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: Ray Fischer on 25 Oct 2009 20:58 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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'? Wholly irrelevant. "Value" isn't determined by "commercial". >> 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 You're just a slimebag crook. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 22:02 On 26 okt, 01:57, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(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. One set of bitstrings? What other set of bitstrings did you have in mind... oh I get it. Bitstrings that represent money? Well, that argument would work if we would employ bitstrings to represent money instead of banknotes. In the bank they might employ bitstrings to represent money, but the bank doesn't publish those bitstrings in a way that allows people to easily distribute and duplicate those bitstrings in a way that allows them to 'steal' (or duplicate) money. If people hack your bank account and take money from your account, they are not stealing bitstrings but stealing money and that money is your property, not your intellectual property. > > But you're just a slezy hypocrite who tries to justify stealing from > people like every other petty crook. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net You're just a fascist cockroach if you seriously think people can steal bitstrings or own them as intellectual property where they get to dictate to the rest of the world what they are allowed to do with those bitstrings with licensing to their heart's content.
From: sobriquet on 25 Oct 2009 22:24 On 26 okt, 01:58, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >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'? > > Wholly irrelevant. "Value" isn't determined by "commercial". Motherly love is valuable and hence a simplistic idiot like you would jump to the conclusion that a mother deserves to be paid by her offspring for providing this service. > > >> 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 > > You're just a slimebag crook. Just because bitstrings can be valuable, that doesn't mean people can claim ownership of them or expect to sell, buy and own them like physical commodities, pretending they can't be easily duplicated and distributed or denying there is any value in free access to culture and knowledge (like the philosophy behind wikipedia or open source software). Intellectual property is capitalism destroying itself by frustrating technological progress, impairing our ability to exploit the full potential of information technology and stifling innovation and creativity. But it's futile explaining this to fascist cockroaches. When people would explain in the past to corporations that relied on slavery for a profit that their practices are unacceptable, I think they were probably equally unimpressed by any appeal to human rights or some equivalent appeal to fairness, justice and freedom. The freedom of one person to claim authorship of some bitstring doesn't involve ownership in the sense of the freedom to deny others access or use of that bitstring, as all bitstrings belong to the public domain. Just like "all humans should be free (there are no humans who are allowed to own other humans as property)" is an equally sensible statement for anyone with any common sense. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net
From: Savageduck on 26 Oct 2009 02:12 On 2009-10-25 14:04:24 -0700, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> said: >> > > Just think: a real live nihilist! In that case he needs an encounter with "The Dude" and a bowling ball. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Ray Fischer on 26 Oct 2009 02:28
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 26 okt, 01:57, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(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. > >One set of bitstrings? >What other set of bitstrings did you have in mind... oh I get it. >Bitstrings that represent money? And who says you're slow. >Well, that argument would work if we would employ bitstrings to >represent money instead of banknotes. And we do. Do you believe that the bank has a stack of bills for all the money that they keep? >In the bank they might employ bitstrings to represent money, but the >bank doesn't publish those bitstrings in a way that allows people to >easily distribute and duplicate those bitstrings in a way that allows So now you're arguing that it's okay for you to be a thief because people don't stop you from being a thief. Just the sort of sociopathic immorality we expect from crooks. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |