The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
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: Eric Stevens on 22 Oct 2009 18:44 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:07:09 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >sobriquet wrote: >> On 22 okt, 02:25, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:ac3618ef-1731-4329-9f56-da3c238acbc7(a)h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >>> : On 22 okt, 01:15, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> : > "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? >>> : >>> : That's why it's important to tax information and to device a fair >>> : system of distributing >>> : those taxes amongst people who create new things. >>> : Copyright is completely ineffective, so by getting rid of it, we >>> : improve the situation right away but we might as well maintain >>> : copyright until a fair system of taxation is implemented which can >>> : replace copyright as a means to ensure that people who come up with >>> : new content can earn an income in this fashion so they can devote >>> : their time to their creative passion. >>> : In practice, there is no copyright on the internet as 99% of the >>> : people who exchange information online tend to ignore copyright issues >>> : (the bulk of online communication concerns data on filesharing >>> : networks). >>> : >>> : At this point there are so many opportunities to automate work, that >>> : nobody should feel forced to work for a living and the government can >>> : provide an unconditional income for free. >>> : This means that people can devote their time to their hobby or >>> : passion, regardless whether or not they earn any money with their >>> : activities. Because there is more than enough material wealth and >>> : technological ingenuity that the production of basic necessities >>> : (food, clothing, shelter and internet) can be fully automated. >>> >>> You've been reading too many utopian space cadet dime novels. Not even >>> Ashmoe's wildest works went that far. >>> >>> An aside you've still not answered the question where you propose to source >>> new information for your free mart? Hint: magic is not a valid response >> >> You're sorely mistaken if you think the universe revolves around work >> and making >> a living. Money might disappear in the near future when we have >> nanotechnology or other revolutionary innovations which allow us to >> duplicate physical commodities as easily as bitstrings. > >I strongly recommend that you don't hold your breath waiting for that >day to come. I think it might be a good thing if he did. :-) Eric Stevens
From: J. Clarke on 22 Oct 2009 22:42 sobriquet wrote: > On 22 okt, 23:39, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> sobriquet wrote: >>> On 22 okt, 17:07, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> sobriquet wrote: >>>>> Money has already lost most of its relevance and significance, as >>>>> just about anything I'm interested in, is available for free >>>>> online. >> >>>> So where do you get food free online? >> >>> Food for thought... at a p2p network near you. >> >> Fat lot of good "food for thought" does when you're starving to >> death. > > Food is not that expensive (if you buy it at the local supermarket and > cook it yourself). So you admit that it's not available free online. Or are you just not interested in having food in your belly? > It doesn't take that much time and effort to earn > enough so you never get hungry. But if, as you claim, it is "free online" then why do you have to work at all? > But the information you consume has a far bigger impact on your > outlook on life than the food you eat. Go two weeks without food and get back to me on that.
From: sobriquet on 23 Oct 2009 05:44 On 23 okt, 04:42, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 22 okt, 23:39, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> sobriquet wrote: > >>> On 22 okt, 17:07, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>>> sobriquet wrote: > >>>>> Money has already lost most of its relevance and significance, as > >>>>> just about anything I'm interested in, is available for free > >>>>> online. > > >>>> So where do you get food free online? > > >>> Food for thought... at a p2p network near you. > > >> Fat lot of good "food for thought" does when you're starving to > >> death. > > > Food is not that expensive (if you buy it at the local supermarket and > > cook it yourself). > > So you admit that it's not available free online. Or are you just not > interested in having food in your belly? What's your point? I've never claimed that everything is available for free online. My claim only pertains to bitstrings. > > > It doesn't take that much time and effort to earn > > enough so you never get hungry. > > But if, as you claim, it is "free online" then why do you have to work at > all? Like I've said, we still can't duplicate physical commodities as easily as bitstrings. So you end up employing money anyway and it would take a lot of effort to eliminate money completely. So it's more sensible to accept money as a necessary evil, although it does play a very marginal role as most things in life (the bitstrings) are free. > > > But the information you consume has a far bigger impact on your > > outlook on life than the food you eat. > > Go two weeks without food and get back to me on that. Why are you so preoccupied with food?
From: Frank ess on 24 Oct 2009 00:56 J. Clarke wrote: > Not worth wasting more time on you. <plonking> you and the thread > you rode in on. > > When you (a) grow up and (b) have gone to bed hungry for the first > time in your life, get back to us. You are a patient person, J.Clarke. -- Frank ess
From: Walter Banks on 24 Oct 2009 05:16
sobriquet wrote: > People who advocate the notion of intellectual property are > professional criminals who belong in jail. > The full potential of information technology can only be exploited if > intellectual property is exposed for the myth it really is. It would sure change the development of intellectual ideas if reward for development of new ideas was limited to those worth working on had reproduction costs approximating the development cost of the original idea. To give an example, sculpture vs digital images. The sculpture reproduction cost is essentially the same as the original. The digital image reproduction cost is a small fraction of the original. Intellectual property recognizes that some things once created can be duplicated at a small fraction of the original creation costs and provides a way of distributing those costs. Paying for intellectual property generally can leave you better off. Take for example the development cost of the current round of automotive engine controllers. Order of magnitude a $70M cost for the first copy is installed in about 100M automobiles. The distributed cost is about 70cents per car for an improved gas mileage of 8 miles per gallon. At $3.00 per gallon your 70 cent investment in intellectual property would take about 10 miles before you are money ahead. w.. |