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: sobriquet on 27 Oct 2009 18:54 On 27 okt, 23:14, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:42:33 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > >> You said that copying is free. I've just pointed out that it is not. > >> What costs the people who buy the software encounter is irrelevant. > > >You haven't. To copy a bitstring is free. There are publicly > >accessible > >computers (at least where I live) where you can copy bitstrings or use > >bitstrings you've > >downloaded or copied from others. > > And they are all available for free? I don't mean just to you but to > the people who own them. The fact that you are not charged for the > actual copying doesn't mean there is no cost associated with the act > of copying. Actually, there are no costs associated with copying, only benefits, as the people who's copyright is infringed by making such copies receive a compensation for this (which is financed with a tax on information). > > >> Yopu need to pay for the hardware to copy the software. > > >Nonsense. There are many freely accessible computers where you can > >copy things (e.g. in the local library) or > >use software you've copied from others. > > So, you are copying at someone else's cost. > No, actually if I copy things, I pay taxes on information, so I'm basically copying things for free in a way that benefits the original creators financially.
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Oct 2009 00:09 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 28 okt, 03:23, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On 27 okt, 18:57, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >On 27 okt, 04:20, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> >Have you ever been able to get bitstrings from the ATM? >> >> >> >> Yep. >> >> >> >Liar. >> >> >> Shrug. �It's called a "reciept". >> >> >A receipt is not a bitstring. Humans denote numbers in the decimal >> >rather than the binary system. >> >> An idiot's quibble. �A decimal string is wholly equivalent to a binary >> string. > >Well, either way, this is leading nowhere, as the receipt is not >intended >to represent the actual money I didn't say that it was, crook. >> >> >> "Bank" is not synonymous with "ATM", crook. >> >> >> >ATM is just one of the interfaces to the bank. >> >> >> And they STILL do not keep stacks of bills lying about. >> >> >They use numbers to represent money internally, but in a sensible way >> >> Spare us the self-serving bullshit. > >You snip away everything You lie a lot. Which is just what I'd expect from a sleazy crook trying to justify his crimes. >> >> >> You need to stop being an immoral, sleazy, crook. �Insisting that you >> >> >> have the RIGHT to steal from people is proof of that. >> >> >> >Theft means taking away something illegally. >> >> >> Which is exactly what you're trying to justify. >> >> >Nope >> >> You're a liar and a thief. > >You're a fascist cockroach And there's the final refuge of the sleazy crook. >> > because the act of making a copy never takes anything away >> >> Except the money the author could have earned by selling his >> property. > >So people who read books for free at the library The library that PAID for the books, crook? The people who PAID for the library, thief? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 28 Oct 2009 07:14 On 28 okt, 05:09, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 28 okt, 03:23, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On 27 okt, 18:57, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >On 27 okt, 04:20, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> >> >Have you ever been able to get bitstrings from the ATM? > > >> >> >> Yep. > > >> >> >Liar. > > >> >> Shrug. It's called a "reciept". > > >> >A receipt is not a bitstring. Humans denote numbers in the decimal > >> >rather than the binary system. > > >> An idiot's quibble. A decimal string is wholly equivalent to a binary > >> string. > > >Well, either way, this is leading nowhere, as the receipt is not > >intended > >to represent the actual money > > I didn't say that it was, crook. Then what is your point? We don't use bitstrings to represent money, we use banknotes. That banks use bitstrings internally is besides the point and that doesn't detract anything from my position that people can't claim ownership of bitstrings. > [.. drivel removed ..] > >> > because the act of making a copy never takes anything away > > >> Except the money the author could have earned by selling his > >> property. > > >So people who read books for free at the library > > The library that PAID for the books, crook? > The people who PAID for the library, thief? In both cases, authors do get a financial compensation. Either they get paid by the library (if people read books all day for free at the library, they still pay indirectly via taxes which subsidize institutions with a social function, like libraries) or they get paid by the organization that distributes taxes imposed on information amongst authors (or musicians in case of music, etc..). But I guess the concept of a tax on information is beyond the comprehension skills of a nazi cockroach like you. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
From: Walter Banks on 28 Oct 2009 13:39 sobriquet wrote: > But I guess the concept of a tax on information is beyond the > comprehension skills of a nazi cockroach like you. If you want respect for you ideas then you will need to be respectable.
From: David J. Hennessy on 28 Oct 2009 22:47
sobriquet wrote: > On 27 okt, 14:02, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >> sobriquet wrote: >> >>>> There are two flaws in this argument. >>>> 1) In the model you gave a few posts ago reward would come from >>>> relative access. The goal then is to maximize access. Our goal >>>> is to supply software to those who appreciate its value enough >>>> that they are prepared to pay for teh right to use it. >>> It doesn't have to be. Software could also be rated. So if you produce >>> software that only a very small group is interested in, they can still >>> give your software >>> an excellent rating to indicate they value it very much and the tax >>> scheme could take these ratings >>> into account to avoid too much of a bias towards popular demand. >> The more complex the rules the more opportunities to optimize the rules to win without achieving the desired goal. The modification is still a popularity contest. State your model in one sentence without the use of modifiers in a way that is not >> ambiguous. > > The details are irrelevant. We can always adjust and optimize the > system, but it can't possibly be any worse and less fair that the > current system, where a few idiots pay for digital information, while > the vast majority obtains it for free online. > > >> You could just market the software the old fashioned way, make presentations and promotional material on the internet actually go and talk to real potential customers. Price the software based competitive pricing and development budgets to match, use >> customer feedback to incorporate new features that will solve there needs. >> >> Then what do I know I have only made a living developing software packages for 30 years. >> >> w.. > > Well, if it works for you, by all means, continue to work in the way > that suits you best as a software developer. > > I'm approaching the whole copyright issue from a different angle, > where I'm concerned with a fair balance between the 'right' of > corporations to make a profit by exploiting intellectual property on > the one hand and the 'right' of individual people to share and > exchange information freely without corporations trying to impose > their rules to protect their interests wherever they conflict with the > interests of individual internet users like me. I think it is important to remember that intellectual property is not really a "natural" right. Rather, it is something that some governments grant, typically for a set period of time (which then expires), in order to encourage creative people to innovate. Whether my creation is a beautiful painting, or a brilliant new method for manufacturing Widget X, I find encouragement to release my brain-child to the public. Society gets to benefit from my contribution. I get to benefit by being the only person (temporarily) who's allowed to profit from my contribution. That's the way it's *supposed* to be, anyhow. This system has become perverted by two things: 1) The ability to sell/transfer copyrights & patents. Corporations aren't people; they can't think or create. But, they sure do tend to have a lot of money. Intellectual property law is a booming field, and thanks to the efforts of lawyers, it takes lawyers to navigate this increasingly-byzantine field. Many innovators "sell" their "I-created-this" to a corporation, believing that such a compromise is the only way they can put food on the table. Or, that innovator may have been working for a company at the time of their innovation, under a contract that claimed that the corporation "owns" the "I-created-this" of the innovator. For many reasons, "I-created-this" has now become a tradeable portfolio commodity. This naturally leads corporations use their armies of lawyers to pursue... 2) Perpetual intellectual property ownership. Corporations don't die the way that people do. And even if they do die, they will often "liquidate" their portfolio of "I-created-this." Thus, another corporation will come to own the exclusive rights to claim "I-created-this." Society only granted the exclusive IP rights for the temporary benefit of the creator, yet long after the original creator is dead, society is still being denied its end of the bargain. In essence, the doctrine of corporate personhood, in conjunction with near-perpetual IP laws, have completely perverted and destroyed the reasons why society grants IP rights to creative people in the first place. I suggest we try to address the problem by plugging these two holes, which are relatively recent corruptions of the system. The more out-of-touch our society becomes with the fact that everyone is a *person*, and that corporations are just the paperwork of business, the worse-off almost everyone is. After all, Open Source and Creative Commons licenses are based on copyright just as much as closed source & proprietary licenses are. I myself write Open Source software; it is only because of copyright that I can insist that others adhere to the Open Source license, when modifying and redistributing my work. Without copyright law, there would be nothing to the OS license; nothing to stop MegaCorp X from picking up my software and marketing it as their own proprietary product. And, I am able to make money because the end product that I create with (mine and other's) Open Source software is owned by my client. The biggest threat to my livelihood (i.e., ability to put food on the table) is that some major corporation will abuse the IP laws, and obtain/buy an "I-created-this" for something that I had already created. Chances are the major corporation will be able to afford a lot more "justice" than I can. Thus, modern IP laws no longer encourage creative people to innovate; in effect, modern IP laws stifle innovation. There are historical precedents for a nation-state abolishing individual ownership rights, in the name of establishing a more utopian society. The results were... far from what was intended. Human nature will always be with us. I suggest we fix the system of copyright, restoring it to what it was supposed to be, rather than abolish the concept of ownership in the digital age. -- David J. Hennessy http://davidhennessy.net/ � web site developer � webmaster services |