Is The Electronic Frontier Foundation Full Of Idiots?
John Slade
Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
to do a good job for their cause. Here is the article.
Now when I got to this following portion, I was shocked.
"The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that
allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating
artists and copyright holders." -EFF.org
Ok I'm thinking, have these people ever heard of a record store or
Amazon.com? I have personally paid the artists and copyright holders for
music. I've been doing this since the late 70's. They have some delusion
that it's ok to steal music and call it sharing.
The other bone to pick is a little line at the bottom of one of
their poster ads. They made this claim.
"Stand up for your right to share the music you love!"
Since when is sharing music a right? I read The Bill of Rights and
can't find anything on the right to share copyrighted music. The EFF should
realize this and should stop fighting for the "right" of people to steal
music. They claim they want to find a way for the artists to be compensated
for putting their music online and allowing people to copy it as will. Well
the EFF did not take into the account that some artists my not want to sell
their work in the way they want. Some artists have albums that are meant to
be listened to all at once. I think the artists have the right to have
justice and prosecute those who steal music. Pretty soon it will be really
easy to cut way into music, software and video/movie piracy. The RIAA and
the artists have the law on their sides. All the pirates have is the will to
steal as much music as they can with impunity.
I have a suggestion, the EFF should fight against stealing. I wonder
how the EFF would feel if I took the picture of their T-Shirt on their web
site and decided to put it on a cheaper T-Shirt. I really like the shirt but
I think that paying that much money to get one is just plain criminal. Hell
I know a lot of other folk who like the EFF hats and I know a guy who can
make them. Maybe I should give them away to folk who don't want to pay $65
to join EFF to get one.
There is not much that needs to be done to sell music via downloads on
the Internet, it will eventually happen in a major way. The EFF should not
waste their time with piracy, they should spend their time looking at what
"The Patriot Act" is doing. That is much more of a threat to free speech and
is a step towards big brother.
John
John Higdon
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Some artists have albums that are meant to
> be listened to all at once.
I wonder how they might expect to enforce this. The CD would have only
one track, must be started at the beginning, and once started, the stop
button is disabled. Walking out of the room would be considered
infringement!
> I think the artists have the right to have
> justice and prosecute those who steal music. Pretty soon it will be really
> easy to cut way into music, software and video/movie piracy. The RIAA and
> the artists have the law on their sides. All the pirates have is the will to
> steal as much music as they can with impunity.
There are also a few non-pirates who don't believe that everyone's
rights should be flushed down the toilet because of this particular
cause.
> I have a suggestion, the EFF should fight against stealing. I wonder
> how the EFF would feel if I took the picture of their T-Shirt on their web
> site and decided to put it on a cheaper T-Shirt.
From what I know of the people at EFF, they would probably appreciate
the publicity. They are not in the T-shirt business; the shirts are
premiums to get tax-deductible donations. Most people who "buy" those
shirts are in fact intentionally donating money to the foundation; they
would ignore your efforts as irrelevant.
> I really like the shirt but
> I think that paying that much money to get one is just plain criminal. Hell
> I know a lot of other folk who like the EFF hats and I know a guy who can
> make them. Maybe I should give them away to folk who don't want to pay $65
> to join EFF to get one.
I suspect it wouldn't bother them in the slightest. It might make you
look like a horse's ass, however.
> There is not much that needs to be done to sell music via downloads on
> the Internet, it will eventually happen in a major way. The EFF should not
> waste their time with piracy, they should spend their time looking at what
> "The Patriot Act" is doing. That is much more of a threat to free speech and
> is a step towards big brother.
Funny you mention that. Obviously you don't see the parallel between the
two. That's exactly what the EFF is trying to do: educate people who are
blind to that similarity.
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
Philip J. Koenig
@pacbell.net (John Slade) writes...
> I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
> users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
> about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
> to do a good job for their cause.
[Warning: troll detected, rest of post removed]
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Ken Ashe
wrote:
> Since when is sharing music a right? I read The Bill of Rights and
>can't find anything on the right to share copyrighted music.
It's a damned shame the founding fathers weren't as smart as
you.
stelian
>
>[Warning: troll detected, rest of post removed]
I have nothing against on-topic trolls. In fact, I am one to !
Now really, usenet is for talking. If someone makes a point that is worth discussing,
and receives allot of answers, that's a good thing, even if does not mean what he
says. After all, the identity of the poster is irrelevant, only the message matters.
The same post could have came from an honest person, the discussion would have been
the same.
use...@stelian.tk
Spam received: 174
John Slade
"Philip J. Koenig" <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
message news:MPG.19a9e2d55...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <c61526a6c6a3f4b9...@news.teranews.com>, hitman86
> @pacbell.net (John Slade) writes...
>
> > I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic
Frontier
> > Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of
electronic
> > users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
> > about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they
want
> > to do a good job for their cause.
>
>
> [Warning: troll detected, rest of post removed]
Translation-He's for piracy but can't think of a rebuttal that won't make
him look like he supports stealing music.
John
John Slade
"stelian" <use...@stelian.tk> wrote in message
news:1ns0kvco6t9b8fqpu...@4ax.com...
> Philip J. Koenig wrote:
>
> >
> >[Warning: troll detected, rest of post removed]
>
> I have nothing against on-topic trolls. In fact, I am one to !
> Now really, usenet is for talking. If someone makes a point that is worth
>discussing,
If this topic wasn't worth dicussing, you would have ignored it and not
posted anything. The fact that you did post means it either pissed you off
or you want to say it's ok to steal because those artists charge too much
but are afraid to.
> and receives allot of answers, that's a good thing, even if does not mean
what he
> says. After all, the identity of the poster is irrelevant, only the
message matters.
In other words, he can't think of a rebuttal because he knows I'm right.
The EFF is on the wrong side of the constitution on this issue. File sharing
of copyrighted material is illegal, period. There is no right to do it.
John
John Slade
"Ken Ashe" <ka...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3f404548...@news.sonic.net...
Actually they were. However if the founding fathers caught a thief
stealing something from them, they probably would have shot him/her rather
than jail and/or fine him/her. Maybe you could think up a few good "rights".
How about "the right to steal whatever you want because the price is too
high." or "The right plagiarize someone's work." Those would surely please a
lot of folk at San Quentin Penitentiary.
John
FunkyDevil
> There is not much that needs to be done to sell music via downloads on
> the Internet, it will eventually happen in a major way. The EFF should not
> waste their time with piracy, they should spend their time looking at what
> "The Patriot Act" is doing. That is much more of a threat to free speech and
> is a step towards big brother.
Filesharing is NOT ILLEGAL . Sharing is not stealing. It's the
difference between taking a " picture of a picture "
or the " stealing " , just taking the picture off the wall and leaving
with it.
Filesharing is more of a " picture of a picture " type of thing.
That's why it's sharing .
Now if you're selling " pictures of pictures " then you're out of
luck...
It is not our " business " to keep outdated markets afloat. It is not
our responsibility to keep outdated markets alive.
THERE IS NO MORAL OBLIGATION to keep outdated markets in business.
They ( the Main music industry / Radio / RIAA ) , should be PAYING ME
to listen to alot of the crap they put out. Not the other way around.
Stop buying and supporting , Top 40 music. SHUT EM' DOWN.
ABOUT THE LAW :
There really isn't any such thing as " law " , law is really just
someone's ability to force their will over on you.
Not to say there is no such thing as good laws , I'm not talking
about good or bad , I'm talking about will , and the ability to
enforce that will.
So we must force our will upon the internet , through sheer massive
force in numbers and technological strength.
There are more of us than there are of them. Will you be controlled by
the few ?
I have been checking out " Filetopia ".
But have not used it for anything really.
It seems O.K.
People don't really like music what they really like is the marketing
and promotion , the music is secondary. Top 40 music will always sell.
Even now , with the RIAA acting as it is people are still buying
Marketed CDs , Why ? , I don't know but they are.
That does not mean they are not also downloading though.
Doug Anderson
What has been stolen?? The artist still has their song. The record
companies still have their CD's. I hear many songs played on the radio. I
don't ask to hear them. Maybe I should sue for invasion of privacy.
name
> I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
> users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
> about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
> to do a good job for their cause. Here is the article.
>
> http://www.eff.org/share/
>
> Now when I got to this following portion, I was shocked.
>
> "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that
> allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating
> artists and copyright holders." -EFF.org
>
> Ok I'm thinking, have these people ever heard of a record store or
> Amazon.com? I have personally paid the artists and copyright holders for
> music. I've been doing this since the late 70's. They have some delusion
> that it's ok to steal music and call it sharing.
Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
publicity anyway?
If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
distribution of your creation. Copyrights and computers are
incompatible.
Copyrights are not intended to prevent people from sharing
information.
The internet is like a gigantic library where people have the freedom
to exchange information without the interference of copyrights.
You can't control peoples' thoughts and you can't control the flow of
digital information online either. All attempts to do so have failed
miserably so far.
Computer criminality is synonymous with human stupidity and an
inability to adapt to new technology. People buy, own and sell
software like as if it's some kind of physical commodity but they need
to get it through their thick skull somehow that there is a
fundamental difference between psysical things and abstract concepts
like a piece of software.
>
> The other bone to pick is a little line at the bottom of one of
> their poster ads. They made this claim.
>
> "Stand up for your right to share the music you love!"
>
> Since when is sharing music a right? I read The Bill of Rights and
> can't find anything on the right to share copyrighted music. The EFF should
> realize this and should stop fighting for the "right" of people to steal
> music. They claim they want to find a way for the artists to be compensated
> for putting their music online and allowing people to copy it as will. Well
> the EFF did not take into the account that some artists my not want to sell
> their work in the way they want. Some artists have albums that are meant to
> be listened to all at once. I think the artists have the right to have
> justice and prosecute those who steal music. Pretty soon it will be really
> easy to cut way into music, software and video/movie piracy. The RIAA and
> the artists have the law on their sides. All the pirates have is the will to
> steal as much music as they can with impunity.
It doesn't matter whether you 'allow' people to copy your music or
not. The fact of the matter is that there is no practical way to
distinguish between music that has been created by someone who doesn't
mind free distribution of their creations or music created by someone
who objects to free distribution of their creations. People just need
to realize that copyrights are a thing of the past and are not
applicable to digital forms of information.
Philip J. Koenig
Slade) writes...
>
> "Philip J. Koenig" <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
> message news:MPG.19a9e2d55...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <c61526a6c6a3f4b9...@news.teranews.com>, hitman86
> > @pacbell.net (John Slade) writes...
> >
> > > I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic
> Frontier
> > > Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of
> electronic
> > > users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
> > > about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they
> want
> > > to do a good job for their cause.
> >
> >
> > [Warning: troll detected, rest of post removed]
[more trollage removed]
> John
Move along folks, don't feed the troll, nothing to see here, move
along..
John Higdon
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In other words, he can't think of a rebuttal because he knows I'm right.
> The EFF is on the wrong side of the constitution on this issue. File sharing
> of copyrighted material is illegal, period. There is no right to do it.
And you know perfectly well that the EFF has never advocated copyright
infringement. That's why most of your stuff is troll bait. You make up
stuff and then rail against it as if it were fact.
-=ô;ö=-
| Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
| users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
| about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
| to do a good job for their cause. Here is the article.
|
| http://www.eff.org/share/
|
| Now when I got to this following portion, I was shocked.
|
| "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that
| allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating
| artists and copyright holders." -EFF.org
|
and will continue until we collectively call them on the carpet by our current efforts of
passing music files to whom and where we please, so why the shock, were you kept in a dark
closet and fed b/s for most of your life??
| Ok I'm thinking, have these people ever heard of a record store or
| Amazon.com? I have personally paid the artists and copyright holders for
| music. I've been doing this since the late 70's. They have some delusion
| that it's ok to steal music and call it sharing.
Right, the Artist's for the most part get shafted just as we do, because of the contracts
they signed or by industry finding loopholes an misc expenses to charge off to them so the
label profits obscenely and the Artist and the consumer get the shaft..
|
| The other bone to pick is a little line at the bottom of one of
| their poster ads. They made this claim.
|
| "Stand up for your right to share the music you love!"
|
| Since when is sharing music a right? I read The Bill of Rights and
| can't find anything on the right to share copyrighted music. The EFF should
| realize this and should stop fighting for the "right" of people to steal
| music. They claim they want to find a way for the artists to be compensated
| for putting their music online and allowing people to copy it as will. Well
| the EFF did not take into the account that some artists my not want to sell
| their work in the way they want. Some artists have albums that are meant to
| be listened to all at once. I think the artists have the right to have
| justice and prosecute those who steal music. Pretty soon it will be really
| easy to cut way into music, software and video/movie piracy. The RIAA and
| the artists have the law on their sides. All the pirates have is the will to
| steal as much music as they can with impunity.
From this writing, I see an industry "Shill", we are stealing music no worse than dubbing
a track or an album off the radio or statelite feed. Since you cannot find any radio
station other than a college one or one of the very few non-Chear Channel or other
affilitated staion, it is the Top 40 or nothing. P2P has given us worldwide a new insight
into other musicians and I as one have purchased several from the D/L's I have obtained
and several I have informed that because they're labels are RIAA members, I cannot in all
good concience purchase their music, but will see them the next time they are in my area.
|
| I have a suggestion, the EFF should fight against stealing. I wonder
| how the EFF would feel if I took the picture of their T-Shirt on their web
| site and decided to put it on a cheaper T-Shirt. I really like the shirt but
| I think that paying that much money to get one is just plain criminal. Hell
| I know a lot of other folk who like the EFF hats and I know a guy who can
| make them. Maybe I should give them away to folk who don't want to pay $65
| to join EFF to get one.
Does it say you ahve to donate $65?? No, I think not...Any amount is a contribution to a
free internet and goes towards the fight against the Pigopolists.
|
| There is not much that needs to be done to sell music via downloads on
| the Internet, it will eventually happen in a major way. The EFF should not
| waste their time with piracy, they should spend their time looking at what
| "The Patriot Act" is doing. That is much more of a threat to free speech and
| is a step towards big brother.
|
| John
|
Well John, The RIAA is just as bad since it was their version f the DMCA that was
"sneaked" thru Congress before anyone had realized it's full implications. Just as
Patriot Act I and if II becomes a reality, well Kiss all your's and my freedom's
goodbye..and it is too late, unless PA I and II are not killed and King George gets
elected(yes, elected, since he did not win the last one, he was placed on the throne by
his daddy's stooges in the Supreme Court)..and we as citizens screwed up by not demanding
of our elected Reps a full recall/run-off election(oh my, the costs would have been much
cheaper than the war that was response to pure unadulterated fictional reasons.)..
--
Now Playing ---->>Bekka Bramlett - Bekka Bramlett - we all fall down [stopped]
|
-=ô;ö=-
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:bhpu6u$1svqp$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de...
ab...@mix.com
> What has been stolen?? The artist still has their song. The record
> companies still have their CD's. I hear many songs played on the radio. I
> don't ask to hear them. Maybe I should sue for invasion of privacy.
And did you know the radio stations have to pay for the use of the
music too?
Billy Y..
John Higdon
And it's not a token amount, either.
us...@example.com
> I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic Frontier
>Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
>users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
>about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
>to do a good job for their cause. Here is the article.
>
>http://www.eff.org/share/
>
> Now when I got to this following portion, I was shocked.
>
> "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that
>allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating
>artists and copyright holders." -EFF.org
They're that wide-eyed clueless. They spout similar nonsense about spam
and child porn.
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
> Actually they were. However if the founding fathers caught a thief
>stealing something from them, they probably would have shot him/her rather
>than jail and/or fine him/her. Maybe you could think up a few good "rights".
I BET THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BE RILLY PISSED IF SOMEBODY DOWNLOADED ALL
THEIR METALLICA ALBUMS FROM THEM
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
> I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic Frontier
>Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
>users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
>about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
>to do a good job for their cause. Here is the article.
No, the EFF isn't full of idiots. This newsgroup, however, is. Furthermore,
I'm rather afraid you're one of them. Sorry!
Philip J. Koenig
(tre...@sirius.com.no.more) writes...
Ah yes, two of the favorite whipping-boys of the control-freak
set. :-)
Spam is a legit problem, I just happen to disagree with much of the
popular sentiment on how to fight it.
Internet child-porn to a large extent IMHO has been a boogy-man
invented by people who have little clue what its real impact is
on children, as an excuse to go on fishing expeditions to prosecute
people who aren't part of the actual problem, and as a way to
demonize the "evils" of the internet from their puritanical
perspective.
That should get the gums flapping for awhile. :-)
anthonyberet
radio-play.
However, this income is not diminished by filesharing.
--
Put "usenet" in the subject-line if you want to mail me, otherwise it will
bounce.
anthonyberet
Ken Ashe
Thanks for the snotty interpretation.
Now we know that anyone who disagrees with John Slade is a
fool and to be disparaged. This will really help in keeping all
threads to a max of five postings as there is no further need for
discussion once Jonn has shamed everyone else back into their holes.
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"stelian" <use...@stelian.tk> wrote in message
>news:1ns0kvco6t9b8fqpu...@4ax.com...
>> Philip J. Koenig wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[Warning: troll detected, rest of post removed]
>>
>> I have nothing against on-topic trolls. In fact, I am one to !
>> Now really, usenet is for talking. If someone makes a point that is worth
>>discussing,
>
> If this topic wasn't worth dicussing, you would have ignored it and not
>posted anything. The fact that you did post means it either pissed you off
>or you want to say it's ok to steal because those artists charge too much
>but are afraid to.
"I fear the man who has all the answers."
-- James Marien, S.J. -- circa 1962
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Actually they were. However if the founding fathers caught a thief
>stealing something from them, they probably would have shot him/her rather
>than jail and/or fine him/her. Maybe you could think up a few good "rights".
>How about "the right to steal whatever you want because the price is too
>high." or "The right plagiarize someone's work." Those would surely please a
>lot of folk at San Quentin Penitentiary.
So now you speak for the Penitents as well as being the RIAA's
house shill?
default
Get a grip John! get a beer? get something . . .
We have an immoral law, passed by corrupt government officials,
benefiting a greedy, underhanded, monopolistic corporate entity. And
you find breaking that law upsetting?
Wow! You are a very scary person, John . . . Would your real last
name happen to be Ashcroft?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jamie Fox
"FunkyDevil" <qs8r...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:31fff59e.03081...@posting.google.com...
Wow. Is it sunny in your world?
Jamie
John Navas
In <JG20b.171823$TJ.10...@twister.austin.rr.com> on Mon, 18 Aug 2003
11:23:21 GMT, "Doug Anderson" <dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>EWVEN A STOPPED CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY
>"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:bhpu6u$1svqp$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Translation-He's for piracy but can't think of a rebuttal that won't make
>> him look like he supports stealing music.
>What has been stolen??
The value of the copy.
>The artist still has their song. The record
>companies still have their CD's.
The value of the copy has still been stolen.
>I hear many songs played on the radio.
With the permission of the copyright holder.
>I
>don't ask to hear them. Maybe I should sue for invasion of privacy.
On what basis?
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
John Navas
In <bhrro8$2h03u$1...@ID-125339.news.uni-berlin.de> on 19 Aug 2003 00:41:44 GMT,
"anthonyberet" <witf...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>In fact many record companies make the greater part of their income from
>radio-play.
>However, this income is not diminished by filesharing.
Of course it is. As radio listenership goes down, so too does royalty income.
John Navas
In <_r70b.8664$_P1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:48:58
GMT, "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.T...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"Plonk" you bloody Industry Shill!!!!!!
Boy was that mature. Not.
John Navas
In <31fff59e.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 02:35:42
-0700, qs8r...@sneakemail.com (FunkyDevil) wrote:
>Filesharing is NOT ILLEGAL.
It is if the files are copyrighted.
>Sharing is not stealing.
It's copyright infringement. It may be stealing (criminal), depending on
circumstances.
>It's the
>difference between taking a " picture of a picture "
>or the " stealing " , just taking the picture off the wall and leaving
>with it.
>Filesharing is more of a " picture of a picture " type of thing.
>That's why it's sharing .
No, it's taking of value.
>It is not our " business " to keep outdated markets afloat. It is not
>our responsibility to keep outdated markets alive.
>
>THERE IS NO MORAL OBLIGATION to keep outdated markets in business.
It's not our business to pass such judgements. If it's "outdated" don't
listen to it, but don't pirate it.
>They ( the Main music industry / Radio / RIAA ) , should be PAYING ME
>to listen to alot of the crap they put out. Not the other way around.
>
>Stop buying and supporting , Top 40 music. SHUT EM' DOWN.
Knock yourself out.
>ABOUT THE LAW :
>
> There really isn't any such thing as " law " , law is really just
>someone's ability to force their will over on you.
My goodness -- over the edge, are we?
> So we must force our will upon the internet , through sheer massive
>force in numbers and technological strength.
>
>There are more of us than there are of them. Will you be controlled by
>the few ?
And thus the seeds of revolution are sown. Or not. :-)
John Navas
In <1ccba12f.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 05:23:51
-0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
>as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
>publicity anyway?
Those that lose money thereby.
>If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
>distribution of your creation.
Of course it does.
>Copyrights and computers are
>incompatible.
Not true. The issue is people, not computers.
>Copyrights are not intended to prevent people from sharing
>information.
You need to read up on copyright.
>The internet is like a gigantic library where people have the freedom
>to exchange information without the interference of copyrights.
Rubbish.
>You can't control peoples' thoughts
Generally true.
>and you can't control the flow of
>digital information online either.
Actually you can.
>All attempts to do so have failed
>miserably so far.
Tell that to Napster.
>Computer criminality is synonymous with human stupidity and an
>inability to adapt to new technology. People buy, own and sell
>software like as if it's some kind of physical commodity but they need
>to get it through their thick skull somehow that there is a
>fundamental difference between psysical things and abstract concepts
>like a piece of software.
Spoken like a pirate.
>It doesn't matter whether you 'allow' people to copy your music or
>not. The fact of the matter is that there is no practical way to
>distinguish between music that has been created by someone who doesn't
>mind free distribution of their creations or music created by someone
>who objects to free distribution of their creations.
Actually there is.
>People just need
>to realize that copyrights are a thing of the past and are not
>applicable to digital forms of information.
Lots of luck on that one.
John Navas
In <3d70b.8636$_P1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:33:03
GMT, "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.T...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:c61526a6c6a3f4b9...@news.teranews.com...
>>[SNIP]
>Well John, The RIAA is just as bad since it was their version f the DMCA that was
>"sneaked" thru Congress before anyone had realized it's full implications.
Nonsense -- you either weren't paying attention, or didn't take it seriously.
>[SNIP rant]
John Navas
In <MPG.19aaf11dc...@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 18 Aug 2003
15:20:48 -0700, Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <g152kvgi5aiavuf4s...@news.supernews.com>, us...@example.com
>(tre...@sirius.com.no.more) writes...
>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic Frontier
>> >Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of electronic
>> >users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
>> >about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
>> >to do a good job for their cause. Here is the article.
>> >
>> >http://www.eff.org/share/
>> >
>> > Now when I got to this following portion, I was shocked.
>> >
>> > "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that
>> >allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating
>> >artists and copyright holders." -EFF.org
>>
>> They're that wide-eyed clueless. They spout similar nonsense about spam
>> and child porn.
>
>Ah yes, two of the favorite whipping-boys of the control-freak
>set. :-)
>
>Spam is a legit problem, ...
Likewise piracy.
John Slade
"John Higdon" <no-...@amadeus.kome.com> wrote in message
news:no-spam-C03AF5...@equine.announcetech.com...
> In article <bhpuf3$1ts2t$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In other words, he can't think of a rebuttal because he knows I'm
right.
> > The EFF is on the wrong side of the constitution on this issue. File
sharing
> > of copyrighted material is illegal, period. There is no right to do it.
>
> And you know perfectly well that the EFF has never advocated copyright
> infringement. That's why most of your stuff is troll bait. You make up
> stuff and then rail against it as if it were fact.
Troll bait? You mean trolling don't you? Geez when will you guys get
the language right?
Anyway if you look at this advertisement by the EFF they clearly say
that you have a right to share music over the Internet. Well that's a lie.
There is no right to do that. You want proof? Ok here it is.
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/music-to-our-ears.php
Now read where it says, "Stand up for your right to share the music
you love!" Now I never knew anyone had the right to transmit copyrighted
material over the Internet. Maybe you think they're talking about someone
letting a friend come over and listen to their CDs, tapes or records rather
than transmitting music with Kazza or Morpheus. Oh but they mention those
two so there is no question as to what the EFF means by sharing.
The EFF is wasting their time by defending illegal music piracy.
John
John Slade
"Doug Anderson" <dan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JG20b.171823$TJ.10...@twister.austin.rr.com...> news:bhpu6u$1svqp$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Philip J. Koenig" <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote
> > message news:MPG.19a9e2d55...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > In article <c61526a6c6a3f4b9...@news.teranews.com>,
> hitman86
> > > @pacbell.net (John Slade) writes...
> > >
> > Frontier
> > > > Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of
> > electronic
> > > > users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something
> disturbing
> > > > about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if
they
> > want
> > > > to do a good job for their cause.
> > >
> > >
> >
> make
> > him look like he supports stealing music.
> >
>
>
> What has been stolen?? The artist still has their song. The record
> companies still have their CD's. I hear many songs played on the radio. I
> don't ask to hear them. Maybe I should sue for invasion of privacy.
>
>
You have stolen an intellectual property created by an artist who means
to sell it. That song is clearly meant to be sold and getting it for free
without the artist's permission is stealing. There is no way around it.
People download MP3s and other copyrighted things to avoid paying for it.
John
John Slade
"anthonyberet" <witf...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bhrro8$2h03u$1...@ID-125339.news.uni-berlin.de...
> ab...@MIX.COM wrote:
> > Doug Anderson <dan...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> What has been stolen?? The artist still has their song. The record
> >> companies still have their CD's. I hear many songs played on the
> >> radio. I don't ask to hear them. Maybe I should sue for invasion of
> >> privacy.
> >
> > And did you know the radio stations have to pay for the use of the
> > music too?
> >
> In fact many record companies make the greater part of their income from
> radio-play.
> However, this income is not diminished by filesharing.
That's not the issue. The issue is the rights of the artist to not have
their stuff given away for free if they don't want it. You know if someone
decides to download a CD rather than buy it, that is hurting the artist.
It's the same thing as if I steal a peach from a Safeway store. It won't
bring down Safeway and they still have tons of peaches to sell but it's
still stealing.
John
John Slade
"Ken Ashe" <ka...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3f419349...@news.sonic.net...
What me a shill for the RIAA? I agree with them on stopping piracy. I
am not really for record companies. I wish the artists could distribute the
music themselves but all you see is a "shill". You have blinders on.
John
John Slade
> > There is not much that needs to be done to sell music via downloads
on
> > the Internet, it will eventually happen in a major way. The EFF should
not
> > waste their time with piracy, they should spend their time looking at
what
> > "The Patriot Act" is doing. That is much more of a threat to free speech
and
> > is a step towards big brother.
>
>
> difference between taking a " picture of a picture "
> or the " stealing " , just taking the picture off the wall and leaving
> with it.
> Filesharing is more of a " picture of a picture " type of thing.
> That's why it's sharing .
> luck...
>
> our responsibility to keep outdated markets alive.
>
> THERE IS NO MORAL OBLIGATION to keep outdated markets in business.
>
> to listen to alot of the crap they put out. Not the other way around.
>
>
> Stop buying and supporting , Top 40 music. SHUT EM' DOWN.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There really isn't any such thing as " law " , law is really just
> someone's ability to force their will over on you.
You know what? There was once a bill on the floor of the Senate. This
bill that became a law took a military computer network and allowed everyone
to use it. Yep, I'm talking about the Internet. Thanks to that law, you can
spout your strange views to thousands or millions of people. If it wasn't
for that law, you wouldn't be heard except maybe on a street corner.
John
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
> That's not the issue. The issue is the rights of the artist to not have
>their stuff given away for free if they don't want it. You know if someone
>decides to download a CD rather than buy it, that is hurting the artist.
>It's the same thing as if I steal a peach from a Safeway store. It won't
>bring down Safeway and they still have tons of peaches to sell but it's
>still stealing.
But I really love their peaches, and want to shake their tree.
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
> I just saw the words "right to share" and wanted to start a discussion
>on it. Isn't that what USENET is for?
No. Usenet is for downloading pr0n from.
> I don't call any of those who disagree
>with me a fool. I just want people to see the truth about this piracy thing.
Ah. Well, have you accepted Jesus into your heart? That could be the
problem, there.
>I don't give a rat's ass about the recording industry. In fact I think the
>artists should sell their stuff on the Internet rather than use the record
>companies. They need to be cut out IMO. They rape artists and dupe them into
>bad contracts. I am for the artists and their property.
Property is theft.
name
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <1ccba12f.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 05:23:51
> -0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>
> >Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
> >as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
> >publicity anyway?
>
> Those that lose money thereby.
That is a misconception. They don't lose money because their music
gets copied. They might fail to realize there are ways to cash in on
their popularity though.
Like if I was an artist and my music would be copied a lot, I might
organize a concert to exploit this popularity. Mp3s are still a poor
substitute for a live performance but the difference between cds and
mp3s is often negligible.
>
> >If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
> >distribution of your creation.
>
> Of course it does.
Who the fuck do these artists think they are? God?
The default is that people who create something have no objection
against their creations being distributed freely. If they do, they had
better come up with some form of copyprotection to prevent people from
sharing their creations freely.
>
> >Copyrights and computers are
> >incompatible.
>
> Not true. The issue is people, not computers.
The issue at stake here is technology. There has never been a problem
with copyright infringement while people were unable to record their
creations.
If you had an ability to play an instrument, you would be able to
exploit that by playing live and nobody would be able to capture that
music in some form in order to distribute it. Now we do have
technology that allows us to communicate such recordings as easily as
ideas and concepts. So either we ban computers or we abandon
copyrights.
>
> >Copyrights are not intended to prevent people from sharing
> >information.
>
> You need to read up on copyright.
Copyrights are intended as an incentive for people to create things by
guarantying that they can exploit their creations commercially. They
can still exploit their creations but not by means of controlling
distribution of their creations since this has become practically
impossible (given the ease by which creations can be distributed
online). The need for centralized organizations controlling
distribution has become obsolete since everybody can afford the
equipment to distribute information online.
>
> >The internet is like a gigantic library where people have the freedom
> >to exchange information without the interference of copyrights.
>
> Rubbish.
Yeah, sharing information is a really retarded idea when you think
about it. Maybe we should burn down all libraries and attempt to
prevent people from exchanging information instead.
>
> >You can't control peoples' thoughts
>
> Generally true.
>
> >and you can't control the flow of
> >digital information online either.
>
> Actually you can.
You can try, but you will fail.
>
> >All attempts to do so have failed
> >miserably so far.
>
> Tell that to Napster.
There are many alternatives for napster and I've been able to collect
much more music since my napster days. Whenever they manage to shut
down some service to exchange software, it gets supplanted by various
more effective ones.
>
> >Computer criminality is synonymous with human stupidity and an
> >inability to adapt to new technology. People buy, own and sell
> >software like as if it's some kind of physical commodity but they need
> >to get it through their thick skull somehow that there is a
> >fundamental difference between psysical things and abstract concepts
> >like a piece of software.
>
> Spoken like a pirate.
Ok, you think it's a good idea that people are able to own, buy and
sell very large integer numbers. Perhaps you can explain me where we
draw the line between numbers that are for common use and numbers that
can be passed of as physical commodities? Unless you think this even
holds for smaller numbers like
the number 17 for instance. Does anybody own the number 17? Am I
infringing on any copyrights when I mention the number 17?
Bear in mind that a piece of software is nothing but an extremely
large natural number (with an appropriate interpretation that maps it
to a program in machine language).
>
> >It doesn't matter whether you 'allow' people to copy your music or
> >not. The fact of the matter is that there is no practical way to
> >distinguish between music that has been created by someone who doesn't
> >mind free distribution of their creations or music created by someone
> >who objects to free distribution of their creations.
>
> Actually there is.
No there isn't... just because you add a copyright notice that doesn't
mean you have protected your rights in any realistic way. It doesn't
allow you to control distribution of your creations either since this
copyright notice doesn't prevent people from being able to copy it.
You would need some form of encryption at least.
>
> >People just need
> >to realize that copyrights are a thing of the past and are not
> >applicable to digital forms of information.
>
> Lots of luck on that one.
If you look at the way various forms of technology have caused
increasing problems with copyright it's not hard to realize that
copyrights will soon be abandoned. They make less sense with every new
technological development and cause increasing problems without
offering any real benefits.
Anybody with half a brain can download software and find a crack and
use it for free. Only dimwits would actually pay for something that
isn't scarce. The monetary value of things is measured by laws of
supply and demand and in the case of software there naturally is an
infinite supply.
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"Ken Ashe" <ka...@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:3f419213...@news.sonic.net...
> I just saw the words "right to share" and wanted to start a discussion
>on it. Isn't that what USENET is for? I don't call any of those who disagree
>with me a fool. I just want people to see the truth about this piracy thing.
>I don't give a rat's ass about the recording industry. In fact I think the
>artists should sell their stuff on the Internet rather than use the record
>companies. They need to be cut out IMO. They rape artists and dupe them into
>bad contracts. I am for the artists and their property.
Yet you're unable to admit the fundamental legal difference
between simple copyright violation and theft. By insisting on your own
(erroneous) definition, you're attempting to stifle the discussion by
predefining the outcome. If you wanted anyone to see any truth, you'd
start with making honest distinctions instead of twisting the meaning
of the most central words in the discussion.
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"Ken Ashe" <ka...@rahul.net> wrote in message
>news:3f419349...@news.sonic.net...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:19:53 -0700, "John Slade"
>> <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > Actually they were. However if the founding fathers caught a thief
>> >stealing something from them, they probably would have shot him/her
>rather
>> >than jail and/or fine him/her. Maybe you could think up a few good
>"rights".
>> >How about "the right to steal whatever you want because the price is too
>> >high." or "The right plagiarize someone's work." Those would surely
>please a
>> >lot of folk at San Quentin Penitentiary.
>>
>>
>> So now you speak for the Penitents as well as being the RIAA's
>> house shill?
>>
>
> What me a shill for the RIAA? I agree with them on stopping piracy. I
>am not really for record companies. I wish the artists could distribute the
>music themselves but all you see is a "shill". You have blinders on.
As do you, regarding the legal distinction between copyright
violation and theft. It doesn't help your case, so you just cdream
your definitions louder and more often.
Marty
think I thought I saw this post from nspr...@hotmail.com (name):
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<2hB0b.13126$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <1ccba12f.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 05:23:51
>> -0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>>
>> >Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
>> >as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
>> >publicity anyway?
>>
>> Those that lose money thereby.
>
>That is a misconception. They don't lose money because their music
>gets copied. They might fail to realize there are ways to cash in on
>their popularity though.
>Like if I was an artist and my music would be copied a lot, I might
>organize a concert to exploit this popularity. Mp3s are still a poor
>substitute for a live performance but the difference between cds and
>mp3s is often negligible.
>
First of all, you aren't an artist, and have no right to tell artists what
they should do.
Second of all, you're making some wild assumptions about the art; not all
recordings can be played live. Not everyone thinks a live performance is
the only way to enjoy music. What if an artist creates a recording, tries
to sell it in the only way he/she knows how right now, and instead of buying
it, everyone copies it for free. Are you saying that artist has not lost
money? Was the cost of producing the CDs free?
>>
>> >If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
>> >distribution of your creation.
>>
>> Of course it does.
>
>Who the fuck do these artists think they are? God?
>The default is that people who create something have no objection
>against their creations being distributed freely. If they do, they had
>better come up with some form of copyprotection to prevent people from
>sharing their creations freely.
>
So who do you think you are, if not God? You are saying nobody should be
allowed to listen to recorded music until the artists "come up with some
form of copyprotection . . .". Hello? Artists don't necessarily know
anything about that.
By the way, is it OK if I rearrange your posts into an article I'm writing?
I might change your meaning, but hey, that's my right, isn't it? If you
don't like the result, you shouldn't be posting it publicly to a newsgroup,
right?
For the record, I've copied MP3 files off the internet; I don't consider it
legal. As to right or wrong, I have my own ideas about that, and I don't
try to enforce my ideas on others. It's like driving over the speed limit -
I don't consider it legal, but I often do it.
--
Marty - mjf+u...@sonic.net
John Higdon
Marty <c.b.low...@sonic.this.is.invalid> wrote:
> By the way, is it OK if I rearrange your posts into an article I'm writing?
> I might change your meaning, but hey, that's my right, isn't it? If you
> don't like the result, you shouldn't be posting it publicly to a newsgroup,
> right?
But if you decided to do that, who could stop you? I doubt anyone
posting here has anything approaching the clout of the record industry
Copyright Cartel. You could undoubtedly publish your work in any medium
you wish and even if it became a best-seller, none of the unwilling
contributors to your derivative work would have the slightest recourse.
No attorney who ever expected to be paid would ever take such a case.
> For the record, I've copied MP3 files off the internet; I don't consider it
> legal. As to right or wrong, I have my own ideas about that, and I don't
> try to enforce my ideas on others. It's like driving over the speed limit -
> I don't consider it legal, but I often do it.
But you have no problem condemning others for doing it? I think there is
a name for that sort of moral ambiguity. Starts with "h"...
--
John Higdon | Email Address Valid | SF: +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 | Anytown, USA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
James Grabowski
<crosspost removed>
Just to start with. You're a trolling cross posting fuck wit :)
> Now I never knew anyone had the right to transmit copyrighted
> material over the Internet.
How about internet radio stations? Paid for download services? How about
web sites even?
Todd Daugherty
tangable form.....not economic injury.
Todd Daugherty
Marty
I think I thought I saw this post from John Higdon
<say-no...@justpoop.com>:
No, you've missed the point - I'm not condemning anyone for doing it. I'm
condemning him for saying it's perfectly OK. It's one thing to willingly
break a law, weighing the consequences, but another thing to think it's
perfectly OK. I have my own standards, but I don't try to impose them on
others. Perhaps I have vinyl records of all the MP3s I've downloaded, and
think it's OK. Maybe I download a small percentage that I normally wouldn't
buy, Or maybe I download but don't inhale - er, listen. I might have even
repented after deciding it was wrong. But if I think it's perfectly legal
and OK, I would do it all the time. Like my speeding example - you may have
a reason to break the speed limit, but that doesn't make breaking the speed
limit OK all the time for everyone.
The main thing that bothers me is that so many people so fiercly attacked
the original poster for his opinions. A lot more than simple disagreement,
it was along the lines of religious fervor, and I think it was unwarranted
and stupid.
--
Marty - mjf+u...@sonic.net
Todd Daugherty
> I just read an article on EFF.org. It's the Electronic
Frontier
> Foundation's web site. The EFF is there to protect the freedom of
electronic
> users of all kinds. But the article I read told me something disturbing
> about the EFF. They need to seriously hire some educated help if they want
>
> http://www.eff.org/share/
>
> Now when I got to this following portion, I was shocked.
>
> "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that
> allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating
> artists and copyright holders." -EFF.org
>
or
> Amazon.com? I have personally paid the artists and copyright holders for
> music. I've been doing this since the late 70's. They have some delusion
> that it's ok to steal music and call it sharing.
the problem isn't the artist. their not the one's bitching. it's the big
recording studio's that are bitching along with their trade organization th
RIAA. there are alternatives to P2P however, many of those services have 1.
only one way to pay or 2. restricted what you can and can not do with the
music you download I'm sorry but if I want copy the music I download which I
paid for and put it on a CD then I have that right I bought it...it's mine.
Stores on the other are not worth it. The store's jack their CD prices up or
are priced fixed (thanks to the record industry M.A.P. which by the way is
illegal) or like Wally world (wal-mart) censors their muisc.
> The other bone to pick is a little line at the bottom of one of
> their poster ads. They made this claim.
>
> "Stand up for your right to share the music you love!"
>
> Since when is sharing music a right? I read The Bill of Rights and
> can't find anything on the right to share copyrighted music. The EFF
should
> realize this and should stop fighting for the "right" of people to steal
> music. They claim they want to find a way for the artists to be
compensated
> for putting their music online and allowing people to copy it as will.
Well
> the EFF did not take into the account that some artists my not want to
sell
> their work in the way they want. Some artists have albums that are meant
to
> be listened to all at once. I think the artists have the right to have
> justice and prosecute those who steal music. Pretty soon it will be really
> easy to cut way into music, software and video/movie piracy. The RIAA and
> the artists have the law on their sides. All the pirates have is the will
to
> steal as much music as they can with impunity.
There are many rights the people have in the United States. A LOT of them
are not in The Bill of Rights for one simple reason. Because the Founding
Fathers didn't want to list ever right. it would made the bill of rights
extremely long. the bill or rights was created to list some of the basic
rights, rights old king george of england didn't reconize. Through out the
years other "Bill of Rights" have been created including the United Nation
Declaration of Human Rights and The Americans Declaration of Human Rights.
Both are treaties the United States are bound by. Many artist have raised a
complaint about only one song being downloaded and it destroys the concept
of the album. One question if the album is a whole the "complete work" does
it mean the song itself is a "small portion" of the work and thereby within
fair use? The point to downloading one sone is a simple one...people go out
to buy cd's for one reason to listen to that one song they like. Not the
whole album. Artist should get their heads out of their asses and realize
that.
> I have a suggestion, the EFF should fight against stealing. I wonder
> how the EFF would feel if I took the picture of their T-Shirt on their web
> site and decided to put it on a cheaper T-Shirt. I really like the shirt
but
> I think that paying that much money to get one is just plain criminal.
Hell
> I know a lot of other folk who like the EFF hats and I know a guy who can
> make them. Maybe I should give them away to folk who don't want to pay
$65
> to join EFF to get one.
>
> There is not much that needs to be done to sell music via downloads on
> the Internet, it will eventually happen in a major way. The EFF should not
> waste their time with piracy, they should spend their time looking at what
> "The Patriot Act" is doing. That is much more of a threat to free speech
and
> is a step towards big brother.
>
> John
>
Finally the EFF is not supporting piracy they are protecting people's right
to privacy. everyone should have the right to be able to surf the net,
download stuff without neither the government or some gun ho lobby group
going after them.
Todd Daugherty
P2P User/ Copyright holder
John Higdon
Marty <c.b.low...@sonic.this.is.invalid> wrote:
> The main thing that bothers me is that so many people so fiercly attacked
> the original poster for his opinions. A lot more than simple disagreement,
> it was along the lines of religious fervor, and I think it was unwarranted
> and stupid.
Welcome to Usenet, where one poster's simple query about the
availability of admin jobs morphs into a thousand messages on every
topic but.
Ken Ashe
<say-no...@justpoop.com> wrote:
>In article <hil7kv438tltn5ibr...@4ax.com>,
> Marty <c.b.low...@sonic.this.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The main thing that bothers me is that so many people so fiercly attacked
>> the original poster for his opinions. A lot more than simple disagreement,
>> it was along the lines of religious fervor, and I think it was unwarranted
>> and stupid.
>
>Welcome to Usenet, where one poster's simple query about the
>availability of admin jobs morphs into a thousand messages on every
>topic but.
It's a defense mechanism. Since the average initial posting
can be fully and honestly dealt with within 10 - 20 folowups, what
would we do with all the excess bandwidth?
Why, the internet would probably overspeed and seize a bearing
and we'd have nothing but the smoking remains of all those bits to
deal with.
name
> Somewhere around 20 Aug 2003 08:17:20 -0700, while reading ba.internet, I
> think I thought I saw this post from nspr...@hotmail.com (name):
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<2hB0b.13126$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >>
> >> In <1ccba12f.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 05:23:51
> >> -0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
> >> >as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
> >> >publicity anyway?
> >>
> >> Those that lose money thereby.
> >
> >That is a misconception. They don't lose money because their music
> >gets copied. They might fail to realize there are ways to cash in on
> >their popularity though.
>
> >Like if I was an artist and my music would be copied a lot, I might
> >organize a concert to exploit this popularity. Mp3s are still a poor
> >substitute for a live performance but the difference between cds and
> >mp3s is often negligible.
> >
> First of all, you aren't an artist, and have no right to tell artists what
> they should do.
Says who? I create things (like art and pictures on the computer) and
I don't have problems with people distributing my creations freely.
I'm not telling artists what to do, I'm just questioning if they have
any rights concerning controlling the distribution of their creations
and if so, how do they think they can control distribution of their
creations in practice given the way computers allow for people to
distribute things freely?
> Second of all, you're making some wild assumptions about the art; not all
> recordings can be played live. Not everyone thinks a live performance is
> the only way to enjoy music. What if an artist creates a recording, tries
> to sell it in the only way he/she knows how right now, and instead of buying
> it, everyone copies it for free. Are you saying that artist has not lost
> money? Was the cost of producing the CDs free?
No, but once the CD has been produced there are no costs involved in
producing an unlimited number of copies. This is not the case with
physical commodities so there should be a different strategy to market
CDs. One option is to measure which music is most popular and enforce
some kind of tax on the distribution of online information that
benefits artists in proportion to their popularity.
People already pay additional money for blank media where I live to
compensate for copyright infringement. Even though this is not a
perfect solution (given that some people only use blank media for
information that is free from copyrights) I think this is still a
better solution than criminalizing people for exchanging mp3s.
>
> >>
> >> >If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
> >> >distribution of your creation.
> >>
> >> Of course it does.
> >
> >Who the fuck do these artists think they are? God?
> >The default is that people who create something have no objection
> >against their creations being distributed freely. If they do, they had
> >better come up with some form of copyprotection to prevent people from
> >sharing their creations freely.
> >
> So who do you think you are, if not God? You are saying nobody should be
> allowed to listen to recorded music until the artists "come up with some
> form of copyprotection . . .". Hello? Artists don't necessarily know
> anything about that.
In that case they better accept the current situation that there is no
practical way to control distribution of their creations. They have to
deal with the reality of computers being widely available and the
consequences this has for peoples' ability to distribute things with
relative ease.
>
> By the way, is it OK if I rearrange your posts into an article I'm writing?
> I might change your meaning, but hey, that's my right, isn't it? If you
> don't like the result, you shouldn't be posting it publicly to a newsgroup,
> right?
I have no problems with that... edit my postings as you please.
>
> For the record, I've copied MP3 files off the internet; I don't consider it
> legal. As to right or wrong, I have my own ideas about that, and I don't
> try to enforce my ideas on others. It's like driving over the speed limit -
> I don't consider it legal, but I often do it.
I don't try to impose my ideas on others either, I'm just trying to
explain my outlook on this issue and hope that other people will think
about it or criticize me so that I may review and (if necessary)
change my position. I'm sorry if I'm comming across like some kind of
zealot with too much 'religious' fervor, that is one of my bad habits.
I try to state things in a thought provoking way and sometimes it can
be misinterpreted like as if I'm very selfassured about my position
even though I'm still in doubt.
I'm passionate about the freedom to exchange information online
however even though I realize that some kind of sollution is needed to
provide an incentive for people to create things given that their
creations can be distributed freely online. But it would make more
sense to impose some kind of tax on the distribution of information
rather than attempting to prohibit people from sharing information.
If libraries are a useful invention, what's wrong with the idea of
considering the internet like a gigantic library?
People who borrow from the library pay a small fee to compensate for
the fact that they probably won't be buying the book they borrow
(among other things) so why would it be impossible to implement a
similar system for the online exchange of information?
Zip In The Wire
Where it matters, in court, copying an mp3 isn't stealing, it's
copyright infringement. It is a civil tort, not a crime. You can say
that if I breath air from the same room you do, that I am stealing
your air if you want to stretch definitions.
Since the invention of recording tape, xerox machines, cassettes and
the DVD writer people have been doing this. I highly doubt there is
anyone on earth that hasn't made an illegal copy of something, and is
thus, a "criminal".
If you want to outlaw p2p, by the same logic outlaw cassette tapes,
reel to reel tapes, VCRs, camcorders, xerox machines, and certainly
ALL computers and a judge in Los Angeles ruled that this was the case
with p2p software.
Basically, what we are looking at is the end of Purely Intellectual
Property. Inventions and things that require physical presence are
still safe, but pure IP such as writing and recordings are no longer
protectable.
Radio and Television have been in this situation for almost a century
anyway, giving away their content for free consumption. Pretty soon
movies will have blatant advertising embedded right in the action.
It's already done but look for it to increase.
For every artist that makes it there are hundreds equally good that
don't. I've seen some struggling guitarists and songwriters that are
every bit as good as the so called super stars, some even better. So
what if the system can't support those people at the top of the
pyramid? There isn't going to be any lack of songwriting because songs
don't sell. Almost every band I know of wrote good material while they
were struggling, before they had a record contract. The lifestyle
alone is worth the reward for the true artists among them.
Computers and the Internet have made the publisher OBSOLETE. There is
no more need for the physical medium to record this type of media.
They will soon be out of the picture.
If someone gets freaked by this, they are going to keel over
completely and die eventually because this is just the beginning of
the upheaval that the Internet is going to cause.
I'm not saying copyright infringement is legal. All I'm saying is,
it's inevitable. New technology was wiped out old technology countless
times. This is nothing new. I hope no one is stupid enough to hold
onto Record Company stocks.
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
"Horsefucking", right?
Marty
I think I thought I saw this post from The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
<dogw...@frostwarning.com>:
Now that would be illegal - I'd never admit to that. :-)
--
Marty - mjf+u...@sonic.net
Marty
think I thought I saw this post from nspr...@hotmail.com (name):
>Marty <c.b.low...@sonic.this.is.invalid> wrote in message news:<nbb7kvg23skt2k7o7...@4ax.com>...
>> Somewhere around 20 Aug 2003 08:17:20 -0700, while reading ba.internet, I
>> think I thought I saw this post from nspr...@hotmail.com (name):
>> >
>> First of all, you aren't an artist, and have no right to tell artists what
>> they should do.
>
>Says who? I create things (like art and pictures on the computer) and
>I don't have problems with people distributing my creations freely.
>I'm not telling artists what to do, I'm just questioning if they have
>any rights concerning controlling the distribution of their creations
>and if so, how do they think they can control distribution of their
>creations in practice given the way computers allow for people to
>distribute things freely?
Sorry, I made an assumption that was not valid. Maybe true (I haven't seen
your work), but not valid. But I'm thinking in terms of an artist whose
sole means of support is being an artist.
>
>> Second of all, you're making some wild assumptions about the art; not all
>> recordings can be played live. Not everyone thinks a live performance is
>> the only way to enjoy music. What if an artist creates a recording, tries
>> to sell it in the only way he/she knows how right now, and instead of buying
>> it, everyone copies it for free. Are you saying that artist has not lost
>> money? Was the cost of producing the CDs free?
>
>No, but once the CD has been produced there are no costs involved in
>producing an unlimited number of copies.
If the artist spends $1000 to make a CD, expecting to sell more than 100 at
$10 each to recover the costs, then it seems like if someone takes that
$1000 worth of CD and makes unlimited copies, he is stealing the artist's
$1000. If the person that did this was Microsoft, I can guarantee that
everyone and his cousin would be up in arms about it. :-) Was it OK for
Microsoft to put Netscape out of business with the free browser, or to take
Java and change it to the way they wanted it? Guess so.
>People already pay additional money for blank media where I live to
>compensate for copyright infringement. Even though this is not a
>perfect solution (given that some people only use blank media for
>information that is free from copyrights) I think this is still a
>better solution than criminalizing people for exchanging mp3s.
Are they forced to pay extra? I've seen the "audio" CD media here, but the
only people that buy it are probably doing so out of ignorance; they don't
say anything about what makes them any different or more expensive. But I
buy regular blank data disks for everything, at about 10 cents each or less.
Maybe they should fine people for exchanging mp3s, and give the money to the
artists. :-)
>I have no problems with that... edit my postings as you please.
>
I suspect you only say that because you know I wouldn't. What if I really
made you sound like you were supporting some position you opposed, and used
it to document why that position is good?
"People already pay additional money for blank media where I live to
compensate for copyright infringement.
. . . a perfect solution . . ."
>People who borrow from the library pay a small fee to compensate for
>the fact that they probably won't be buying the book they borrow
>(among other things) so why would it be impossible to implement a
>similar system for the online exchange of information?
The problem is that people don't have the ability to make a perfect copy of
a library book.
I agree with you that there should be better ways, I just don't think we
have the right to demand that artists give up whatever they have until we
come up with some replacement. And I think solving a problem requires
recognizing first that there is a problem. Some people seem to simply say
it's perfectly OK to do something simply because you can, so no solution is
necessary.
--
Marty - mjf+u...@sonic.net
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
Well, what if the horse was dead? Then it would be OK, right?
Philip J. Koenig
(The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln) writes...
LOL.. I like your style Lincoln, you need to spend more time
in ba.internet to liven it up in here... <g>
--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *
Marty
I don't believe in flogging a dead horse - or doing much else to one.
--
Marty - mjf+u...@sonic.net
name
> Somewhere around 20 Aug 2003 20:43:59 -0700, while reading ba.internet, I
> think I thought I saw this post from nspr...@hotmail.com (name):
>
> >Marty <c.b.low...@sonic.this.is.invalid> wrote in message news:<nbb7kvg23skt2k7o7...@4ax.com>...
> >> Somewhere around 20 Aug 2003 08:17:20 -0700, while reading ba.internet, I
> >> think I thought I saw this post from nspr...@hotmail.com (name):
>
> >> >
> >> First of all, you aren't an artist, and have no right to tell artists what
> >> they should do.
> >
> >Says who? I create things (like art and pictures on the computer) and
> >I don't have problems with people distributing my creations freely.
> >I'm not telling artists what to do, I'm just questioning if they have
> >any rights concerning controlling the distribution of their creations
> >and if so, how do they think they can control distribution of their
> >creations in practice given the way computers allow for people to
> >distribute things freely?
>
> Sorry, I made an assumption that was not valid. Maybe true (I haven't seen
> your work), but not valid. But I'm thinking in terms of an artist whose
> sole means of support is being an artist.
Maybe you'd like to check out my digital photographs at
dohduhdah.fotopic.net.
I haven't uploaded creative stuff there, but some can be found at my
Yahoo Groups:
groups.yahoo.com/group/hyperart
groups.yahoo.com/group/mental_hygiene
Unfortunately, Yahoo requires both registration with Yahoo itself and
at the individual groups to access the shared graphics. Even though
registration is free it's still a hassle and since Yahoo is gradually
stripping useful features from their free Groups service I'll probably
be migrating my graphics to Fotopic soon.
Everybody knows that artists have a difficult time to make a living
from their creative efforts, this was even the case before there were
problems with online copyright infringement. Van Gogh hardly ever sold
a painting during his life. If you are only in it for the money you
should consider a different profession.
> >
> >> Second of all, you're making some wild assumptions about the art; not all
> >> recordings can be played live. Not everyone thinks a live performance is
> >> the only way to enjoy music. What if an artist creates a recording, tries
> >> to sell it in the only way he/she knows how right now, and instead of buying
> >> it, everyone copies it for free. Are you saying that artist has not lost
> >> money? Was the cost of producing the CDs free?
> >
> >No, but once the CD has been produced there are no costs involved in
> >producing an unlimited number of copies.
>
> If the artist spends $1000 to make a CD, expecting to sell more than 100 at
> $10 each to recover the costs, then it seems like if someone takes that
> $1000 worth of CD and makes unlimited copies, he is stealing the artist's
> $1000. If the person that did this was Microsoft, I can guarantee that
> everyone and his cousin would be up in arms about it. :-) Was it OK for
> Microsoft to put Netscape out of business with the free browser, or to take
> Java and change it to the way they wanted it? Guess so.
Microsoft rules the world (or at least the worlds' computers) so they
can afford to screw with anyone any way they please.
If an artist invested $1000 in his CD and it gets unlimited
distribution for free it was a good investment. If he organizes a
concert he can expect to make a lot of money. I've visited various
concerts by artists who's mp3s I enjoy but unfortunately most of my
favorite artists are long dead and gone.
The point I'm trying to make is that artists can still make a living
by making music, even if their recordings get copied way more than
they are sold.
>
> >People already pay additional money for blank media where I live to
> >compensate for copyright infringement. Even though this is not a
> >perfect solution (given that some people only use blank media for
> >information that is free from copyrights) I think this is still a
> >better solution than criminalizing people for exchanging mp3s.
>
> Are they forced to pay extra? I've seen the "audio" CD media here, but the
> only people that buy it are probably doing so out of ignorance; they don't
> say anything about what makes them any different or more expensive. But I
> buy regular blank data disks for everything, at about 10 cents each or less.
I live in the Netherlands and yes we are forced to pay extra since ALL
blank media has this additional charge for (potential) copyright
infringement of movies/music. So, since I'm already paying money to
compensate for copyright infringement I feel that it's my right to own
and exchange mp3s and I'm morally on solid ground since I pay artists
indirectly and hence my mp3s are not absolutely free.
>
> Maybe they should fine people for exchanging mp3s, and give the money to the
> artists. :-)
Maybe we should just allow people to own and exchange mp3s. Otherwise
law enforcement would be concerned with discriminating mp3s that are
free from copyrights from those that have copyright restrictions. This
is not a trivial task. Everybody can just add or remove copyright
notices from mp3s and often it's hard to find the original or even the
original artist who created the mp3 to check whether it's really
copyrighted or not. So only record companies can effectively copyright
their music since they have the resources to backup their copyright
claims. Any individual artist who spreads copyrighted music will have
difficulties proving his claims.
Unless you think that copyright is something that only applies to the
recording industries and not to individual artists (who might like to
distribute their creations independently from large corporations).
>
> >I have no problems with that... edit my postings as you please.
> >
> I suspect you only say that because you know I wouldn't. What if I really
> made you sound like you were supporting some position you opposed, and used
> it to document why that position is good?
> "People already pay additional money for blank media where I live to
> compensate for copyright infringement.
> . . . a perfect solution . . ."
In that case (of misrepresenting my position), I would just point that
out and refer to my original postings (which can always be found in
the archives of groups.google.com).
If you make a habit of intentionally misrepresenting people on usenet,
people will quickly figure that out and you will only weaken your own
position (since you have to resort to distorting other people's
position).
>
> >People who borrow from the library pay a small fee to compensate for
> >the fact that they probably won't be buying the book they borrow
> >(among other things) so why would it be impossible to implement a
> >similar system for the online exchange of information?
>
> The problem is that people don't have the ability to make a perfect copy of
> a library book.
True, that's why we don't see as many books shared on p2p networks
compared to movies and music. Ripping a book is quite a hassle
(scanning it page by page).
There are no devices yet that will convert books into pdf format but
that would be a neat and very useful invention.
Ripping a painting or drawing is easier so it kind of surprises me
that there are so few people who share digitized artwork online.
By the way, at my local library I can borrow CDs and movies besides
books so your argument doesn't really apply. I don't think there are
many people who borrow CDs from the library without making a copy (on
tape or as mp3s) for personal use.
>
> I agree with you that there should be better ways, I just don't think we
> have the right to demand that artists give up whatever they have until we
> come up with some replacement. And I think solving a problem requires
> recognizing first that there is a problem. Some people seem to simply say
> it's perfectly OK to do something simply because you can, so no solution is
> necessary.
I think the recording industries should have tackled the problem long
ago but they think they can get away with selling overpriced products
in a society where they have become increasingly redundant. The
problem of copyright infringement affects the recording industries
directly and artists are just suffering as a side-effect in case they
rely primarily on the recording industry for the distribution of their
creations.
Artists would be better off producing and distributing their music on
their own terms online. We're not just talking about music btw but
also movies and art (and even books to some extent).
John Slade
"The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln" <dogw...@frostwarning.com> wrote in message
news:mgq6kvold7vmgudn2...@4ax.com...
:)
John
John Slade
"Zip In The Wire" <buzz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4437761.03082...@posting.google.com...
Actually you can only steal the air if it's in a tank and someone is
selling it.
> Since the invention of recording tape, xerox machines, cassettes and
> the DVD writer people have been doing this. I highly doubt there is
> anyone on earth that hasn't made an illegal copy of something, and is
> thus, a "criminal".
>
Well if it's illegal then they are crimials. Someone j-walking is a
criminal.
> If you want to outlaw p2p, by the same logic outlaw cassette tapes,
> reel to reel tapes, VCRs, camcorders, xerox machines, and certainly
> ALL computers and a judge in Los Angeles ruled that this was the case
> with p2p software.
>
Who says I want to outlaw P2P? If there is anyone who is helping to
outlaw P2P, it's the pirates a.k.a. theives. I think that stealing music
using whatever device should be outlawed. If we use your logic then it would
be ok for someone to hack an online banking account and add money. Hell
they're not holding a gun on someone and they are just using electrons over
the Internet from the comfort of their computer, so I guess that should make
it ok.
> Basically, what we are looking at is the end of Purely Intellectual
> Property.
Property is the key word. When you take property without the permission
of the owner it is stealing. Nothing else needs to be said about that.
>
> Radio and Television have been in this situation for almost a century
> anyway, giving away their content for free consumption. Pretty soon
> movies will have blatant advertising embedded right in the action.
> It's already done but look for it to increase.
>
> Computers and the Internet have made the publisher OBSOLETE. There is
> no more need for the physical medium to record this type of media.
> They will soon be out of the picture.
That may be true. There e-books and music you can buy over the
Internet. I don't care about publishers too much, I care about the artists
and their right to sell their product. If they chose the Internet fine if
they choose physical books that's fine too. I like actual books better
because I get less eye strain and I hate sitting in front of my computer all
day. I don't like those hand held e-book readers either. Don't look for
books to stop being published for a very very long time.
>
> If someone gets freaked by this, they are going to keel over
> completely and die eventually because this is just the beginning of
> the upheaval that the Internet is going to cause.
With new technology the new sales methods will have to come and the
technology to keep people from stealing. It's good and bad at the same time.
When they build malls and supermarkets they had to put in video cameras and
security guards to keep the stealing down. Now that we have stealing on the
Internet they will take steps to combat it. When they do, a lot of folk will
keel over because it will be pretty hard to pirate stuff over the Internet.
>
> I'm not saying copyright infringement is legal.
Thank goodness, I wouldn't want to see you in jail!
> All I'm saying is,
> it's inevitable. New technology was wiped out old technology countless
> times. This is nothing new. I hope no one is stupid enough to hold
> onto Record Company stocks.
Now if the record companies can find a way to stop most piracy and sell
music on the Internet, their stock may go up.
John
John Slade
I'm not twisting anything. The reason they call copyright infringement
"piracy" is because the word means to steal. You can fool yourself into
believing that someone taking something for free that is clearly meant to be
paid for, isn't stealing. Most logical people know the truth.
John
John Slade
"Noel" <no.t...@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote in message
news:kgu7kvs1ues3rfgdn...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:12:44 -0700, "John Slade"
> <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > You know what? There was once a bill on the floor of the Senate. This
> >bill that became a law took a military computer network and allowed
everyone
> >to use it.
>
> It had long ceased to be purely military in function, was no longer a
> close milnet, and by the time the general public started using it, it
> had far more academic than military users.
>
>
I'm talking about when it was taken from military control and the
private sector was allowed to "run" it.
John
John Higdon
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Property is the key word. When you take property without the permission
> of the owner it is stealing. Nothing else needs to be said about that.
Really. Property is defined as "material things that are owned". What
material things are stolen? I noticed you didn't use the term
"intellectual property", which is good since that topic hasn't been
well-defined in volumes of law. But you said "property" was the key
word, and therefore we are not talking about theft, since no property
has been removed or transported. Think "infringement".
> Now if the record companies can find a way to stop most piracy and sell
> music on the Internet, their stock may go up.
If the record companies can start producing some decent music once
again, they'll do even better.
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Well if it's illegal then they are crimials. Someone j-walking is a
>criminal.
>
That pretty well sets the bar in a trench.
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yet you're unable to admit the fundamental legal difference
>> between simple copyright violation and theft. By insisting on your own
>> (erroneous) definition, you're attempting to stifle the discussion by
>> predefining the outcome. If you wanted anyone to see any truth, you'd
>> start with making honest distinctions instead of twisting the meaning
>> of the most central words in the discussion.
>>
>
> I'm not twisting anything.
Like hell.
>The reason they call copyright infringement
>"piracy" is because the word means to steal.
"They" being the RIAA and their shills, and for their own
purposes. Lawyers and judges, however are not allowed to conflate the
two, as you do.
Your constant twisting of words to equate the two is nothing
short of weaselshit.
Philip J. Koenig
s...@justpoop.com (John Higdon) writes...
> In article <bi3vi0$4r06q$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Property is the key word. When you take property without the permission
> > of the owner it is stealing. Nothing else needs to be said about that.
>
> Really. Property is defined as "material things that are owned". What
> material things are stolen? I noticed you didn't use the term
> "intellectual property", which is good since that topic hasn't been
> well-defined in volumes of law. But you said "property" was the key
> word, and therefore we are not talking about theft, since no property
> has been removed or transported. Think "infringement".
The industry seems to be quite two-faced about these little semantical
details.
Within a block of my house there is a big poster pushing the DVD release
of "Twin Towers", the JRR Tolkien episode. The poster says, more or less:
"Now you can OWN the xxxxxx"
It quite literally says "OWN". Now there's a hypocritical bit of PR
from the film industry if I ever saw one.
Philip J. Koenig
Slade) writes...
You have *absolutely* no idea what you're talking about.
John Higdon
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> "Now you can OWN the xxxxxx"
>
>
> It quite literally says "OWN". Now there's a hypocritical bit of PR
> from the film industry if I ever saw one.
I "own" thousands of DVD movie titles. I think that is the proper term
in that I paid for them, they are in my permanent possession, and I can
view any of them in full or in part at any time of my choosing. I may
sell them or give them away at my pleasure. In what way do I not "own"
them?
Before you answer, I should also tell you that I own thousands of books,
many of which were passed down through my family. As with the DVDs, I
may read them, in full or in part at any time of my choosing, and I may
dispose of them any way I see fit. Is there any controversy about
"owning" books?
In neither do I "own" the content, but that's assumed. Is there some
difference between owning a copy of _Roget's Thesaurus_ and a copy of
the motion picture "The Lion in Winter"?
Philip J. Koenig
s...@justpoop.com (John Higdon) writes...
It appears to be the foundation of the content-industry's copyright
claims and litigation against unauthorized copyists, that there is
no such thing as "owning" anything that they produce.
Which is why I find the use of such language in promotional materials
to be more than a bit disingenuous.
John Higdon
Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
> It appears to be the foundation of the content-industry's copyright
> claims and litigation against unauthorized copyists, that there is
> no such thing as "owning" anything that they produce.
In what way? You own a book. If you scan and spread the contents of that
book all over the net, you can bet the publisher will be on your tail,
just like with CDs and DVDs. I don't see the difference.
> Which is why I find the use of such language in promotional materials
> to be more than a bit disingenuous.
You certainly own it in every real sense. The only thing you can't do is
go into the business of publically distributing the work contained
thereon. I hardly find that a major constriction, or the negation of
ownership.
Ken Ashe
<say-no...@justpoop.com> wrote:
>I "own" thousands of DVD movie titles. I think that is the proper term
>in that I paid for them, they are in my permanent possession, and I can
>view any of them in full or in part at any time of my choosing. I may
>sell them or give them away at my pleasure. In what way do I not "own"
>them?
If you own it, you can certainly give it away or sell it, as
long as you're not retaining a copy. Do these bozos really think they
can interfere in your probate to prevent you leaving them to your
heirs, successors, assigns (wehatever the hell they are), etc.?
Ken Ashe
<say-no...@justpoop.com> wrote:
>In neither do I "own" the content, but that's assumed. Is there some
>difference between owning a copy of _Roget's Thesaurus_ and a copy of
>the motion picture "The Lion in Winter"?
What's another word for thesaurus? :-)
Malcolm Hoar
>>In neither do I "own" the content, but that's assumed. Is there some
>>difference between owning a copy of _Roget's Thesaurus_ and a copy of
>>the motion picture "The Lion in Winter"?
>
> What's another word for thesaurus? :-)
The sorest post this weak.
I think you meant: What's a synonym for thesaurus?
And there's no synonym for synonym either.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| ma...@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Ashe
wrote:
>In article <3f46c7c7...@news.sonic.net>, ka...@rahul.net (Ken Ashe) wrote:
>
>>>In neither do I "own" the content, but that's assumed. Is there some
>>>difference between owning a copy of _Roget's Thesaurus_ and a copy of
>>>the motion picture "The Lion in Winter"?
>>
>> What's another word for thesaurus? :-)
>
>The sorest post this weak.
I'm beginning to think coffee filters are for monitors, not
coffee pots. :-)
>I think you meant: What's a synonym for thesaurus?
Roget science?
>And there's no synonym for synonym either.
So, in other words, it doesn't exist?
Ken Ashe
wrote:
>And there's no synonym for synonym either.
Sure there is -- spice.
John Slade
"John Higdon" <say-no...@justpoop.com> wrote in message
news:say-no-to-sco-A41...@equine.announcetech.com...
> In article <bi3vi0$4r06q$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Property is the key word. When you take property without the
permission
> > of the owner it is stealing. Nothing else needs to be said about that.
>
> Really. Property is defined as "material things that are owned". What
> material things are stolen? I noticed you didn't use the term
> "intellectual property", which is good since that topic hasn't been
> well-defined in volumes of law. But you said "property" was the key
> word, and therefore we are not talking about theft, since no property
> has been removed or transported. Think "infringement".
>
> > Now if the record companies can find a way to stop most piracy and
sell
> > music on the Internet, their stock may go up.
>
> If the record companies can start producing some decent music once
> again, they'll do even better.
Higdon, you have to realize like I did. When you were a kid/young the
music you listened to is always going to be better that the current stuff.
There is some good new music out there you just have to know where to find
it.
John
John Slade
"Philip J. Koenig" <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
message news:MPG.19afd4f6c...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <bi40uq$4hst5$1...@ID-162665.news.uni-berlin.de>,
hitm...@pacbell.net (John
> Slade) writes...
> >
> > "Noel" <no.t...@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote in message
> > news:kgu7kvs1ues3rfgdn...@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:12:44 -0700, "John Slade"
> > > <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You know what? There was once a bill on the floor of the Senate.
This
> > > >bill that became a law took a military computer network and allowed
> > everyone
> > > >to use it.
> > >
> > > It had long ceased to be purely military in function, was no longer a
> > > close milnet, and by the time the general public started using it, it
> > > had far more academic than military users.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm talking about when it was taken from military control and
the
> > private sector was allowed to "run" it.
>
>
> You have *absolutely* no idea what you're talking about.
Oh really. Well I was told that the Internet started out as a DARPA
project. Then it was handed over to public institutions namely Universities.
John
John Slade
"Noel" <no.t...@I.dont.want.your.spam> wrote in message
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:59:28 -0700, "John Slade"
> <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm talking about when it was taken from military control and the
> >private sector was allowed to "run" it.
>
> Presumably there was some sort of hand-over. The reality is that no
> such thing happened, the network grew organically, from being military
> only, to miltary + academics, then a few pioneering members of the
> general public to where we are now.
>
>
Actually the project started out as a cold war project to build a
communications network that couldn't be cut off during a nuclear attack. It
started as a military project under DARPA(Defense Advanced Projects Research
Agency). When Congress first funded the program it was strictly a military
project using military contractors and Universities. All the nodes at
military installations and universities were funded by the military. The
handover was when they let other public institutions connect to that
network. Congress' oversight committee had to OK the handover. I don't know
the exact date but that decision basically started the Internet we use now.
John
John Higdon
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Higdon, you have to realize like I did. When you were a kid/young the
> music you listened to is always going to be better that the current stuff.
> There is some good new music out there you just have to know where to find
> it.
Nice try. I'm not personally making the judgment that there is less good
new music released today. I have never been a major fan of so-called
popular music. My personal music library is about 90% classical. I'm
relying on the comments by broadcasting professionals (whose job it is
to actually select what goes on the air) who are themselves well within
the demographics involved.
Go back and read what I wrote about being told by broadcasters...
Ken Ashe
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Actually the project started out as a cold war project to build a
>communications network that couldn't be cut off during a nuclear attack.
Actually, there was a PBS program a couple of years back which
says just the opposite. It's been a while, so I din't remember the
details. In any case, the man generally regarded as the chief
architect of the original net was invited to some anniversary
celebration, maybe the 50th. He was getting old, and more
particularly, getting tired of being trotted out for such occasions.
However, in this case, when he found out the kind of
luminaries who would be in attendance, he decided to show up one last
time, in order to debunk once and for all the idea that nuclear
survivability was at any time a design criterion for the net. He said
it was, at best, an artifact of the design, but never part of the
original intent.
The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
>In article <27dakvom3a98fjij0...@4ax.com>, dogw...@frostwarning.com
>(The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln) writes...
>> Marty come on down:
>>
>> >Somewhere around Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:33:05 -0400, while reading ba.internet,
>> >I think I thought I saw this post from The Reverend Lincoln Lincoln
>> ><dogw...@frostwarning.com>:
>> >
>> >>John Higdon come on down:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <nbb7kvg23skt2k7o7...@4ax.com>,
>> >>> Marty <c.b.low...@sonic.this.is.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> For the record, I've copied MP3 files off the internet; I don't consider it
>> >>>> legal. As to right or wrong, I have my own ideas about that, and I don't
>> >>>> try to enforce my ideas on others. It's like driving over the speed limit -
>> >>>> I don't consider it legal, but I often do it.
>> >>>
>> >>>But you have no problem condemning others for doing it? I think there is
>> >>>a name for that sort of moral ambiguity. Starts with "h"...
>> >>
>> >>"Horsefucking", right?
>> >Now that would be illegal - I'd never admit to that. :-)
>>
>> Well, what if the horse was dead? Then it would be OK, right?
>
>LOL.. I like your style Lincoln, you need to spend more time
>in ba.internet to liven it up in here... <g>
Sadly, I don't even know what "ba." stands for. I'm just riding in on a
crosspost.
John R Pierce
<dogw...@frostwarning.com> wrote:
>>LOL.. I like your style Lincoln, you need to spend more time
>>in ba.internet to liven it up in here... <g>
>
>Sadly, I don't even know what "ba." stands for. I'm just riding in on a
>crosspost.
Bay Area. as in San Francisco Bay Area. by today's naming standards, it
is wretchedly out of compliance, however, it predates most all of those
standards as it was started at Berkeley and thereabouts in the earliest
days of Usenet over UUCP. Its also one of the more lively regional group
heirarchies.
Philip J. Koenig
s...@justpoop.com (John Higdon) writes...
> In article <MPG.19afe205b...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > It appears to be the foundation of the content-industry's copyright
> > claims and litigation against unauthorized copyists, that there is
> > no such thing as "owning" anything that they produce.
>
> In what way? You own a book. If you scan and spread the contents of that
> book all over the net, you can bet the publisher will be on your tail,
> just like with CDs and DVDs. I don't see the difference.
>
> > Which is why I find the use of such language in promotional materials
> > to be more than a bit disingenuous.
>
> You certainly own it in every real sense. The only thing you can't do is
> go into the business of publically distributing the work contained
> thereon. I hardly find that a major constriction, or the negation of
> ownership.
Well if we take the software industry example, large vendors
bend over backwards concocting endless convoluted legal verbiage
in license agreements which essentially says "you don't own anything,
you only have an extremely-limited, ephemeral, temporary license to
install this stuff on a single computer, we reserve the right to take
away that right any time we feel like it, and if it doesn't work right,
or if it kills your uncle, don't say anything to us because we'll
pretend we never saw it before."
Like I said, with that mindset (which also extends to the musical
industry in terms of essentially trying to rope users into buying
a separate copy of music for every portable music device they will
ever own), I find it highly disingenuous and hypocritical running
ad campaigns pushing the idea of "owning" some performance work.
Philip J. Koenig
Well you need to do a little studying then before opening
your mouth or typing.
Here, I'll make it simple for you: Al Gore invented the Internet.
John Slade
"Philip J. Koenig" <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote in
I did. You obviously didn't or you would have lied in the line below. Al
Gore never said he invented the Internet.
>
> Here, I'll make it simple for you: Al Gore invented the Internet.
Actually you should read more. Al Gore was the Senator that requested
that the Internet be connected to all Universities and schools. It took
congress four years to vote for that. Then that's when the Internet as we
know it truly began. There was a time when the Internet was moved from the
military to the private sector and it was approved by congress. I suggest
you read up on the history of the Internet.
John
John Slade
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:57:11 -0700, "John Slade"
> <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually the project started out as a cold war project to build a
> >communications network that couldn't be cut off during a nuclear attack.
>
> Actually, there was a PBS program a couple of years back which
> says just the opposite. It's been a while, so I din't remember the
> details. In any case, the man generally regarded as the chief
> architect of the original net was invited to some anniversary
> celebration, maybe the 50th. He was getting old, and more
> particularly, getting tired of being trotted out for such occasions.
Well I just read about the congressional end of it because I had to
really look into the "Al Gore invented the Internet" thing. He never said he
did he just asked the military or oversight committe to link up all the
schools or something. Then that's when the Internet blossomed into what we
have now. I just use the old rule of thumb. Whenever the military starts a
project or change a project they have to beg congress for the money.
>
> However, in this case, when he found out the kind of
> luminaries who would be in attendance, he decided to show up one last
> time, in order to debunk once and for all the idea that nuclear
> survivability was at any time a design criterion for the net. He said
> it was, at best, an artifact of the design, but never part of the
> original intent.
Ok he was probably right. The military always builds things that
don't do what they're supposed to. The Internet would be useless in a full
nuclear exchange between the then USSR and USA. The only things that could
survive were wireless and lines deep underground. I'd love to see that
program do you remember the name of it?
John
Philip J. Koenig
The fact that you took me seriously already gave me the
answer I was looking for. :-)
Philip J. Koenig
Slade) writes...
>
> news:4muhkv49h9t705b1i...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:57:11 -0700, "John Slade"
> > <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually the project started out as a cold war project to build a
> > >communications network that couldn't be cut off during a nuclear attack.
> >
> > Actually, there was a PBS program a couple of years back which
> > says just the opposite. It's been a while, so I din't remember the
> > details. In any case, the man generally regarded as the chief
> > architect of the original net was invited to some anniversary
> > celebration, maybe the 50th. He was getting old, and more
> > particularly, getting tired of being trotted out for such occasions.
>
> Well I just read about the congressional end of it because I had to
> really look into the "Al Gore invented the Internet" thing. He never said he
> did he just asked the military or oversight committe to link up all the
> schools or something. Then that's when the Internet blossomed into what we
> have now. I just use the old rule of thumb. Whenever the military starts a
> project or change a project they have to beg congress for the money.
The "I created the internet" comment was very recent, during the
presidential campaign in 1999. Gore never actually claimed that,
per se, but the way he said what he did was exaggerated and became
the root of much political and tech lore since then.
FYI, the original comment in a CNN interview in 1999 was:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
As it turns out, Gore was actually quite an important congressional
supporter of the Internet, having sponsored important legislation and
so on. However he certainly wasn't singularly responsible for its
existence by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I convinced he
really intended to give that impression in the famous interview.
Examples of Al Gore sponsored internet-related legislation:
Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992
High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991
Computer Abuse Amendments Act of 1990
National High Performance Computer Technology Act of 1988
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1986 (amendment by Gore)
Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986
> > However, in this case, when he found out the kind of
> > luminaries who would be in attendance, he decided to show up one last
> > time, in order to debunk once and for all the idea that nuclear
> > survivability was at any time a design criterion for the net. He said
> > it was, at best, an artifact of the design, but never part of the
> > original intent.
>
> Ok he was probably right. The military always builds things that
> don't do what they're supposed to.
You really are full of it aren't ya Slade? I think you need to quit
while you're ahead.
John Navas
In <1ccba12f.03082...@posting.google.com> on 20 Aug 2003 08:17:20
-0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<2hB0b.13126$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>>
>> In <1ccba12f.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 05:23:51
>> -0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>>
>> >Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
>> >as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
>> >publicity anyway?
>>
>> Those that lose money thereby.
>
>That is a misconception. They don't lose money because their music
>gets copied. ...
Of course they do. When people take something of value that the artist has
created, and do so without appropriate compensation, then the artist loses
that compensation.
>Like if I was an artist and my music would be copied a lot, I might
>organize a concert to exploit this popularity. ...
And you would have a right to give away your work if you thought that would
help you in the long run (or for any other reason). But it doesn't give
others the right to simply take it from you without appropriate compensation.
>> >If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
>> >distribution of your creation.
>>
>> Of course it does.
>
>Who the fuck do these artists think they are? God?
No, just the owners of their own intellectual property.
>The default is that people who create something have no objection
>against their creations being distributed freely.
The default, as a matter of law, is that it may not be copied without their
permission.
>If they do, they had
>better come up with some form of copyprotection to prevent people from
>sharing their creations freely.
It's OK to pirate just because you can? Is shoplifting OK if a store doesn't
use anti-theft devices? How about taking my bike when it isn't locked?
>> >Copyrights and computers are
>> >incompatible.
>>
>> Not true. The issue is people, not computers.
>
>The issue at stake here is technology.
The actual issue at stake here is piracy.
>There has never been a problem
>with copyright infringement while people were unable to record their
>creations. If you had an ability to play an instrument, you would be able to
>exploit that by playing live and nobody would be able to capture that
>music in some form in order to distribute it.
Performance copyright has actually been an issue even before systems were
invented for writing music down.
>Now we do have
>technology that allows us to communicate such recordings as easily as
>ideas and concepts. So either we ban computers or we abandon
>copyrights.
Or we find ways for them to peacefully coexist, a much more reasonable
solution.
>> >Copyrights are not intended to prevent people from sharing
>> >information.
>>
>> You need to read up on copyright.
>
>Copyrights are intended as an incentive for people to create things by
>guarantying that they can exploit their creations commercially.
The US Constitution doesn't limit copyright to "exploit their creations
commercially" -- it actually says:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
That's full protection, whether they choose to "exploit their creations
commercially" or not.
>They
>can still exploit their creations but not by means of controlling
>distribution of their creations since this has become practically
>impossible (given the ease by which creations can be distributed
>online).
Controlling distribution (copying) is what copyright is all about.
>The need for centralized organizations controlling
>distribution has become obsolete since everybody can afford the
>equipment to distribute information online.
I'd say it's the other way around, that the need for centralized licensing
organizations is increased by the increased difficulty of protecting
copyrights.
>Ok, you think it's a good idea that people are able to own, buy and
>sell very large integer numbers. Perhaps you can explain me where we
>draw the line between numbers that are for common use and numbers that
>can be passed of as physical commodities? ...
You seem to have drifted over into patents, which are another thing entirely.
>Bear in mind that a piece of software is nothing but an extremely
>large natural number (with an appropriate interpretation that maps it
>to a program in machine language).
A piece of software is a particular expression, and thus protectable by
copyright. That it may be written in a particular language of numbers is
irrelevant -- what's protected is the expression, not the numbers, and not
even the underlying concept.
>No there isn't... just because you add a copyright notice that doesn't
>mean you have protected your rights in any realistic way.
A notice isn't required for copyright protection.
>It doesn't
>allow you to control distribution of your creations either since this
>copyright notice doesn't prevent people from being able to copy it.
>You would need some form of encryption at least.
Piracy isn't OK just because you can do it.
>If you look at the way various forms of technology have caused
>increasing problems with copyright it's not hard to realize that
>copyrights will soon be abandoned. They make less sense with every new
>technological development and cause increasing problems without
>offering any real benefits.
Copyright offers real social benefits, which are recognized in the US
Constitution. There's ample evidence that creation of intellectual property
is discouraged by rampant piracy. So copyright isn't going to be abandoned as
a matter of public policy. Instead, since social protections (e.g. "Thou
shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything
that is thy neighbor's.") are insufficient, unless we can come up with
something both reasonable and effective we are likely to wind up with
draconian measures (e.g., universal DRM in hardware).
>Anybody with half a brain can download software and find a crack and
>use it for free.
So it's also OK if you can crack the copy protection?
>Only dimwits would actually pay for something that
>isn't scarce.
Only if all honest people are "dimwits." Is that really what you think? Is
all your software pirated?
100% of my software is legitimate. I received the value, and notwithstanding
copyright law, I think the creators of that value are entitled to the rewards
for that value.
>The monetary value of things is measured by laws of
>supply and demand
It's price that's determined by the laws of supply and demand, not value.
>and in the case of software there naturally is an
>infinite supply.
Only if you ignore copyright, and then only of things that already exist.
Future supply (new creations) is another matter, and that's what copyright is
all about.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
name
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <1ccba12f.03082...@posting.google.com> on 20 Aug 2003 08:17:20
> -0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<2hB0b.13126$dk4.4...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> >>
> >> In <1ccba12f.03081...@posting.google.com> on 18 Aug 2003 05:23:51
> >> -0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Artists are generally interested in their creations being available to
> >> >as widely an audience as possible. What artist would mind free
> >> >publicity anyway?
> >>
> >> Those that lose money thereby.
> >
> >That is a misconception. They don't lose money because their music
> >gets copied. ...
>
> Of course they do. When people take something of value that the artist has
> created, and do so without appropriate compensation, then the artist loses
> that compensation.
No, because when you copy something that doesn't necessarily mean that
you would buy it if you had not been able to copy it. Also, just
because you copy it, that doesn't necessarily mean that you won't buy
it. You can copy something, decide you like it and buy it later on.
You can also decide to buy something BECAUSE you're allowed to copy
it.
If I'm not allowed to share music with friends I won't even consider
buying the music in the first place.
I've sold all my audio CDs a long time ago and I will not buy another
CD until copyrights have been abandoned.
Just because there is a correlation between increased copying and
decreased cd sales, that doesn't prove that one is caused by the
other.
There might be other factors influencing CD sales coinciding with
inceased copying.
>
> >Like if I was an artist and my music would be copied a lot, I might
> >organize a concert to exploit this popularity. ...
>
> And you would have a right to give away your work if you thought that would
> help you in the long run (or for any other reason). But it doesn't give
> others the right to simply take it from you without appropriate compensation.
Why not? I'd say you should not create something if you don't like
your creations to be distributed. Or you should come up with some sort
of copyprotection to prevent free distribution.
>
> >> >If you create something, that doesn't give you the right to control
> >> >distribution of your creation.
> >>
> >> Of course it does.
> >
> >Who the fuck do these artists think they are? God?
>
> No, just the owners of their own intellectual property.
I think intellectual property is an obsolete notion or at least
something that needs to be redefined in the information age.
>
> >The default is that people who create something have no objection
> >against their creations being distributed freely.
>
> The default, as a matter of law, is that it may not be copied without their
> permission.
So the laws need to be revised. It makes more sense to copy things
without permission by default.
>
> >If they do, they had
> >better come up with some form of copyprotection to prevent people from
> >sharing their creations freely.
>
> It's OK to pirate just because you can? Is shoplifting OK if a store doesn't
> use anti-theft devices? How about taking my bike when it isn't locked?
Sure. If you donot prevent people from taking your possessions you
should not be surprised that people exploit that opportunity.
If you leave your keys in the car and the door of your car open while
shopping you should not be surprised that your car is gone when you
return.
Why would people use keys anyway if nobody ever steals?
>
> >> >Copyrights and computers are
> >> >incompatible.
> >>
> >> Not true. The issue is people, not computers.
> >
> >The issue at stake here is technology.
>
> The actual issue at stake here is piracy.
No. Piracy means that you exploit it commercially. If I copy other
people's music/movies and sell it to make money that's different.
Sharing software/movies/music/books with friends is not piracy.
>
> >There has never been a problem
> >with copyright infringement while people were unable to record their
> >creations. If you had an ability to play an instrument, you would be able to
> >exploit that by playing live and nobody would be able to capture that
> >music in some form in order to distribute it.
>
> Performance copyright has actually been an issue even before systems were
> invented for writing music down.
No, people have been imitating each other eversince we've been roaming
this planet and this is only natural. In the case of exactly imitating
someone else one can only claim a lack of originality, but it's not a
crime.
>
> >Now we do have
> >technology that allows us to communicate such recordings as easily as
> >ideas and concepts. So either we ban computers or we abandon
> >copyrights.
>
> Or we find ways for them to peacefully coexist, a much more reasonable
> solution.
The only way to do that is to have an totalitarian big-brother
control-freak type of government that ensures people respect
copyrights (in that case we don't need locks/keys anymore either). I
don't like the idea of the government being able to monitor my
activities to ensure they comply with government regulations.
I'd rather live in a society where people are free to share
information.
>
> >> >Copyrights are not intended to prevent people from sharing
> >> >information.
> >>
> >> You need to read up on copyright.
> >
> >Copyrights are intended as an incentive for people to create things by
> >guarantying that they can exploit their creations commercially.
>
> The US Constitution doesn't limit copyright to "exploit their creations
> commercially" -- it actually says:
>
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries;
>
> That's full protection, whether they choose to "exploit their creations
> commercially" or not.
I think that's an unpractical and ridiculous idea (at least in today's
information age). I think the progress of science and useful arts
would be promoted more by people being able to share information
freely.
>
> >They
> >can still exploit their creations but not by means of controlling
> >distribution of their creations since this has become practically
> >impossible (given the ease by which creations can be distributed
> >online).
>
> Controlling distribution (copying) is what copyright is all about.
Copyrights should be revised because the current situation where
everybody has the means to distribute information is fundamentally
different from the situation in the past when copyrights were invented
and only certain organizations were able to distribute information on
a commercial basis.
>
> >The need for centralized organizations controlling
> >distribution has become obsolete since everybody can afford the
> >equipment to distribute information online.
>
> I'd say it's the other way around, that the need for centralized licensing
> organizations is increased by the increased difficulty of protecting
> copyrights.
Why should we enforce copyrights at all costs if it would make a lot
more sense to abandon them? Would you accept a totalitarian government
that monitors all your activities just to preserve copyrights?
>
> >Ok, you think it's a good idea that people are able to own, buy and
> >sell very large integer numbers. Perhaps you can explain me where we
> >draw the line between numbers that are for common use and numbers that
> >can be passed of as physical commodities? ...
>
> You seem to have drifted over into patents, which are another thing entirely.
Isn't software protected by copyrights just like music, movies, books,
etc..?
Note that software on the computer can also refer to something like a
piece of music or a book in digital form.
>
> >Bear in mind that a piece of software is nothing but an extremely
> >large natural number (with an appropriate interpretation that maps it
> >to a program in machine language).
>
> A piece of software is a particular expression, and thus protectable by
> copyright. That it may be written in a particular language of numbers is
> irrelevant -- what's protected is the expression, not the numbers, and not
> even the underlying concept.
But if small expressions are for common use and larger expressions are
protectable by copyright, surely there must be some sort of minimal
size for expressions in order to allow for copyright protection?
>
> >No there isn't... just because you add a copyright notice that doesn't
> >mean you have protected your rights in any realistic way.
>
> A notice isn't required for copyright protection.
So how can an artist allow for his/her creations to be distributed
freely?
Should he add an explicit notice that the creation is free from
copyright?
Or are artists not even allowed to create things that can be
distributed freely?
>
> >It doesn't
> >allow you to control distribution of your creations either since this
> >copyright notice doesn't prevent people from being able to copy it.
> >You would need some form of encryption at least.
>
> Piracy isn't OK just because you can do it.
There is a difference between sharing things and piracy. We're
discussing sharing information, not piracy. Piracy is a different
discussion, like plagiarism. It doesn't make sense to equate sharing
to piracy just like it doesn't make sense to equate piracy to
plagiarism. If sharing equates to piracy you wouldn't even be able to
talk to anyone else without resorting to piracy. People share and
exchange information all the time and usually they are not the
originators of the information they exchange.
The discussion should be about whether or not sharing/exchanging
information is a form of unauthorized usage of this information in
case the one who shares/exchanges the information is not the creator
of that information.
>
> >If you look at the way various forms of technology have caused
> >increasing problems with copyright it's not hard to realize that
> >copyrights will soon be abandoned. They make less sense with every new
> >technological development and cause increasing problems without
> >offering any real benefits.
>
> Copyright offers real social benefits, which are recognized in the US
> Constitution. There's ample evidence that creation of intellectual property
> is discouraged by rampant piracy. So copyright isn't going to be abandoned as
> a matter of public policy. Instead, since social protections (e.g. "Thou
> shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything
> that is thy neighbor's.") are insufficient, unless we can come up with
> something both reasonable and effective we are likely to wind up with
> draconian measures (e.g., universal DRM in hardware).
I think it's the other way around. The wide distribution of
information is an incentive to create new information. If you create
something and you find that many people benefit from your creation you
may be motivated to create other things. Why can't we just allow for
free distribution of information and invent a uniform system of
taxation on the distribution of information that ensures that the
originators of information get compensated in proportion to how widely
their creations get distributed?
>
> >Anybody with half a brain can download software and find a crack and
> >use it for free.
>
> So it's also OK if you can crack the copy protection?
Sure. You don't even need to crack it yourself. Just download the
crack.
>
> >Only dimwits would actually pay for something that
> >isn't scarce.
>
> Only if all honest people are "dimwits." Is that really what you think? Is
> all your software pirated?
Sure, I hardly ever bought software in my life.
>
> 100% of my software is legitimate. I received the value, and notwithstanding
> copyright law, I think the creators of that value are entitled to the rewards
> for that value.
Fine, I also think creators of software should be compensated for
their efforts but I also think that all software should essentially be
free. I'm in favor of some kind of taxation system on the free
distribution of information to ensure that there is some form of
compensation for people who create new things.
I refuse to pay for software like as if it's some kind of physical
commodity since it can be reproduced indefinitely without any costs.
So I'm willing to pay for the creation/production of software but not
for a copy of it.
>
> >The monetary value of things is measured by laws of
> >supply and demand
>
> It's price that's determined by the laws of supply and demand, not value.
Ok, and the price approaches 0 as the supply approaches infinity.
If we had universal duplication devices (being able to copy arbitrary
physical objects), would we still be buying and selling physical
commodities?
Maybe we'd only use money to pay for certain activities and not for
things anymore since all prices of things would be reduced to 0 with
infinite supplies of them.
>
> >and in the case of software there naturally is an
> >infinite supply.
>
> Only if you ignore copyright, and then only of things that already exist.
> Future supply (new creations) is another matter, and that's what copyright is
> all about.
Right, now wouldn't if be wonderful if everybody could obtain and use
any software for free while we still managed to provide an incentive
to create things by means of a taxation system?
In practice I'm already able to get just about anything I'm interested
in anyway so it wouldn't really change anything. However, in the
future I'd like to continue creating things myself as well (like
audiovisual art) and it would be nice if there was a way to make a
living that way.
John Navas
In <1ccba12f.03082...@posting.google.com> on 25 Aug 2003 15:38:32
-0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<6Hq2b.15010$dk4.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> ... When people take something of value that the artist has
>> created, and do so without appropriate compensation, then the artist loses
>> that compensation.
>
>No, because when you copy something that doesn't necessarily mean that
>you would buy it if you had not been able to copy it.
Irrelevant. Value was taken, so compensation is owed. That you wouldn't have
bought the Ferrari doesn't let you off the hook for car theft either.
>Also, just
>because you copy it, that doesn't necessarily mean that you won't buy
>it.
Also irrelevant. Steal the Ferrari; buy one later; and you're still guilty of
car theft.
>You can copy something, decide you like it and buy it later on.
Not lawfully if it's copyrighted. The original infringement is still an
infringement. It's a myth that one license applies to all embodiments.
>You can also decide to buy something BECAUSE you're allowed to copy
>it.
Also irrelevant. That's only for the copyright holder to decide.
>If I'm not allowed to share music with friends I won't even consider
>buying the music in the first place.
>I've sold all my audio CDs a long time ago and I will not buy another
>CD until copyrights have been abandoned.
So be it. That's for the copyright holder to decide.
>Just because there is a correlation between increased copying and
>decreased cd sales, that doesn't prove that one is caused by the
>other.
Also irrelevant. Statutory damages would still apply.
>There might be other factors influencing CD sales coinciding with
>inceased copying.
Also irrelevant. Piracy is still wrong.
>> And you would have a right to give away your work if you thought that would
>> help you in the long run (or for any other reason). But it doesn't give
>> others the right to simply take it from you without appropriate compensation.
>
>Why not?
Because that's piracy, and contrary to the public interest.
>I'd say you should not create something if you don't like
>your creations to be distributed.
You don't make the rules.
>Or you should come up with some sort
>of copyprotection to prevent free distribution.
Again, it's OK if you can do it? Does that include shoplifting, or only IP
piracy?
>> No, just the owners of their own intellectual property.
>
>I think intellectual property is an obsolete notion or at least
>something that needs to be redefined in the information age.
Noted, but again, you don't make the rules.
>> The default, as a matter of law, is that it may not be copied without their
>> permission.
>
>So the laws need to be revised. ...
Then I suggest you get cracking. Until then, it's still the law.
>> It's OK to pirate just because you can? Is shoplifting OK if a store doesn't
>> use anti-theft devices? How about taking my bike when it isn't locked?
>
>Sure. ...
I think that says it all.
>> The actual issue at stake here is piracy.
>
>No. ...
Yes.
>> Performance copyright has actually been an issue even before systems were
>> invented for writing music down.
>
>No, ...
Yes.
>> Or we find ways for them to peacefully coexist, a much more reasonable
>> solution.
>
>The only way to do that is to have an totalitarian big-brother
>control-freak type of government that ensures people respect
>copyrights (in that case we don't need locks/keys anymore either). ...
"Be careful what you wish for."
>> The US Constitution doesn't limit copyright to "exploit their creations
>> commercially" -- it actually says:
>>
>> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
>> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
>> respective writings and discoveries;
>>
>> That's full protection, whether they choose to "exploit their creations
>> commercially" or not.
>
>I think that's an unpractical and ridiculous idea (at least in today's
>information age). ...
Again, I think that says it all.
>> Controlling distribution (copying) is what copyright is all about.
>
>Copyrights should be revised ...
Then get cracking. Unless and until then, you're just a pirate.
>> I'd say it's the other way around, that the need for centralized licensing
>> organizations is increased by the increased difficulty of protecting
>> copyrights.
>
>Why should we enforce copyrights at all costs if it would make a lot
>more sense to abandon them?
Because it doesn't
>Would you accept a totalitarian government
>that monitors all your activities just to preserve copyrights?
I don't think that's the only alternative to anarchy and chaos.
>> You seem to have drifted over into patents, which are another thing entirely.
>
>Isn't software protected by copyrights just like music, movies, books,
>etc..?
Not in the way you said.
>Note that software on the computer can also refer to something like a
>piece of music or a book in digital form.
So what?
>> A piece of software is a particular expression, and thus protectable by
>> copyright. That it may be written in a particular language of numbers is
>> irrelevant -- what's protected is the expression, not the numbers, and not
>> even the underlying concept.
>
>But if small expressions are for common use and larger expressions are
>protectable by copyright, surely there must be some sort of minimal
>size for expressions in order to allow for copyright protection?
Even haiku (just 17 syllables of verse) is protected by copyright.
>> A notice isn't required for copyright protection.
>
>So how can an artist allow for his/her creations to be distributed
>freely?
By explicit notice (as in the case of free software).
>Should he add an explicit notice that the creation is free from
>copyright?
If it's placed into the "public domain," yes.
>Or are artists not even allowed to create things that can be
>distributed freely?
Of course they are -- it just has to be explicit. That stops people like you
from making specious claims about the artist's intent.
>> Piracy isn't OK just because you can do it.
>
>There is a difference between sharing things and piracy....
Not in the case of copying copyrighted materials without permission.
>> Copyright offers real social benefits, which are recognized in the US
>> Constitution. There's ample evidence that creation of intellectual property
>> is discouraged by rampant piracy. So copyright isn't going to be abandoned as
>> a matter of public policy. Instead, since social protections (e.g. "Thou
>> shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything
>> that is thy neighbor's.") are insufficient, unless we can come up with
>> something both reasonable and effective we are likely to wind up with
>> draconian measures (e.g., universal DRM in hardware).
>
>I think it's the other way around. The wide distribution of
>information is an incentive to create new information.
As I wrote, it's been shown to be a disincentive.
>If you create
>something and you find that many people benefit from your creation you
>may be motivated to create other things.
A (very) few altruists, yes; most people, no.
>Why can't we just allow for
>free distribution of information
We have that -- it's called the "public domain."
>and invent a uniform system of
>taxation on the distribution of information that ensures that the
>originators of information get compensated in proportion to how widely
>their creations get distributed?
Not a bad idea.
>> So it's also OK if you can crack the copy protection?
>
>Sure. You don't even need to crack it yourself. Just download the
>crack.
That doesn't make it OK, any more than the availability of lock picking tools
makes breaking and entering OK.
>> Only if all honest people are "dimwits." Is that really what you think? Is
>> all your software pirated?
>
>Sure, I hardly ever bought software in my life.
So you expect people like me to subsidize you. How nice. :-]
>> 100% of my software is legitimate. I received the value, and notwithstanding
>> copyright law, I think the creators of that value are entitled to the rewards
>> for that value.
>
>Fine, I also think creators of software should be compensated for
>their efforts
Apparently not, given your conduct.
>I refuse to pay for software like as if it's some kind of physical
>commodity since it can be reproduced indefinitely without any costs.
>So I'm willing to pay for the creation/production of software but not
>for a copy of it.
That makes you a pirate.
>> It's price that's determined by the laws of supply and demand, not value.
>
>Ok, and the price approaches 0 as the supply approaches infinity.
It doesn't in this case.
>Right, now wouldn't if be wonderful if everybody could obtain and use
>any software for free while we still managed to provide an incentive
>to create things by means of a taxation system?
I frankly think that would be horrible.
>In practice I'm already able to get just about anything I'm interested
>in anyway so it wouldn't really change anything. ...
Right -- you're a parasite that doesn't care what happens to the host.
name
> [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
This discussion is not leading anywhere. You probably have a lot of
money invested in the recording industries or some similar interest
that prevents you from having a rational outlook on matters.
Most likely you are a hypocrite pirate yourself (by your own
standards) since you probably own a tape- or videorecorder and have
made 'illegal copies' of radio or television broadcasts.
John Higdon
nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
> This discussion is not leading anywhere. You probably have a lot of
> money invested in the recording industries or some similar interest
> that prevents you from having a rational outlook on matters.
> Most likely you are a hypocrite pirate yourself (by your own
> standards) since you probably own a tape- or videorecorder and have
> made 'illegal copies' of radio or television broadcasts.
No one would ever accuse me of being a Navas booster, but it is apparent
that YOU have run out of gas as far as argument is concerned. I can't
speak for Navas, but I would be willing to bet that he does not have
entertainment industry investments, but if he did, I would pass that off
as irrelevant.
Likewise on the matter of piracy: I seriously doubt that he pirates
copyrighted material. That is not hard to imagine; I don't do it myself.
Again, it is an irrelevant issue.
Why do you assume that everyone always argues from self-interest. Yes,
people frequently do such a thing, but generally, they are up-front
about it. A surprising amount of people DO argue against interest. Not
everyone's principles are as mutable as you might think.
What you have done is reduce your entire position to an attack on Navas'
character rather than a discussion of the issue. I can only assume that
you have abandoned the real discussion because you have run out of
legitimate argument, assuming you had one in the first place.
John Navas
In <1ccba12f.03082...@posting.google.com> on 26 Aug 2003 11:39:23
-0700, nspr...@hotmail.com (name) wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<Rzz2b.15193$dk4.5...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> [..]
>
>This discussion is not leading anywhere.
I agree.
>You probably have a lot of
>money invested in the recording industries or some similar interest
Not true.
>Most likely you are a hypocrite pirate yourself (by your own
>standards)
Also not true.
>since you probably own a tape- or videorecorder
True.
>and have
>made 'illegal copies' of radio or television broadcasts.
Not true -- "time shifting" was found to be legal.
John Navas
In <spam-bait-6D429...@equine.announcetech.com> on Tue, 26 Aug
WOW!
FunkyDevil
> you can spout your strange views to thousands or millions of people.
> If it wasn't for that law, you wouldn't be heard except maybe on a street
> corner.
>
> John
The same street corner where your daddy met your mom one drunken
night ?
That street corner comment is funny...
Laws require enforcement , and if it is impossible to enforce it, it
is meaningless. That was my point.
Laws are only as good as the people willing to follow them and enforce
them.
They are not " absolutes " that MUST be adhered to .
Laws in general come down to someone telling you what to do and then
making you do it " or else " , some kind of punishment.
Enforcement and the lack thereof was what I was saying , there are
more of us than there are of them , they cannot enforce...
P2P isn't going anywhere. It will continue to exist on the internet.
In one form or another.
FunkyDevil
> Wow. Is it sunny in your world?
>
> Jamie
I posted , you read it , what more is there to say...
The only " right answer " is to always agree with me.
Because I'm always right.