamming people as they see fit. > > >> }At this point, people have been brainwashed by so much propaganda, you > >> }can expect people to stop thinking soon, > > >> I thought they had. ;-) > > > Most likely.. it seems they don't have a mind of their own, capable of > > independent critical thought. |