Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 17:30
On 21 okt, 21:59, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ad99e6ed-2e03-4cbd-b99d-4cbc7bd924ff(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 okt, 20:30, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > "sobriquet" <snip>
>
> > You can't expect someone very intelligent like Einstein to be able to
> > figure out all the laws of physics from scratch if you just provide
> > him with food, clothing and shelter and a lot of free time to ponder
> > the nature of reality (so without access to the ideas of other
> > scientists).
> > {{
>
> > Read Einstein's biography ... that's about how it happened. As to access
> > to
> > other's idea those were available in peer review media published and sold
> > for a fee. Just so happens they were also covered by copyright.
>
> The laws of physics aren't covered by copyright. Einstein could never
> have achieved what he did if he didn't have access to the ideas and
> observations from a long line of very intelligent people before him
> (like Newton or Aristotle) who's discoveries ended up as common
> scientific knowledge by the time Einstein went through university.{{
>
> The law of physics are not but the expression of these laws is covered by
> copyright.
>
> The reality is that without copyright protection a lot of today's common
> knowledge would never have become public.
>
> Those who oppose copyright (the current law of the land) are very much
> similar to those who burned the Library at Alexandra.

Quite the opposite. It's the proponents of the ludicrous notion of
proprietary bitstrings (the intellectual property mafia) who
constitute the biggest threat to an open society where individual
people are free to share and exchange information. Humans are crazy
and moronic enough to implement a totalitarian police state for the
sole purpose of enabling corporations to make a profit. They have
demonstrated in the past that it doesn't take much for the situation
to spiral out of control and unfortunate minorities getting randomly
exterminated on an industrial scale.

People have been recording, sharing and selling their ideas and
visions long before copyright emerged (copyright and 'intellectual
property' was developed around the time of the invention of the
printing press and human culture, including libraries, goes back long
before they automated the reproduction process).
From: Eric Stevens on 21 Oct 2009 17:46
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
<dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 21 okt, 21:59, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ad99e6ed-2e03-4cbd-b99d-4cbc7bd924ff(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> On 21 okt, 20:30, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "sobriquet" <snip>
>>
>> > You can't expect someone very intelligent like Einstein to be able to
>> > figure out all the laws of physics from scratch if you just provide
>> > him with food, clothing and shelter and a lot of free time to ponder
>> > the nature of reality (so without access to the ideas of other
>> > scientists).
>> > {{
>>
>> > Read Einstein's biography ... that's about how it happened. As to access
>> > to
>> > other's idea those were available in peer review media published and sold
>> > for a fee. Just so happens they were also covered by copyright.
>>
>> The laws of physics aren't covered by copyright. Einstein could never
>> have achieved what he did if he didn't have access to the ideas and
>> observations from a long line of very intelligent people before him
>> (like Newton or Aristotle) who's discoveries ended up as common
>> scientific knowledge by the time Einstein went through university.{{
>>
>> The law of physics are not but the expression of these laws is covered by
>> copyright.
>>
>> The reality is that without copyright protection a lot of today's common
>> knowledge would never have become public.
>>
>> Those who oppose copyright (the current law of the land) are very much
>> similar to those who burned the Library at Alexandra.
>
>Quite the opposite. It's the proponents of the ludicrous notion of
>proprietary bitstrings (the intellectual property mafia) who
>constitute the biggest threat to an open society where individual
>people are free to share and exchange information.

Copyright isn't intended to protect ideas (that's the job of patents)
but it does cover the expression of an idea. Copyright doesn't prevent
people exchanging information but it does prevent people copying the
manner of expressing information. Copyright does not last forever but
it does last long enough for the creator to have a chance to get some
benefit from his creative efforts.

>Humans are crazy
>and moronic enough to implement a totalitarian police state for the
>sole purpose of enabling corporations to make a profit. They have
>demonstrated in the past that it doesn't take much for the situation
>to spiral out of control and unfortunate minorities getting randomly
>exterminated on an industrial scale.
>
>People have been recording, sharing and selling their ideas and
>visions long before copyright emerged (copyright and 'intellectual
>property' was developed around the time of the invention of the
>printing press and human culture, including libraries, goes back long
>before they automated the reproduction process).



Eric Stevens
From: Eric Stevens on 21 Oct 2009 17:52
On 21 Oct 2009 09:05:33 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>On 21 Oct 2009 05:43:56 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A good reason not to steal images.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
>>>>>>>>>people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
>>>>>>>>>with them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable
>>>>>>>photo isn't ridiculous?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>It must make it very easy for simple people like you to simply assume
>>>>>that other people are guilty.
>>>>
>>>>In this case, Getty proved his claims in front of a judge.
>>>
>>>Which is wholly irrelevant since the judge didn't determine guilt or
>>>innocence and wasn't even concerned with such things, only that the
>>>defendant had used a photo that belonged to Getty ...
>>
>>i.e. he found that the defendant was guilty
>
>Wrong yet again. Civil cases do not determine guilt.

You are dishonest, aren't you? Not only do you think it is OK to use
the work of others as though it was your own, you also are quite
willing to quote only part of what I wrote to enable you to pretend to
have won the argument.

Try looking at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/guilty

"devoid of innocence. ... In civil lawsuits, the term guilty does
not imply criminal responsibility but refers to mis-conduct."


>>> .... and so should pay
>>>Getty what Getty demanded.
>>>
>>>If you're lucky you'll learn the difference between law and justice
>>>the easy way and it won't cost you your freedom or money.



Eric Stevens
From: sobriquet on 21 Oct 2009 19:01
On 21 okt, 23:46, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:30:26 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
>
>
>
>
>
> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 21 okt, 21:59, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ad99e6ed-2e03-4cbd-b99d-4cbc7bd924ff(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 21 okt, 20:30, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> > "sobriquet" <snip>
>
> >> > You can't expect someone very intelligent like Einstein to be able to
> >> > figure out all the laws of physics from scratch if you just provide
> >> > him with food, clothing and shelter and a lot of free time to ponder
> >> > the nature of reality (so without access to the ideas of other
> >> > scientists).
> >> > {{
>
> >> > Read Einstein's biography ... that's about how it happened. As to access
> >> > to
> >> > other's idea those were available in peer review media published and sold
> >> > for a fee. Just so happens they were also covered by copyright.
>
> >> The laws of physics aren't covered by copyright. Einstein could never
> >> have achieved what he did if he didn't have access to the ideas and
> >> observations from a long line of very intelligent people before him
> >> (like Newton or Aristotle) who's discoveries ended up as common
> >> scientific knowledge by the time Einstein went through university.{{
>
> >> The law of physics are not but the expression of these laws is covered by
> >> copyright.
>
> >> The reality is that without copyright protection a lot of today's common
> >> knowledge would never have become public.
>
> >> Those who oppose copyright (the current law of the land) are very much
> >> similar to those who burned the Library at Alexandra.
>
> >Quite the opposite. It's the proponents of the ludicrous notion of
> >proprietary bitstrings (the intellectual property mafia) who
> >constitute the biggest threat to an open society where individual
> >people are free to share and exchange information.
>
> Copyright isn't intended to protect ideas (that's the job of patents)
> but it does cover the expression of an idea.

But it boils down to bitstrings as the expression of an idea.
This entire posting is a bitstring just the same and in a mathematical
sense, there is
no essential difference between the bitstring that represents this
posting (and hence my ideas as I've expressed them in this posting)
and the bitstring that can be downloaded here which happens to be
illegal because it infringes copyright (a pirated copy of vista):

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/133818641/windows+vista?tab=summary

> Copyright doesn't prevent
> people exchanging information but it does prevent people copying the
> manner of expressing information. Copyright does not last forever but
> it does last long enough for the creator to have a chance to get some
> benefit from his creative efforts.

It used to be effective for that purpose, when there were only
centralized publishers
who benefited from copyright as a means of protection against unfair
competition from
other publishers.
At this point with decentralized publishing on the web, where
everybody can publish and distribute things equally effectively, the
traditional purpose of copyright has been completely
lost and at this point it's only counterproductive and a relic of the
past that traditional publishers tend to cling on to as they see their
power and control over the reproduction and distribution of
information fade away.

The only effective copyright threats are those against people who
publish the work of others against their will, but in doing so, they
expose themselves rather conspicuously. If they were to exchange such
works on bittorrent networks with other collectors of picture, they
would be infringing copyrights likewise, but in a way that doesn't
expose them and is very unlikely to result in legal consequences. This
latter form of copyright infringements is far more common than people
who publish the work of others and infringing copyrights by doing so
who happen to be easy targets for the intellectual property mafia.

>
> >Humans are crazy
> >and moronic enough to implement a totalitarian police state for the
> >sole purpose of enabling corporations to make a profit. They have
> >demonstrated in the past that it doesn't take much for the situation
> >to spiral out of control and unfortunate minorities getting randomly
> >exterminated on an industrial scale.
>
> >People have been recording, sharing and selling their ideas and
> >visions long before copyright emerged (copyright and 'intellectual
> >property' was developed around the time of the invention of the
> >printing press and human culture, including libraries, goes back long
> >before they automated the reproduction process).
>
> Eric Stevens- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

From: NotMe on 21 Oct 2009 19:15
"sobriquet"
:
: It used to be effective for that purpose, when there were only centralized
publishers who benefited from copyright as a means of protection against
unfair competition from other publishers.

: At this point with decentralized publishing on the web, where
: everybody can publish and distribute things equally effectively, the
: traditional purpose of copyright has been completely
: lost

I presume you're aware of the adage that one can't sell from an empty wagon.

Once the information wagon is empty where do you propose to source new
information for your free mart?



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin