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: Walter Banks on 25 Oct 2009 19:45 sobriquet wrote: > On 25 okt, 17:54, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > > > > > Let me offer you a real problem. I have written a real program that > > many people use because it has features that are better than anything > > else available. The program has 240,000 lines of source. This is one > > of several similar programs. The payments I get from those using the > > program is what I use to live on and write and support the software > > I write instead of doing something more meaningful like serving > > hamburgers or pumping gas. > > > > The economic model is simple. I invest time and money to create a > > program that will save others time and money. > > Your problem is that you've invested time and effort to produce > something that > is devoid of commercial value. Clearly you can't read. It has commercial value (It is the product that my company has been selling for 30 years) > You can rely on copyright to impose a > surrogate commercial > value copyrights are protecting my commercial property > Once you allow others access to your creations, > regardless under what terms and conditions, you can't expect the whole > world to accept and respect any terms and condition If you believe that then why should anyone trust you. > Property is a far more natural and intelligible concept than > intellectual property and the notion of property has always carried > the implication of a degree of control or power to safeguard your > possessions. > > In case of intellectual property, the degree of power and control to > safeguard your possessions wasn't too bad initially when automated > reproduction of information had just been invented, but gradually the > concept of intellectual property has been harder to maintain in the > face of increasingly decentralized and improved methods of > reproduction. At this point where everybody has a computer and is > equally able to distribute information, you can't expect to rely on > centralized distribution anymore in order to make a profit. > > Or would you rather demand from the government that they device a fair > system to provide a financial incentive for people like you who > contribute new content, by means of taxation where you can expect a > generous reward for your efforts if your creation happens to be > popular amongst people who share and exchange information freely > online? Why should the government be a collection agency. I already have a governments, (not my government) wanting to control distribution of our products. Who do we support everyone or those who pay w..
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 18:53 On 25 okt, 23:39, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Your problem is that you've invested time and effort to produce > >something that > >is devoid of commercial value. > > If it's devoid of value then you have no excuse or justification for > making copies. Did you miss the word 'commercial'? Love has no commercial value, but that doesn't mean it's devoid of any value. > > So are you lying when you claim you have the right to copy it for your > own benefit, or are you lying when you claim it has no value? Do you feel an obsessive compulsive urge to express the value of everything in monetary terms? > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 19:04 On 25 okt, 23:38, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 25 okt, 22:53, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On 25 okt, 06:11, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >Once somebody has obtained a piece of software (regardless whether > >> >> >they bought > >> >> >it or downloaded it), they can create a duplicate for their friends > >> >> >out of thin air. > >> >> >They might be infringing copyright when people help each other out > >> >> >like that, but it's not > >> >> >theft, as nothing is being taken away, but rather, something is being > >> >> >added (another copy). > > >> >> Similarly, emptying your bank account and transferring the funds to > >> >> mine would not take anything away from you since only some numbers > >> >> would be changed. > > >> >Likewise the government can create money out of thin air. > > >> Non sequitur. > > >When you transfer money from my account to yours, you're not copying > >money but moving money. > > But the money has no physical reality. It's just numbers. > > >So you are taking away money then you take if from my account. > > Nope. Your "account" has no physical reality. It's just numbers. You're right in the sense that money is an abstraction just like bitstrings. That's why they make it so hard to duplicate money. If they would employ money by simply writing arbitrary numbers on arbitrary paper and accept it as currency, it would indeed be just as easy to duplicate money compared to how easy it is to duplicate bitstrings. There are effective ways to prevent people from counterfeiting money however (in the sense that you can make it so hard for them that the vast majority won't bother to attempt duplicating banknotes). Contrast that with the situation for bitstrings where there is no effective or practical way to prevent people from duplicating bitstrings easily as they see fit. Duplicating a bitstring is peanuts to duplicating a banknote (or hacking your account in the bank). > > [...] > > >The concept of theft only applies when something is taken away > > Thus, msking the numbers for your "account" smaller and the numbers > for my "account" bigger isn't actually taking anything away from you. Apparently you didn't have arithmetic in primary school or you forgot what the concept of 'subtraction' amounts to. People don't exchange and share bitstrings online by taking away bitstrings from each other. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 19:43 On 26 okt, 00:45, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > sobriquet wrote: > > On 25 okt, 17:54, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > > > > Let me offer you a real problem. I have written a real program that > > > many people use because it has features that are better than anything > > > else available. The program has 240,000 lines of source. This is one > > > of several similar programs. The payments I get from those using the > > > program is what I use to live on and write and support the software > > > I write instead of doing something more meaningful like serving > > > hamburgers or pumping gas. > > > > The economic model is simple. I invest time and money to create a > > > program that will save others time and money. > > > Your problem is that you've invested time and effort to produce > > something that > > is devoid of commercial value. > > Clearly you can't read. It has commercial value (It is the product > that my company has been selling for 30 years) Yes, but it doesn't have any commercial value in the sense that the monetary value we tend to associate with an item is a measure for its relative scarcity. Your software isn't scarce in the sense that anybody who obtains a copy can duplicate and distribute this copy indefinitely (without requiring any significant cost or effort) as they see fit. Slaves don't have any commercial value likewise, because slavery is illegal. But that doesn't mean you can't exploit slaves to make a profit when slavery would be legal. Likewise, when copyright is legal, software has commercial value. When copyright would be banned (like it should be), software wouldn't have any commercial value. But that doesn't mean that you can't earn money by allowing people to share your software freely (if the government would tax information in order to reward people like you who contribute new content). > > > You can rely on copyright to impose a > > surrogate commercial > > value > > copyrights are protecting my commercial property Just like a corporation that relies on slavery used to claim that the right to own slaves is what allows them to make a profit in the first place. > > > Once you allow others access to your creations, > > regardless under what terms and conditions, you can't expect the whole > > world to accept and respect any terms and condition > > If you believe that then why should anyone trust you. They shouldn't. I don't even trust myself. But I trust in my ability to think for myself and question authority. But humans are fallible, we all make mistakes and we all probably have a blind spot that precludes us from observing our own fascist opinions, despite the fact that we might enjoy pointing out how fascistic (or immoral if you will) other people's opinions are. > > > > Property is a far more natural and intelligible concept than > > intellectual property and the notion of property has always carried > > the implication of a degree of control or power to safeguard your > > possessions. > > > In case of intellectual property, the degree of power and control to > > safeguard your possessions wasn't too bad initially when automated > > reproduction of information had just been invented, but gradually the > > concept of intellectual property has been harder to maintain in the > > face of increasingly decentralized and improved methods of > > reproduction. At this point where everybody has a computer and is > > equally able to distribute information, you can't expect to rely on > > centralized distribution anymore in order to make a profit. > > > Or would you rather demand from the government that they device a fair > > system to provide a financial incentive for people like you who > > contribute new content, by means of taxation where you can expect a > > generous reward for your efforts if your creation happens to be > > popular amongst people who share and exchange information freely > > online? > > Why should the government be a collection agency. I already have a > governments, (not my government) wanting to control distribution > of our products. Who do we support everyone or those who pay > > w.. The government is already a collecting agency and collecting taxes is one of their favorite activities. Nobody likes to pay taxes, me included. But I honestly feel that a system of taxation would be far more practical, sensible and fair when it comes to solving the issues with rampant piracy and how to ensure there is a financial incentive that motivates people to innovate and contribute new content to the communal pool of culture (art, science, ..). But we shouldn't be dogmatic about things. Libraries have been around longer than copyright and they have usually provided free access to information (you only need membership when you want to borrow books instead of reading them in the library for free). That hasn't prevented bookstores from emerging and making a profit selling books, so just because we try to ensure information is freely accessible, that doesn't necessarily rule out commercial access to information. But as we shift from physical books on paper to digital books in the form of bitstrings, it does become harder to motivate people to pay for a version on paper when a digital version offers so many advantages (like being able to search for patterns in the text or instantly jump from one location in the book to another). For software this holds even stronger, as this doesn't have a traditional analogue equivalent (like in the case with books on paper or music on LP or casette). But imagine as a programmer to have access to all software ever produced to be used as you see fit in the creation of new software. Don't you think that might inspire you to contribute new things to the shared pool of software? If you think software is wonderful, how would it affect your life in practice if all software was available to you for free and you could use any software you desire as you see fit without every having to worry about infringing upon copyrights or having the money to buy the software? In a way it's kind of similar to how you have access to any book you might fancy. You can simply go to the local library and read it for free (they will probably happily order it for you if they don't have it). I think this free access to knowledge and culture can be of tremendous benefit to improve society by encouraging people to cultivate a mind of their own by exploring various interests and acquiring an educational level that allows them to strive towards awareness and individual freedom and responsibility. In a way children will educate themselves when you ensure they have access to information and you let their curiosity guide them while ensuring they access information on a level that matches their educational level so they never get bored or need strenuous attention or discipline to master too advanced subjects that might discourage them.
From: Ray Fischer on 25 Oct 2009 20:57
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 25 okt, 23:38, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 25 okt, 22:53, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On 25 okt, 06:11, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Once somebody has obtained a piece of software (regardless whether >> >> >> >they bought >> >> >> >it or downloaded it), they can create a duplicate for their friends >> >> >> >out of thin air. >> >> >> >They might be infringing copyright when people help each other out >> >> >> >like that, but it's not >> >> >> >theft, as nothing is being taken away, but rather, something is being >> >> >> >added (another copy). >> >> >> >> Similarly, emptying your bank account and transferring the funds to >> >> >> mine would not take anything away from you since only some numbers >> >> >> would be changed. >> >> >> >Likewise the government can create money out of thin air. >> >> >> Non sequitur. >> >> >When you transfer money from my account to yours, you're not copying >> >money but moving money. >> >> But the money has no physical reality. �It's just numbers. >> >> >So you are taking away money then you take if from my account. >> >> Nope. �Your "account" has no physical reality. �It's just numbers. > >You're right in the sense that money is an abstraction just like >bitstrings. So if "stealing" one set of bitstrings is justified then so is another. But you're just a slezy hypocrite who tries to justify stealing from people like every other petty crook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |