the adventure of photography
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ray Fischer on 15 May 2010 00:10 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 13 mei, 15:09, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>[..babbling..] > >I'm done with you.. I only argue with people who are able to deal with >arguments You have only one argument: You should be able to make the rules for everybody and everybody who disagrees must be a nazi. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 15 May 2010 12:27 On 15 mei, 17:57, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >[..] > If the UDHR is taken seriously, it implies that a nazi cockroach like > you must be locked up amongst rapists and murderers for a while, to > teach you a lesson about respecting human rights. Lesson that is.
From: whisky-dave on 24 May 2010 10:26 "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c063ec8c-240e-4015-b873-1fbcb0c48512(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > On 19 mei, 15:01, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > Nobody is claiming that anyone who owns a bitstring or other > information is forced to disclose it, even though it belongs to the > public domain. Why are you claiming it belongs in the public domain. > There are artworks in museums that belong to the public domain as > well, And there those works of art that don't. > but that doesn't mean that anyone can simply take it off the > wall and bring it back to their home to do with it as they please. > > I have never denied the right of photographers to keep their pictures > to themselves or to display them in private where they can effectively > prevent people from duplicating them by means of a digital camera. The problem is how does one prevent such things happening even if you do want to prevent it happening. > > All I'm saying is that once a photographer decides to distribute his > creations publicly, either by selling them or giving them away, there > is simply no way for that photographer to impose his will on these > creations as soon as they end up in the hands of others. That's where copyright comes in and where you fail to understand. > If you create a bitstring, that bitstring belongs to the public > domain, No it does not. Unless of course you can describe exactly whjat a bitstring is. Which I know you can't because you have no idea what you're talking about. >but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to keep the bitstring > to yourself. All it means, is that you can't distribute the bitstring > by allowing others access to it, while maintaining you retain the > right to impose arbitrary restrictions on how people are allowed to > use it. Use what's a bitstring, what can you use a bitstring for ?
From: sobriquet on 24 May 2010 14:11 On 24 mei, 16:26, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:c063ec8c-240e-4015-b873-1fbcb0c48512(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > > > On 19 mei, 15:01, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > Nobody is claiming that anyone who owns a bitstring or other > > information is forced to disclose it, even though it belongs to the > > public domain. > > Why are you claiming it belongs in the public domain. Because that's the only way you can define the public domain in a sensible way. > > > There are artworks in museums that belong to the public domain as > > well, > > And there those works of art that don't. If the work of art is digital, that's impossible. > > > but that doesn't mean that anyone can simply take it off the > > wall and bring it back to their home to do with it as they please. > > > I have never denied the right of photographers to keep their pictures > > to themselves or to display them in private where they can effectively > > prevent people from duplicating them by means of a digital camera. > > The problem is how does one prevent such things happening even > if you do want to prevent it happening. You can insist people can only see the movie naked for instance. Or scan their body to detect camera's hidden in bodily cavities. > > > All I'm saying is that once a photographer decides to distribute his > > creations publicly, either by selling them or giving them away, there > > is simply no way for that photographer to impose his will on these > > creations as soon as they end up in the hands of others. > > That's where copyright comes in and where you fail to understand. That's were copyright fails miserably, given the rampant copyright infringement on p2p networks. > > > If you create a bitstring, that bitstring belongs to the public > > domain, > > No it does not. > Unless of course you can describe exactly whjat a bitstring is. > Which I know you can't because you have no idea what > you're talking about. A bitstring is simply a finite sequence of bits and a bit is a digit that either equals 0 or equals 1. For a sequence of N bits, there are 2^N possible bitstrings, so for instance if we take N=4, there are 2^4=16 different bitstrings. Three examples of bitstrings of length 4 are: 0011 1011 0110 > > >but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to keep the bitstring > > to yourself. All it means, is that you can't distribute the bitstring > > by allowing others access to it, while maintaining you retain the > > right to impose arbitrary restrictions on how people are allowed to > > use it. > > Use what's a bitstring, what can you use a bitstring for ? That depends, some bitstrings might be pictures, and they can be viewed using the proper software that can translate the bitstring to a picture and other bitstrings might be software and they can be run as code on a computer, so you can interact with the software that is encoded by that bitstring.
From: whisky-dave on 25 May 2010 06:13
"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2a737fbb-73bf-42c1-97e9-94e692956309(a)i31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > On 24 mei, 16:26, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c063ec8c-240e-4015-b873-1fbcb0c48512(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 19 mei, 15:01, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> > Nobody is claiming that anyone who owns a bitstring or other >> > information is forced to disclose it, even though it belongs to the >> > public domain. >> >> Why are you claiming it belongs in the public domain. > > Because that's the only way you can define the public domain in a > sensible way. No it's not, no more than you'd describe a public carpark as somewhere you put you car so others can use it. Why can't ther be private domains like yuor bathroom which isn;t open to the public. >> > There are artworks in museums that belong to the public domain as >> > well, >> >> And there those works of art that don't. > > If the work of art is digital, that's impossible. No it's not. >> > but that doesn't mean that anyone can simply take it off the >> > wall and bring it back to their home to do with it as they please. >> >> > I have never denied the right of photographers to keep their pictures >> > to themselves or to display them in private where they can effectively >> > prevent people from duplicating them by means of a digital camera. >> >> The problem is how does one prevent such things happening even >> if you do want to prevent it happening. > > You can insist people can only see the movie naked for instance. Or > scan their body to detect > camera's hidden in bodily cavities. And how does that help, alot of teh copies comes from those that work in the industry, sometimes the pirate copies are out before even the premier of the film. And just supose someone want to buy the film on DVD because they don;t want to have to sit naked in a cinima and watch it. > >> >> > All I'm saying is that once a photographer decides to distribute his >> > creations publicly, either by selling them or giving them away, there >> > is simply no way for that photographer to impose his will on these >> > creations as soon as they end up in the hands of others. >> >> That's where copyright comes in and where you fail to understand. > > That's were copyright fails miserably, given the rampant copyright > infringement > on p2p networks. Yep, and kids and adult get raped and murdered, maybe we should foget laws if they can;t be enforced 100% >> > If you create a bitstring, that bitstring belongs to the public >> > domain, >> >> No it does not. >> Unless of course you can describe exactly whjat a bitstring is. >> Which I know you can't because you have no idea what >> you're talking about. > > A bitstring is simply a finite sequence of bits and a bit is a digit > that either equals 0 or equals 1. > For a sequence of N bits, there are 2^N possible bitstrings, so for > instance if we take N=4, there are 2^4=16 different bitstrings. > Three examples of bitstrings of length 4 are: > > 0011 > > 1011 > > 0110 Do you really think 1s and 0-s travel down wires or through the air ? >> >but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to keep the bitstring >> > to yourself. All it means, is that you can't distribute the bitstring >> > by allowing others access to it, while maintaining you retain the >> > right to impose arbitrary restrictions on how people are allowed to >> > use it. >> >> Use what's a bitstring, what can you use a bitstring for ? > > That depends, some bitstrings might be pictures, Pictures of 1s and 0s I supopose, not very exciting. > and they can be > viewed using the proper software that can translate the bitstring to a > picture and other bitstrings might be software and they can be run as > code on a computer, so you can interact with the software that is > encoded by that bitstring. and that bitstring can also be your bank account number which indicates the amount of money in your account and a s a bitstream you claim it's in the public domain so why not make those numbers availible here too. ? |