photography documentaries
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Pete on 19 Jun 2010 15:36 On 2010-06-19 19:06:12 +0100, sobriquet said: > On 19 jun, 19:44, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> On 2010-06-19 17:18:53 +0100, tony cooper said: >> >> >> >>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:28:30 -0700, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 2010-06-19 03:41:54 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >> >>>>> ***************************************************************************** >>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge >>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions >>>>> found at: >> >>>>> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt >> >>>>> ****************************************************************************** >> >>>> Nick Sprakel remains a cyber-thief, no matter how much he protests. >>>> ...and he cannot find his way out of that basement. >>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/THCganja/Various#5244910721929976050> >>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/dohduhdah/Experimenteel#5282010159386521810> >> >>>> I await the nazi name calling so we can invoke Godwin. >> >>> You're pissing into the wind. Sobriquet is devoid of morals and >>> ethics. Like a sociopath, he has no sense of right or wrong. >> >> I agree, especially after reading so many of Sobriquet's posts. >> However, Sobriquet has made me realize that posting any of my images >> for critique automatically invalidates them from having any personal or >> commercial value because he can claim ownership of them at any time. I >> haven't the money, energy, or desire to prove him wrong. Others do have >> those resources so time will tell. >> >> -- >> Pete > > All information belongs to the public domain. Otherwise there would be > no freedom for you to publish anything in the first place and > corporations could simply claim ownership of anything you publish as > they have the financial means to exploit the legal system to their > advantage. > > Well, corporations can screw you over anyway, because the pseudo- > democratic government is merely shady extension of corporations, > rather than a neutral organization that is supposed to guarantee human > rights. > > So if your human rights are conflicting with corporate interests, you > can't expect the government to help you protect your human rights. Indeed. While I often disagree with (even dislike) your posts, you make me challenge what I think and "know". It is all too easy to form a dislike for the poster instead of the facing the hard work - choosing to either address or ignore the issues the poster has presented. I.e. avoiding an argumentum ad hominem. I strive to learn, so I say again, time will tell. -- Pete
From: Frank ess on 19 Jun 2010 15:50 sobriquet wrote: > On 19 jun, 20:25, "Intentionally Left Blank" <anonym...(a)not-for- > mail.invalid> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a9eeb60a-8a5a-4494-a9e4-fc19cc0c9566(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> So call the cops, TROLL! >> >>> The CIA and FBI have been notified and they are probably >>> investigating your internet connection right now. >> >>> Soon you'll be in jail for violating intellectual property rights >>> and there is no internet in jail for sure. >> >> Neither has any jurisdiction, it's not in the CIA's mandate. And >> as you live in the Nederland's the FBI has no jurisdiction, >> especially to posters outside the USA. So call Interpol, oh wait >> they are just bureaucrats with zero powers. > > Oh well.. people violate intellectual property laws on a massive > scale anyway, so > I don't expect much support from the legal system. > Only major corporations stand a fair chance to exploit the legal > system to their advantage successfully, but for individuals like me > it's rather futile to specify terms and conditions regarding my > intellectual property, as people can violate them as they see fit > without any significant risk of legal repercussions. And without any significant losses or gains in value of any nature. I missed the first part of this thread. What are your terms and conditions? Like: 1. What's mine is mine. 2. What's yours is mine if I like it. 3. I get to change horses in the middle of any stream, but you can't. /Et cetera/? I get it. You are an omphaloskeptic, no more, no less. Cheers! -- Frank ess
From: John McWilliams on 19 Jun 2010 15:56 sobriquet wrote: > On 19 jun, 18:47, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/19/10 11:03 AM, in article >> 173014e9-e635-46ed-95db-c2107518c...(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, >> >> >> >> >> >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 19 jun, 16:29, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:41:54 -0700 (PDT), in >>>> <22cf2de5-c6d6-4c72-a8f1-af0b865b3...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, >>>> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge >>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions >>>>> found at: >>>>> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt >>>> Nope. >>> If you don't agree to my terms and conditions, you shouldn't reply to >>> my postings. >>> If you do reply to my postings, that means you acknowledge that you >>> agree to my terms and conditions. >>> I've created my usenet postings, so I get to decide under what terms >>> and conditions people are allowed to read them and/or reply to them. >> A tough 'kookie' you are, squirt? > > Nobody is forcing you to read or reply to my usenet postings, but if > you do, please have the decency to respect my terms and conditions. > If you are participating in this thread, you have to respect the terms > and conditions I've specified in my original posting, no; no one does........... > because I have > the right to impose terms and conditions of my preference on the use > of my intellectual property. No you don't. Besides which, you used the word "intellectual".... none exists. -- lsmft Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think your audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary.
From: tony cooper on 19 Jun 2010 16:47 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:05 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-06-19 19:06:12 +0100, sobriquet said: > >> On 19 jun, 19:44, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2010-06-19 17:18:53 +0100, tony cooper said: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:28:30 -0700, Savageduck >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> On 2010-06-19 03:41:54 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>> >>>>>> ***************************************************************************** >>>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge >>>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions >>>>>> found at: >>> >>>>>> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt >>> >>>>>> ****************************************************************************** >>> >>>>> Nick Sprakel remains a cyber-thief, no matter how much he protests. >>>>> ...and he cannot find his way out of that basement. >>>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/THCganja/Various#5244910721929976050> >>>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/dohduhdah/Experimenteel#5282010159386521810> >>> >>>>> I await the nazi name calling so we can invoke Godwin. >>> >>>> You're pissing into the wind. �Sobriquet is devoid of morals and >>>> ethics. �Like a sociopath, he has no sense of right or wrong. >>> >>> I agree, especially after reading so many of Sobriquet's posts. >>> However, Sobriquet has made me realize that posting any of my images >>> for critique automatically invalidates them from having any personal or >>> commercial value because he can claim ownership of them at any time. I >>> haven't the money, energy, or desire to prove him wrong. Others do have >>> those resources so time will tell. >>> >>> -- >>> Pete >> >> All information belongs to the public domain. Otherwise there would be >> no freedom for you to publish anything in the first place and >> corporations could simply claim ownership of anything you publish as >> they have the financial means to exploit the legal system to their >> advantage. >> >> Well, corporations can screw you over anyway, because the pseudo- >> democratic government is merely shady extension of corporations, >> rather than a neutral organization that is supposed to guarantee human >> rights. >> >> So if your human rights are conflicting with corporate interests, you >> can't expect the government to help you protect your human rights. > >Indeed. > >While I often disagree with (even dislike) your posts, you make me >challenge what I think and "know". It is all too easy to form a dislike >for the poster instead of the facing the hard work - choosing to either >address or ignore the issues the poster has presented. I.e. avoiding an >argumentum ad hominem. I strive to learn, so I say again, time will >tell. Sobriquet's position is that he can appropriate the work of others under the misapprehension that his "human rights" allow him to do so. Using his logic, if you take a plot of land and cultivate it, plant seeds in it, fertilize it, water it, weed it, and produce a crop of vegetables that he has the right to take those vegetables for his own use. He claims that the photographs or other files are accessible to him on the web and that if you didn't want him to have them you would not put them up on the web. In the analogy of the vegetable garden, his position would be that if you didn't want him to take the vegetable you would fence the garden and lock them up. He doesn't see that a copyright is the equivalent of a locked fence. You can be assured, though, if Sobriquet was the gardener, that he would squeal like a stuck pig if you took the fruits of his labor. Human rights are limited by laws, customs, and expectations of ethical behavior. Even a savage in a remote jungle where laws do not pertain understands that an individual's rights are limited by custom. Sobriquet has not even advanced to the level of savage. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Tim Conway on 19 Jun 2010 17:01
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7baq1693kibcm7gouu5d52la6c7sqgjlua(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:36:05 +0100, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >>On 2010-06-19 19:06:12 +0100, sobriquet said: >> >>> On 19 jun, 19:44, Pete <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2010-06-19 17:18:53 +0100, tony cooper said: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:28:30 -0700, Savageduck >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On 2010-06-19 03:41:54 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>>> >>>>>>> ***************************************************************************** >>>>>>> By reading and/or replying to this usenet posting, you acknowledge >>>>>>> that you have read, understood and accepted the terms and conditions >>>>>>> found at: >>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/eula.txt >>>> >>>>>>> ****************************************************************************** >>>> >>>>>> Nick Sprakel remains a cyber-thief, no matter how much he protests. >>>>>> ...and he cannot find his way out of that basement. >>>>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/THCganja/Various#5244910721929976050> >>>>>> <http://picasaweb.google.com/dohduhdah/Experimenteel#5282010159386521810> >>>> >>>>>> I await the nazi name calling so we can invoke Godwin. >>>> >>>>> You're pissing into the wind. Sobriquet is devoid of morals and >>>>> ethics. Like a sociopath, he has no sense of right or wrong. >>>> >>>> I agree, especially after reading so many of Sobriquet's posts. >>>> However, Sobriquet has made me realize that posting any of my images >>>> for critique automatically invalidates them from having any personal or >>>> commercial value because he can claim ownership of them at any time. I >>>> haven't the money, energy, or desire to prove him wrong. Others do have >>>> those resources so time will tell. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pete >>> >>> All information belongs to the public domain. Otherwise there would be >>> no freedom for you to publish anything in the first place and >>> corporations could simply claim ownership of anything you publish as >>> they have the financial means to exploit the legal system to their >>> advantage. >>> >>> Well, corporations can screw you over anyway, because the pseudo- >>> democratic government is merely shady extension of corporations, >>> rather than a neutral organization that is supposed to guarantee human >>> rights. >>> >>> So if your human rights are conflicting with corporate interests, you >>> can't expect the government to help you protect your human rights. >> >>Indeed. >> >>While I often disagree with (even dislike) your posts, you make me >>challenge what I think and "know". It is all too easy to form a dislike >>for the poster instead of the facing the hard work - choosing to either >>address or ignore the issues the poster has presented. I.e. avoiding an >>argumentum ad hominem. I strive to learn, so I say again, time will >>tell. > > Sobriquet's position is that he can appropriate the work of others > under the misapprehension that his "human rights" allow him to do so. > > Using his logic, if you take a plot of land and cultivate it, plant > seeds in it, fertilize it, water it, weed it, and produce a crop of > vegetables that he has the right to take those vegetables for his own > use. > > He claims that the photographs or other files are accessible to him on > the web and that if you didn't want him to have them you would not put > them up on the web. In the analogy of the vegetable garden, his > position would be that if you didn't want him to take the vegetable > you would fence the garden and lock them up. He doesn't see that a > copyright is the equivalent of a locked fence. > > You can be assured, though, if Sobriquet was the gardener, that he > would squeal like a stuck pig if you took the fruits of his labor. > > Human rights are limited by laws, customs, and expectations of ethical > behavior. Even a savage in a remote jungle where laws do not pertain > understands that an individual's rights are limited by custom. > Sobriquet has not even advanced to the level of savage. > -- Well said. I like your analogy. Human rights don't necessarily entail encroachment on the rights of others - even if only implied. |