How to stop Piracy?
syn...@gmail.com
Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software
company. He asked me about the electronic design industry in China. He
told me that everyone knows that China is a huge market but most
company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy.
Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I
understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized
this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country
like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the
piracy problem?
Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
Thank you in advance!
Seeking for a customer centered PCB fabricator with high-quality and
most cost-effective service?
SynKore is your perfect option!
Send email to sa...@synkore.com or visit
www.idealpcb.com,
www.advpcb.com,
Rene Tschaggelar
> Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame.
> Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software
> company. He asked me about the electronic design industry in China. He
> told me that everyone knows that China is a huge market but most
> company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy.
>
> Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
> industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
> costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I
> understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized
> this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country
> like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the
> piracy problem?
>
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
One way to protect your knowledge is to not
give it away. Eg, let the hardware be produced
there, but fill the firmware after it is
delivered to you. Yes, if the function of the
firmware is trivial, then it can be re-engineered
easily, but in this case you didn't have lost
much anyway.
The whole looks different when there is
actually zero knowledge involved. There are many
"zero invention height" patents (the majority) that
can be implemented with a PIC and 10 lines of ASM
or even less ... It appears the patant lawyers
want some work too.
Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
John Fields
>Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame.
>Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software
>company. He asked me about the electronic design industry in China. He
>told me that everyone knows that China is a huge market but most
>company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy.
>
>Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
>industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
>costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I
>understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized
>this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country
>like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the
>piracy problem?
>
>Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
>
>Thank you in advance!
---
Simple. For every instance that a pirated item is dicovered in
China, the Chinese government will pay the injured party the full
retail price of the item in the injured party's currency.
Either that, or kill the pirates.
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
stic...@gmail.com
syn...@gmail.com wrote:
>... everyone knows that China is a huge market but most
> company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy.
I don't know about Europe and Japan, but one of the problems with
piracy in the US is that the concepts of patent and copyright are so
distorted that piracy often can't be defined. Such laws were originally
put in place to protect creativity and get people to invent things, but
they often end up doing exactly the opposite.
It's pretty obvious what happened if you find another producer
marketing a product that is absolutely identical to yours, and it's
true that you can't get away with that in the US. But we've got
patented products that are so trivial there's nothing but the laws
preventing anyone and everyone from making their own.
Maybe we should start thinking of the Chinese market as a place where
ideas can compete on their own merits, instead of trying to turn it
into another venue where the first one across the desk at the Patent
Office wins.
Nico Coesel
>Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame.
>Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software
>company. He asked me about the electronic design industry in China. He
>told me that everyone knows that China is a huge market but most
>company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy.
>
>Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
>industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
>costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I
>understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized
>this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country
>like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the
>piracy problem?
Simple: use piracy as a marketing tool. Every attempt to protect
software has failed and will fail because it is impossible to protect
software.
The only thing you can do is make sure your software is spread
massively through pirated copies. Meanwhile, start making people aware
someone needs to eat by making that software. In the end you'll have a
lot of people around which are familiar with your product and are
willing to pay for it because they know how it works and have designs
which cannot be read by other vendors.
I'm quite sure the makers of Orcad are following this strategy; the
latest version of their electronics design package can be found in any
pirated software shop throughout Asia.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
Alexander
If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
--
Alexander
_______________________________________
We are what we repeatedly do. - Aristotle,
Joel Kolstad
news:e23bnl$869$1...@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
If you make everything at Wal*Mart free there is no need for shoplifting.
Dave
> If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
>
Um, so how would a software business function.
Maybe software should be resonably priced.
Regards
Dave
> --
>
>
> Alexander
>
> _______________________________________
> We are what we repeatedly do. - Aristotle,
>
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Nico Coesel
Thats not far from the truth. Over here a shop has lowered the prices
of the 10 most stolen products by 25%.
pbde...@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid
>"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Alexander" <electr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:e23bnl$869$1...@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>> If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
>>
>>If you make everything at Wal*Mart free there is no need for shoplifting.
>Thats not far from the truth. Over here a shop has lowered the prices
>of the 10 most stolen products by 25%.
Did it work?
Nico Coesel
No results have been published yet. The price reduction was announced
just a couple of weeks ago.
John Fields
<electr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>> ---
>> Simple. For every instance that a pirated item is dicovered in
>> China, the Chinese government will pay the injured party the full
>> retail price of the item in the injured party's currency.
>>
>> Either that, or kill the pirates.
>
>If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
---
You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults
that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in
the first place.
It's not. Theft is theft, and the fault lies in the thief and, in
the case of China, with the mindset of the Chinese government, which
considers all non-Chinese to be barbarians and barely worthy of
recognition, so stealing from us is condoned and is considered to be
not much different than taking a brightly colored colored stone from
a dog who dug it up and is playing with it.
Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
you fucking asshole.
Grrrrr....
Jim Thompson
Dammit, John! Could you be more direct? I'm having trouble figuring
out what you mean ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline
Rather Play Pinball
Use an activaction system based on encrypted keys. They can copy all the
software you want, but locks if not registered. Also give a try before
buying option. And in the End-user license, in small 2 point font, point
out that if unregistered, the product will generate bad data. And do that.
Bad data. Looks like program works, but user can't rely on results. They
don't have courts there, so you don't have to worry about being sued.
<big grin>
Ken Taylor
> pbde...@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid wrote:
>
>
>>In sci.electronics.basics Nico Coesel <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote:
>>
>>>"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Alexander" <electr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:e23bnl$869$1...@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>>>
>>>>>If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
>>>>
>>>>If you make everything at Wal*Mart free there is no need for shoplifting.
>>
>>>Thats not far from the truth. Over here a shop has lowered the prices
>>>of the 10 most stolen products by 25%.
>>
>>Did it work?
>
>
> No results have been published yet. The price reduction was announced
> just a couple of weeks ago.
>
Ken
Ken Taylor
> Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
> industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
> costs.
Just curious - how did you measure this?
Ken
Don Lancaster
Especially since piracy tends to promote.
And the pirates wouldn't buy anything anyway.
The odds are overwhelming that modest amounts of piracy are a VERY GOOD
thing.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Ken Taylor
> Ken Taylor wrote:
>
>> syn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
>>> industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
>>> costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just curious - how did you measure this?
>>
>> Ken
>
>
> Especially since piracy tends to promote.
> And the pirates wouldn't buy anything anyway.
>
> The odds are overwhelming that modest amounts of piracy are a VERY GOOD
> thing.
>
piracy, it also promotes innovation.
Ken
David DiGiacomo
<syn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
>industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
>costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I
>understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized
>this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country
>like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the
>piracy problem?
I think the best way is for every Chinese PCB shop to spam the newsgroups
with ads disguised as thought provoking questions. Yes, that's it.
pbde...@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid
This can backfire alot..
Especially if the feature would hurt any legitimate user.
Jasen Betts
> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults
> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in
> the first place.
> Theft is theft
Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
Bye.
Jasen
Jasen Betts
>>
>> If you make the software free there is no need for piracy.
>
> Um, so how would a software business function.
people would pay it money to write software.
Bye.
Jasen
eden
>> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in
>> the first place.
>>
>> It's not. Theft is theft, and the fault lies in the thief and, in
>> the case of China, with the mindset of the Chinese government, which
>> considers all non-Chinese to be barbarians and barely worthy of
>> recognition, so stealing from us is condoned and is considered to be
>> not much different than taking a brightly colored colored stone from
>> a dog who dug it up and is playing with it.
If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of
treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is
small issue comparing to their police role here and there.
>> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
>> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
>> you fucking asshole.
I guess now is their time. Europian nations were stealing from the
world for centuries (and still do in some ways). What would you do if
you have 2 bilion of people, mainly poor? You will go to every vilige
to shot down every small pirate factory when you can't offer something
better?
Anyway, I don't try to defend the pirates, just the global picture is
not that simple
Goran
Ken Taylor
news:70e8.4445...@clunker.homenet...
That's an opinion at odds with the masses (of non-thieves, anyway).
Ken
Simon Scott
> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
> you fucking asshole.
Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there.
'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
many copies as you like for little or no cost.
If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
someone.
John Fields
wrote:
---
Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
would there?
Taking something written by someone else and using it without the
author's permission is theft.
John Fields
wrote:
>>> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults
>>> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in
>>> the first place.
>>>
>>> It's not. Theft is theft, and the fault lies in the thief and, in
>>> the case of China, with the mindset of the Chinese government, which
>>> considers all non-Chinese to be barbarians and barely worthy of
>>> recognition, so stealing from us is condoned and is considered to be
>>> not much different than taking a brightly colored colored stone from
>>> a dog who dug it up and is playing with it.
>
>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of
>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is
>small issue comparing to their police role here and there.
---
We treat our friends well, and we treat our enemies and our friends'
enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic
is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change
the attitude of the Chinese government.
---
>>> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
>>> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
>>> you fucking asshole.
>
>I guess now is their time. Europian nations were stealing from the
>world for centuries (and still do in some ways).
---
So what? Two wrongs don't make a right.
---
>What would you do if
>you have 2 bilion of people, mainly poor? You will go to every vilige
>to shot down every small pirate factory when you can't offer something
>better?
>
>Anyway, I don't try to defend the pirates,
---
Of course you do. You're saying that because they're poor and can't
afford to buy software legally it's OK for them to buy it cheaply
from someone someone who has stolen it.
---
>just the global picture is
>not that simple
---
You don't have a clue.
John Fields
<simon_...@chrome64.r3mov3th15.org> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
>> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
>> you fucking asshole.
>
>Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there.
>
>'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
>on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
>many copies as you like for little or no cost.
---
True, but if the pattern of dots isn't of your own making, then
copying them without the permission of the person who organized them
is stealing. Same a Xeroxing a book or counterfeiting cash is
stealing.
---
>If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
---
But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they
bought the software instead of copying/stealing it.
---
>It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
>someone.
---
Actually, it's not. They're both taking something from someone
without permission.
Bob Masta
<simon_...@chrome64.r3mov3th15.org> wrote:
>Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there.
>
>'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
>on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
>many copies as you like for little or no cost.
>
>If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
>
>It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
>someone.
>
It's not about your physical copy of the software, it's about
getting paid for your efforts. How do you provide yourself with
food, clothing, and shelter if you are working for free? Or
do you think all software should be written on a hobby basis by
people who make their living doing something else during the
day? (Like maybe at one of those jobs that's about to be
outsourced!)
Just a thought...
Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom
D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator
eden
> On 19 Apr 2006 01:27:17 -0700, "eden" <goranbu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults
> > > that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in
> > > the first place.
> > >
> > > It's not. Theft is theft, and the fault lies in the thief and, in
> > > the case of China, with the mindset of the Chinese government, which
> > > considers all non-Chinese to be barbarians and barely worthy of
> > > recognition, so stealing from us is condoned and is considered to be
> > > not much different than taking a brightly colored colored stone from
> > > a dog who dug it up and is playing with it.
> >
> >If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of
> >treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is
> >small issue comparing to their police role here and there.
>
> ---
> We treat our friends well, and we treat our enemies and our friends'
> enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic
> is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change
> the attitude of the Chinese government.
I would say you (US Gov.) mind your interests only (as anybody else).
And I don't believe we here can change the attitude of he Chinese
government. Their mind their own interests, and at the moment I guess
piracy is not their main warry. They don't have big music or sw
industry to protect. They have many unemployeed.
> ---
>
> > > Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
> > > who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
> > > you fucking asshole.
> >
> >I guess now is their time. Europian nations were stealing from the
> >world for centuries (and still do in some ways).
>
> ---
> So what? Two wrongs don't make a right.
> ---
>
> >What would you do if
> >you have 2 bilion of people, mainly poor? You will go to every vilige
> >to shot down every small pirate factory when you can't offer something
> >better?
> >
> >Anyway, I don't try to defend the pirates,
>
> ---
> Of course you do. You're saying that because they're poor and can't
> afford to buy software legally it's OK for them to buy it cheaply
> from someone someone who has stolen it.
> ---
Buying pirate CDs would not concerning me so much. Big producers are
the problem. If somebody opens a shop near you and you can get there
cheap software, is not you the one that makes the crime.
>
> >just the global picture is
> >not that simple
>
> ---
> You don't have a clue.
>
I know.
Goran
Rene Tschaggelar
> I guess now is their time. Europian nations were stealing from the
> world for centuries (and still do in some ways). What would you do if
> you have 2 bilion of people, mainly poor? You will go to every vilige
> to shot down every small pirate factory when you can't offer something
> better?
You know how it works. By waving some papers
with a bunch of "zero invention height" patents
on them, the poor are forced to pay big bucks
for trivial useless junk. Since the rate of
selling them junk is greater that they can
pay for, they quickly accomodate a big debt.
Rene
stic...@gmail.com
John Fields wrote:
> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
Actually, it's more like what Jesus did, since he made a whole bunch of
copies of fish and gave them away for free. And who wouldn't want to be
more like Jesus?
John Fields
<stic...@gmail.com> wrote:
---
I'm sure he had permission from the author of the fish.
stic...@gmail.com
John Fields wrote:
> I'm sure he had permission from the author of the fish.
Nice!
Joel Kolstad
news:4446...@quokka.wn.com.au...
> 'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
> on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
> many copies as you like for little or no cost.
>
> If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
>
> It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
> someone.
If you head down this path of reasoning, it seems to me it should follow
that -- if piracy is OK -- it's also OK to "partially" steal anything you want
from Wal*Mart by deducting any profit they would have otherwise made from
selling that product.
There's nothing wrong with companies being paid to design software and/or
hardware and then selling it for the cost of the copies -- which approaches
zero in the case of software --, but there's also nothing wrong with a
business model that says you want to make a profit on each and every copy
sold, regardless of the price of copying.
John Fields
Michael A. Terrell
He had to make the fish. The bible says: "Man shall not live by
bread alone."
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Reg Edwards
and/or
> hardware and then selling it for the cost of the copies -- which
approaches
> zero in the case of software --, but there's also nothing wrong with
a
> business model that says you want to make a profit on each and every
copy
> sold, regardless of the price of copying.
>
Of course there's nothing wrong.
It's just a perfectly legal confidence trick.
Nothing to do with stealing anything..
It's just a very minor part of the Capitalist System.
You vote for it and that's what you get.
Just carry on as usual without thinking of complaining.
There's nobody there to complain to anyway.
You set of poor, juvenile, deprived, innocent suckers!
=======================================
Jim Thompson
Thus speaks Reg "The Demented One" Edwards ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Old Latin teachers never die...they just decline
Zak
>>> Theft is theft
>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
>
> Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
> would there?
If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws.
Take note that copyright only applies to works with creative content.
Trivial stuff is not covered.
Thomas
Jim Thompson
Ehhhh? ANYTHING can be copyrighted, but common usage words have been
adjudicated out (for the most part).
Rich Grise
> Several days ago, I got one call from my under-classmate in Notre Dame.
> Now he worked as the sales director in one famous design software
> company. He asked me about the electronic design industry in China. He
> told me that everyone knows that China is a huge market but most
> company hesitates to enter China market due to piracy.
>
> Everyone knows that piracy has a significant impact on the high-tech
> industry, resulting in lost jobs, decreased innovation and higher
> costs. As a Chinese who has been working in USA for more than 10 yrs, I
> understand his worry and I also believe Chinese government has realized
> this. But it seems a mission impossible to stop piracy in a country
> like China. But could anyone tell me what's the best way to solve the
> piracy problem?
>
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
As far as software, there isn't anything anybody can do about it, other
than rely on the integrity of your customers. The fallacy about "piracy"
is to believe that if you can prevent someone from stealing your software,
that they'll buy a copy. That's not true. The only people who steal
software are the ones who wouldn't have bought it anyway.
If you're talking hardware, just order enough units of your product so
that you can make your millions in the first week or so before the
knockoffs start showing up. Then your selling point becomes your name
and reputation for quality and reliability.
In Other Words, it's not worth getting hysterical about.
Good Luck!
Rich
Joel Kolstad
news:pan.2006.04.19....@example.net...
> The only people who steal
> software are the ones who wouldn't have bought it anyway.
This is provably false by the number of companies who have been "turned in"
and made to pay a "fine" equal to the cost of the software they were pirating.
It's impossible to know how many pirates would have otherwise bought the
software. I'd accept that it might be as low as the single digits
(percentage), but I don't accept it's 0.
Rich Grise, PLainclothes Hippie
> On 19 Apr 2006 01:27:17 -0700, "eden" <goranbu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of
>>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is
>>small issue comparing to their police role here and there.
>
> We treat our friends well, and we treat our enemies and our friends'
> enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic
> is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change
^^^^^^
> the attitude of the Chinese government.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key, can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Thanks!
Rich
--
Elect Me President in 2008! I will:
A. Fire the IRS, and abolish the income tax
B. Legalize drugs
C. Stand down all military actions by the US that don't involve actual
military aggression against US territory
D. Declare World Peace I.
John Fields
>John Fields wrote:
>
>>>> Theft is theft
>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
>>
>> Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
>> would there?
>
>If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws.
---
That's ridiculous. It _is_ theft, and that's why the laws are in
place; to deal with the crime when it's committed.
---
>Take note that copyright only applies to works with creative content.
>Trivial stuff is not covered.
---
Since the act of writing is in itself creative, (unless you're
copying something which somebody else wrote) copyright applies to
all written work.
Jim Thompson
<JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Rich Grise" <rich...@example.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.04.19....@example.net...
>> The only people who steal
>> software are the ones who wouldn't have bought it anyway.
>
>This is provably false by the number of companies who have been "turned in"
>and made to pay a "fine" equal to the cost of the software they were pirating.
>
[snip]
Are there really all that many _companies_ that pirate software? It
seems foolish to me to risk the prosecution.
John Fields
<eatmy...@doubleclick.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:45:35 -0500, John Fields wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2006 01:27:17 -0700, "eden" <goranbu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of
>>>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is
>>>small issue comparing to their police role here and there.
>>
>> We treat our friends well, and we treat our enemies and our friends'
>> enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic
>> is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change
> ^^^^^^
>> the attitude of the Chinese government.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Key, can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Seems like you've got your own stash: ------
/
/
/
-- /
Elect Me President in 2008! I will:
A. Fire the IRS, and abolish the income tax
B. Legalize drugs
C. Stand down all military actions by the US that don't involve
actual
military aggression against US territory
D. Declare World Peace I.
--
Carl Smith
jfi...@austininstruments.com says...
> ---
> But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they
> bought the software instead of copying/stealing it.
> ---
While this is completely true, I think the software industry's
estimated losses due to piracy are greatly inflated by one
thing. I believe that only a small amount of pirated software
would have actually been bought had the pirate not been able to
steal it. There is no loss if income if the pirate would never
have bought it anyway.
I also think that some piracy actually results in increased
sales. In particular with things like PCB layout software.
Most legitimate businesses buy the EDA tools they need. But
home hobby guy is never going to shell out $5000 for a PCB
layout program like Protel (I bring this one up because there
used to be cracks for it all over the net). But when that home
hobby guy gets a real job and the pointy haired boss asks what
PCB software they need, he will immediately suggest Protel
because that's what he knows how to use now.
Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it
isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe.
Joel Kolstad
message news:8h7d42l9ihea8e6q4...@4ax.com...
> Are there really all that many _companies_ that pirate software? It
> seems foolish to me to risk the prosecution.
[Cough] I certainly know of some! ...but they're small companies, or
divisions of small companies (a couple dozen employees or less), and the
software in question is generally various office productivity titles or small
utilities -- not, e.g., 5 or 6 digit EDA tools. (I.e., potential damages
aren't that large, so they're less likely to be hauled into court, and even if
they are, the damges aren't going to be bankrupting.)
Clearly someone must be buying the software these guys were selling:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/feb01/02-01illinoispr.mspx
I have a friend who attempted to purchase a legal copy of Microsoft Visual
Studio 6 on eBay and was sent a clearly counterfeit version instead. He ended
up having to eat the two-hundred-some-odd dollars he spent for it, as the
seller was long gone.
---Joel
Ken Taylor
think they can use pirated software though, even on an 'unofficial
trial' basis.
I'd add that there's no indication that innovation or profits have
suffered due to piracy. Piracy has been going on since the industry
started - I seem to recall some people have written some new software,
done some new things, made a bit of money......
Cheers.
Ken
Spehro Pefhany
<eatmy...@doubleclick.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:45:35 -0500, John Fields wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2006 01:27:17 -0700, "eden" <goranbu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>If you are talking about governments, the US is not a good example of
>>>treating good non-US nations around the world. The piracy problem is
>>>small issue comparing to their police role here and there.
>>
>> We treat our friends well, and we treat our enemies and our friends'
>> enemies badly, but that's not what we're talking about. The topic
>> is how to stop piracy, and one avenue of approach would be to change
> ^^^^^^
>> the attitude of the Chinese government.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Key, can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?
You'd also have to change the attitude of 1.3 bn people. Might be
easier to change the attitudes of the few hundred millions who are
whining about it. Just one mobile phone company (China Mobile) has
>200 million customers! It's interesting that, in some ways, the
governments in countries such as China is actually more answerable for
*results* than those in democracies. In free-market democracies, you
supposedly get what you vote for (though you'll probably not be asked
questions that could yield answers that threaten powerful interests
unless there's an even more powerful domestic interest that is
fighting it in public). If things go wrong, it's the market, it's what
you voted for, it's always someone else (or no one at all) that's to
blame. Historically, monarchies and other totalitarian governments
have had lower steady-state total tax loads than democracies-- part
of the reason a capitalist economic system can do well in conjuction
with such systems.
I don't have a problem with copyright laws one way or the other.. I
could imagine there being very strong or very weak laws. It's not a
moral issue, IMO, just a contract that uses public funds to enable a
passive royalty collection scheme for companies who develop IP.
There are ways to survive and prosper whatever the rules are.
IIRC, the US conveniently ignored the IP owned by England for a couple
of generations until had some of its own to protect internationally
for its own companies. Similarly, when money can start flowing in both
directions you can be pretty sure they'll be more interested in buying
in (or not). Same goes for India and Russia where piracy is
everywhere, and for the ME, where piracy is the highest in the world,
IIRC. You don't hear much about the latter places because the US is
fixated on a 'containment' policy, and China-bashing is 'in' once
again, including the currency valuation red herring.
BTW, there's a very popular love song* in China that's been performed
by a bunch of different artists. One such artist was a 21-year old
girl named Xiang1-Xiang1. She did it with a PC and a microphone, no
studio, and gave away the music on the internet. She's made a small
fortune from it, and has been signed by the UK music company EMI and
has released at least one CD. In a different world she would have
made a big fortune (or, more likely, nothing at all).
* Lao3 Shu3 Ai4 da4 Mi3 (Mouse loves rice). The metaphor loses
something in the translation.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Spehro Pefhany
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>Are there really all that many _companies_ that pirate software? It
>seems foolish to me to risk the prosecution.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I don't think so, though it might be more common in very small
companies. When they prosecute a few and advertise the (large)
penalties it puts the fear of dog in many managers.
Spehro Pefhany
<cdsmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it
>isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe.
Supposedly Autodesk has greatly profited from this "free trial"
distribution. As long as most companies of any size pay, they are
rolling in the money. Thus, they aggressively go after corporations
they think might not have a (or enough) license(s).
One of the problems is that when I get a dude in Russia or India to
draw up some parts for me, I can be fairly sure that they are using
cracked copies. The guy down the street with the full license and
maintenance contract is finding it doubly hard to compete since the
wages are much higher and so is the overhead. It's a pittance on a
small job, but the pittances add up..
Joel Kolstad
news:MUz1g.15301$JZ1.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Piracy has been going on since the industry started - I seem to recall some
> people have written some new software, done some new things, made a bit of
> money......
Bill Gate's original plea to stop piracy 30 years ago:
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html
Microsoft's take on it these days:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-micropiracy9apr09,0,414067.story
Ken Taylor
reports of old law-suits, but what the heck, it's lunch-time.....
Ken
Bjarne Bäckström
> Hearing any bleats by Gates about piracy makes me want to dredge up
> reports of old law-suits, but what the heck, it's lunch-time.....
Repost:
"[...] a thread was started about Bill Gates' famous "open
letter" calling all hobbyists "thieves" because we were all stealing
"his" software.
This led into a discussion of why Mr. Gates was "asked to resign" from
Harvard. Someone pointed out the whole story was located on the "Boston
Globe's" website. [ To those outside of the U.S., the Globe is to Boston
what the Times is to London...not prone to hyperbole. ]
So I checked out the website & found that Mr Gates & Mr. Allen had used
Mr. Gates' account on Harvard's DEC-10 to write M.I.T.S. 8080 & 6800
BASICs [Microsoft's _only_ software products at that time.][Bill Gates
& Paul Allen were Microsoft's only employees at the time also.]
The "powers that be" at Harvard learned of this & were ready to expell
Mr. Gates because "all students at Harvard sign a form making all
software developed on the University's computers public domain." In
order to keep from being expelled from Harvard and to be allowed to
resign, Mr. Gates signed over all rights to Microsoft's products to the
public domain.
After leaving Harvard, Mr. Gates seemed to forget this & continued to
market both the 6800 & 8080 BASICs. Unfortunately [for him] it is all
a matter of public record.[...]"
Ken Taylor
forget about him. :-)
MS has been involved in all manner of 'acquisition' of interesting
add-ons for their crappy software suite.
Cheers.
Ken
Zak
>> Take note that copyright only applies to works with creative content.
>> Trivial stuff is not covered.
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Ehhhh? ANYTHING can be copyrighted, but common usage words have been
> adjudicated out (for the most part).
Well, you can probably copyright anything, but that does not mean that
the copyright is valid.
I remember a business delivering a text to someone who converted tags
into html by using a script.
Later, the business went elsewhere with their site and took the
generated html with them. The original converter claimed copyright, but
this was ruled against for lack of creative content.
Another limitation is independent creation. If I would write the text
"best quality in town - come today for best offer" that could be
construed as creative. However, if someone else wrote the same text it
could likely be an independent creation and him using that text would
not be a copyright violation.
Which doesn't mean you can't sue, but that's another thing.
Thomas
Zak
>> Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it isn't
>> all as bad as some people would have you believe.
>>
> That's pretty much my position - it becomes a "Bad" thing when companies
> think they can use pirated software though, even on an 'unofficial
> trial' basis.
The 'trial' thing is not that bad. One of the reasons open source is
doing well is that there is no need to go through purchasing and lawyers
to try it.
Software vendors have traditionally been ignoring unauthorized copying
whenever they felt it was best for their business - for example student
or private use.
> I'd add that there's no indication that innovation or profits have
> suffered due to piracy. Piracy has been going on since the industry
> started - I seem to recall some people have written some new software,
> done some new things, made a bit of money......
It seems clothing designs only have very limited protection in Europe -
changing a number of details (5 or 8?) is enough to have a new creation.
This doesn't seem to harm industry creativity at all...
The same would apply to look-and-feel copyrights on software. What
happened to those? Those were a license to print money, not a stimulus
for creativity...
Thomas
Zak
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:41:02 GMT, Carl Smith
> <cdsmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Now, I don't mean to imply that this makes piracy right. But it
>> isn't all as bad as some people would have you believe.
>
> Supposedly Autodesk has greatly profited from this "free trial"
> distribution. As long as most companies of any size pay, they are
> rolling in the money. Thus, they aggressively go after corporations
> they think might not have a (or enough) license(s).
Autodesk probably likes you to use this at home for free. The more
people can use the software the more they can sell. And really no-one
would buy this privately at full price, so there is no money lost to
them (though they could sell training).
Which makes your explanation likely. Of course they could produce a
(limited) student edition...
Thomas
Jasen Betts
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:52:02 +0200, Zak <ju...@zak.invalid> wrote:
>
>>John Fields wrote:
>>
>>>>> Theft is theft
>>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
>>> would there?
>>
>>If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws.
>
> ---
> That's ridiculous. It _is_ theft, and that's why the laws are in
> place; to deal with the crime when it's committed.
> ---
not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property
with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime
in the free world.
It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer
Bye.
Jasen
Jasen Betts
> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-04-18, John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You seem to be trying to say that it's the software authors' faults
>>> that piracy exists because they they didn't give their work away in
>>> the first place.
>>
>>> Theft is theft
>>
>>Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
>
> Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
> would there?
if it were the police would be going after copyright infringers.
> Taking something written by someone else and using it without the
> author's permission is theft.
no it's not.
--
Bye.
Jasen
John Fields
wrote:
>On 2006-04-19, John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
---
Don't hand me that "legal definition" crap, Jasen, you're not even
remotely close to being a lawyer.
1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of
the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been
infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the
infringer stole that income from the author.
2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally.
---
>It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer
---
Read this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
she...@yahoo.com
John Fields wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:46:41 +0800, Simon Scott
> <simon_...@chrome64.r3mov3th15.org> wrote:
>
> >John Fields wrote:
> >
> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
> >> you fucking asshole.
> >
> >Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there.
> >
> >'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
> >on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
> >many copies as you like for little or no cost.
>
> ---
> True, but if the pattern of dots isn't of your own making, then
> copying them without the permission of the person who organized them
> is stealing. Same a Xeroxing a book or counterfeiting cash is
> stealing.
> ---
Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's
in the public domain.
Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread..
>
> >If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
>
> ---
> But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they
> bought the software instead of copying/stealing it.
> ---
Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay
an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.
>
> >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
> >someone.
>
> ---
> Actually, it's not. They're both taking something from someone
> without permission.
>
The permission came when the information was released to the public
domain.
John Fields
>
>John Fields wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:46:41 +0800, Simon Scott
>> <simon_...@chrome64.r3mov3th15.org> wrote:
>>
>> >John Fields wrote:
>> >
>> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
>> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
>> >> you fucking asshole.
>> >
>> >Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there.
>> >
>> >'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
>> >on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
>> >many copies as you like for little or no cost.
>>
>> ---
>> True, but if the pattern of dots isn't of your own making, then
>> copying them without the permission of the person who organized them
>> is stealing. Same a Xeroxing a book or counterfeiting cash is
>> stealing.
>> ---
>
>Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's
>in the public domain.
---
Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you don't know the
difference between a public market and the public domain. I suggest
that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is
concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent
expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that
happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and
it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees
fit.
Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public
dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that
doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the
works are abridged in any way.
---
>Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread..
>>
>> >If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
>>
>> ---
>> But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they
>> bought the software instead of copying/stealing it.
>> ---
>
>Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay
>an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.
---
That "armed group" you refer to is the government and it does exist
for, among other reasons, to assure that my monopoly enterprise will
be protected for the term of the patent or copyright.
---
>>
>> >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
>> >someone.
>>
>> ---
>> Actually, it's not. They're both taking something from someone
>> without permission.
>>
>
>The permission came when the information was released to the public
>domain.
---
Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the
public domain then it remains the property of the author.
Get informed; read this:
Michael A. Terrell
John, its no wonder he doesn't understand. He's post from a IP
assigned to Switzerland
inetnum: 130.92.0.0 - 130.92.255.255
netname: UNIBE
descr: University of Berne
descr: Berne, Switzerland
country: CH
admin-c: FB61
tech-c: FB61
tech-c: CH791-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: SWITCH-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Fritz Buetikofer
address: University of Berne
address: Computer Services Department
address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
address: CH-3012 Berne
address: Switzerland
phone: +41 31 631 3843
fax-no: +41 31 631 3865
e-mail: bt...@id.unibe.ch
nic-hdl: FB61
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Christian Heim
address: University of Berne
address: Computer Services Department
address: Gesellschaftsstrasse 6
address: CH-3012 Berne
address: Switzerland
phone: +41 31 631 3872
fax-no: +41 31 631 3865
e-mail: he...@id.unibe.ch
nic-hdl: CH791-RIPE
source: RIPE # Filtered
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
John Fields
I don't think it's as much a question of determining where they're
from as it is determining where they're coming from.
If, indeed, he's an academic, then we have among us one who rails
against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that
fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee.
she...@yahoo.com
John Fields wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2006 07:07:35 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Fields wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:46:41 +0800, Simon Scott
> >> <simon_...@chrome64.r3mov3th15.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Fields wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Stealing software is no different from taking a fish from someone
> >> >> who caught it instead of going out and fishing for your own supper,
> >> >> you fucking asshole.
> >> >
> >> >Im a software dev John, but I cant agree there.
> >> >
> >> >'Software' is not a physical thing - its a bunch of magnetic or optical dots
> >> >on a disk. There is an infinite supply, in terms of being able to make as
> >> >many copies as you like for little or no cost.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> True, but if the pattern of dots isn't of your own making, then
> >> copying them without the permission of the person who organized them
> >> is stealing. Same a Xeroxing a book or counterfeiting cash is
> >> stealing.
> >> ---
> >
> >Neither is "stealing". Once information is in the public domain, it's
> >in the public domain.
>
> ---
> Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you don't know the
> difference between a public market and the public domain.
Pretty much correct. Or rather, I don't think there should be a
difference. My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on
IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.
> I suggest
> that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is
> concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent
> expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that
> happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and
> it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees
> fit.
Of course in reality, the idea is available to the public as soon as
they see it. The only problem is, the patent law forbids them from
using it for innovation, business, health, scientific research, etc.
>
> Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public
> dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that
> doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the
> works are abridged in any way.
You may want "exclusive rights" to some information, but the reality is
that once somebody else knows that information you no longer are the
exclusive holder of the information.
> ---
>
> >Of course, the fiat currency issue could start whole new thread..
> >>
> >> >If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they
> >> bought the software instead of copying/stealing it.
> >> ---
> >
> >Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay
> >an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.
>
> ---
> That "armed group" you refer to is the government and it does exist
> for, among other reasons, to assure that my monopoly enterprise will
> be protected for the term of the patent or copyright.
> ---
True. I would prefer a capitalist or free market system, and I think
it may come sooner rather than later. Of course until then we must
live within the current system to avoid the consequences.
>
> >>
> >> >It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
> >> >someone.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Actually, it's not. They're both taking something from someone
> >> without permission.
> >>
> >
> >The permission came when the information was released to the public
> >domain.
>
> ---
> Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the
> public domain then it remains the property of the author.
>
If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it.
> Get informed; read this:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/
>
That's what I'm complaining about!
Cheers - shevek
she...@yahoo.com
John Fields wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:53:25 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think it's as much a question of determining where they're
> from as it is determining where they're coming from.
>
> If, indeed, he's an academic, then we have among us one who rails
> against private ownership of intellectual property and feels that
> fertilization of the egg should be agreed upon by committee.
>
Now I'm curious.. are you talking about reproduction a la "Brave New
World"?
And where is the connection? Are Intellectual property laws are a step
in that direction?
Jim Thompson
>
>John Fields wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2006 07:07:35 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> ---
>> Yes, but if the material wasn't _specifically_ relaesed ito the
>> public domain then it remains the property of the author.
>>
>
>If you don't want anyone to know something, you shouldn't publish it.
>
[snip]
>
>Cheers - shevek
Publishing something so that books can be sold and read is wholly
different from you turning around and copying said material for your
own profit.
I find that those against IP laws are generally those who aren't "IP",
intellectually prolific, you're just a common thief.
John Fields
---
Why not? Say you generate a killer app which your university pays
you to design and puts into the public domain. Kudos to you, but no
financial gain other than your salary.
OTOH, you quit the the university and do it all yourself and sell
what comes out of your brain.
Big difference, no?
---
>My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on
>IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.
---
Apologies accepted, as long as they'll keep you subservient...;)
Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
inventor?
Aren't you one of us?
Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and
for you to be able to profit from them?
she...@yahoo.com
Yes, but neither scenario requires intellectual property protectionism.
Quit the university, start the company that produces the design, and
keep the company competitive. You don't need to sue copyright
violators to do good business.
>
> >My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on
> >IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.
>
> ---
> Apologies accepted, as long as they'll keep you subservient...;)
>
> Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
> inventor?
>
> Aren't you one of us?
>
> Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and
> for you to be able to profit from them?
>
>
Thanks for humoring me:) I suppose my ideas now will become..
property of google?
> Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
> inventor?
Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and
inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP
legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by
consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would
still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for
protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves
financially, despite their patents.
In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.
Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or
agribusiness. And do you really think it's helped the arts?
Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of
diagrams and designs.
cheers - shevek
Jasen Betts
On 2006-04-20, John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:02:53 -0000, Jasen Betts <ja...@free.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-04-19, John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:52:02 +0200, Zak <ju...@zak.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Theft is theft
>>>>>> Yes, but copyright infringement is not theft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it is. If it weren't there'd be no need for copyright laws,
>>>>> would there?
>>>>
>>>>If it was theft, there would be no desire for copyright laws.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> That's ridiculous. It _is_ theft, and that's why the laws are in
>>> place; to deal with the crime when it's committed.
>>> ---
>>
>>not by any legal definition ("dishonest apropriation of another's property
>>with the intent to deprive him of it permanently"), and it's not a crime
>>in the free world.
>
> ---
> Don't hand me that "legal definition" crap, Jasen, you're not even
> remotely close to being a lawyer.
It's not crap. it came out of a dictionary verbatim. if you think I'm wrong
correct me. Insults are a sign that you fear that you are losing the argument.
> 1. Since, by the act of ifringement, any income which the owner of
> the copyrighted work would have enjoyed had the work not been
> infringed, will not be forthcoming, the effect is the same as if the
> infringer stole that income from the author.
that's not neccesarily true, there are two ways to not infringe copyright
one is to purchase the licence the other is to not use the work. most people
choose the latter.
> 2. I think theft is looked upon as a crime universally.
> ---
definately...
[copyright infringement]
>>It's a civil matter between the holder and the infringer
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
ok, yeah, there are exceptions, like when it's being done for commercial gain.
--
Bye.
Jasen
Zak
>> Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
>> inventor?
>
> Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and
> inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP
> legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by
> consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would
> still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for
> protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves
> financially, despite their patents.
Look what it costs to pursue a patent issue. Out of reach for most
inventors - only accessible to large business. And even those form a
cartel to limit costs within - but it gives them leverage to kick out
those nasty startups.
> In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
> lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
> money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.
In software, an 'patentable invention' seems to be very easy to create -
except for the lawyerese.
Now whenever you write software you got to check all those patents to
see if you are infringing. If done correctly this would make software
costs be 99.9 % legal and 0.1 % engineering. I can't think that is good
for innovation.
> Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of
> diagrams and designs.
That's why it is there - for protection you have got to publish.
Still I wonder why one would accept patents - which are laws forbidding
to produce something for profit - seeing that they are written as
vaguely as possible and not checked by a representative process.
In a time when the number of inventors was very limited (because tools
were not generally available) and innovation was slow, the patent system
worked fine. A limited number of patents, and inventors generally being
inside a business, made sure the resources needed were not too great.
But nowadays - Joe Random can afford to file his patent for whatever
voice recognition algorithm he has figured out. Getting his income from
it is something different - it needs huge investment in legal costs.
As far as the level of inventions: a recent application was for a TV
that disallows chaning channels while in a commercial. It IS new, I
agree, but is it a technical invention, or merely so stupid as not to
have been published before? Still it may bit someone someday whenever
teh principle is applied to something useful.
Thomas
John Fields
---
The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_
intellectual property, it's whether someone else has the right to
use it without your permission.
If you think they do, then we are fundamentally in disagreement and
the argument can't proceed until that disagreement is resolved.
---
>> >My apologies for the fishing here, as I look for debate on
>> >IP laws. As you may have gathered, I'm against them.
>>
>> ---
>> Apologies accepted, as long as they'll keep you subservient...;)
>>
>> Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
>> inventor?
>>
>> Aren't you one of us?
>>
>> Don't you want to want your clever ideas to be attributed to you and
>> for you to be able to profit from them?
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for humoring me:) I suppose my ideas now will become..
>property of google?
>
>> Why would you be against IP legislation which rules in favor of the
>> inventor?
>
>Good question. How could I suggest that my favorite artists and
>inventors not be compensated for the excellent work? Yes, a perfect IP
>legislation rules in favor of a past inventor, with the expense born by
>consumers. However I think most of the artists and inventors would
>still be very well compensated, as many have, without "paying for
>protection". And many inventors have not made out well for themselves
>financially, despite their patents.
---
Speaking of business, one of the things I've learned is that if
you're looking for investors for a start-up to build and sell a
widget of some kind, and they're honest, they won't even talk to you
until you've at least filed for a patent. That way, their
investment will be covered to the extent that the courts will
support. The reason that many inventors and artists _don't_ do well
isn't because of a failing in the system, (although, God knows, it's
not perfect) it's because they're lousy at business and let
themselves get talked into all kinds of really lousy deals, like the
one a lot of newbies get suckered into, taking the risk for "a
portion of the profits", LOL!
---
>In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
>lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
>money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.
---
Patent lawyers aren't so bad, a good one'll cost about $10k, and if
you want to do it yourself it's just the government filing fees
you'll need to come up with, a couple of thousand, I think.
---
>Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or
>agribusiness.
---
It's not the system, it's how it's been allowed to be manipulated by
business that's the problem, I think, but what did you have in mind,
specifically?
---
>And do you really think it's helped the arts?
---
Definitely. If others could steal your work by copying it, taking
credit for it by pretending it was theirs and selling it without
fear of retribution of any kind, what would be the incentive to
keep on producing other than the basic creative urge itself?
---
>Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of
>diagrams and designs.
---
Hmmm...???
she...@yahoo.com
The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
investors rich for example.
>
> >In practice, a huge chunk of the money goes to middle men and patent
> >lawyers. The artists and inventors recieve but a small fraction of the
> >money siphoned with high prices and suing any competition.
>
> ---
> Patent lawyers aren't so bad, a good one'll cost about $10k, and if
> you want to do it yourself it's just the government filing fees
> you'll need to come up with, a couple of thousand, I think.
> ---
Maybe even less. However the lawsuits will cost a lot more.
>
> >Still worse is what the system has done to pharmaceutical industry or
> >agribusiness.
>
> ---
> It's not the system, it's how it's been allowed to be manipulated by
> business that's the problem, I think, but what did you have in mind,
> specifically?
> ---
"bio-piracy", the patenting of genes, e.g. used to sue farmers who
plant the same seeds they've used for generations. Keeping drugs at
elevated prices. Keeping research secret. For three..
>
> >And do you really think it's helped the arts?
>
> ---
> Definitely. If others could steal your work by copying it, taking
> credit for it by pretending it was theirs and selling it without
> fear of retribution of any kind, what would be the incentive to
> keep on producing other than the basic creative urge itself?
> ---
To sell concert seats. To sell the original paintings. To spread the
good word. Fame and fortune are still incentives without the
government protectionism. Instead we have artists trying to be the
next "one hit wonders".. I would argue that the arts have suffered
greatly from government protectionism.
>
> >Actually, I'm a fan of the patent office. It's a great library of
> >diagrams and designs.
>
> ---
> Hmmm...???
>
It's all public domain. The public has access to it. Why not archive
inventions like that? A good idea.
Cheers - shevek
Jim Thompson
[snip]
>
>The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
>"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
>
[snip]
>
>Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
>money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
>is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
>investors rich for example.
>
[snip]
Sheeeesh! Another fucking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the
real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything.
Don't go away mad, just go away ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
she...@yahoo.com
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
> >"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
> >money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
> >is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
> >investors rich for example.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Sheeeesh! Another fucking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the
> real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything.
>
I'd love to hear a counter-opinion. That's why I'm posting here.
However it looks like you are unwilling to provide me with one. What
do you think I an unaware of re: how the real world operates?
Jim Thompson
The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
without any effort on your part.
she...@yahoo.com
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 08:47:12 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
>
> The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
> property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
> comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
> without any effort on your part.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's
advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual
property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult
positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights
here.
The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter.
It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't
contain protons.
Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists?
:)
Jim Thompson
>
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 08:47:12 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Jim Thompson wrote:
>> >> On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]d operates?
>>
>> The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
>> property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
>> comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
>> without any effort on your part.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>
>My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's
>advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual
>property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult
>positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights
>here.
>
>The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter.
>It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't
>contain protons.
Intellectual property IS personal property... there is no difference.
>
>Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists?
>:)
Shove it!
she...@yahoo.com
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 09:17:42 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 08:47:12 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >> On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]d operates?
> >>
> >> The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
> >> property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
> >> comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
> >> without any effort on your part.
> >>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
> >
> >
> >My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's
> >advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual
> >property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult
> >positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights
> >here.
> >
> >The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter.
> >It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't
> >contain protons.
>
> Intellectual property IS personal property... there is no difference.
>
How so? Certainly not legally or physically..
> >
> >Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists?
> >:)
>
> Shove it!
>
You first.
Who is arguing for government control of the marketplace? Not I. How
am I a socialist?
John Fields
>
>John Fields wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2006 18:03:58 -0700, she...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ---
>> The point isn't whether you can do good business or not with _your_
>> intellectual property, it's whether someone else has the right to
>> use it without your permission.
>>
>> If you think they do, then we are fundamentally in disagreement and
>> the argument can't proceed until that disagreement is resolved.
>> ---
>
>The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
>"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
---
You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
Wanna go back to that kind of a life?
I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.
Goodbye.
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
> no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
> Wanna go back to that kind of a life?
>
> I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.
Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
considered ownable "intellectual property"
Jim Thompson
she...@yahoo.com is from the same-location/political-crap-attitude as
Sloman... adjectives: stupid, ignorant, head-up-ass, obstinate,
ne'er-do-well wanting my property for free... PLONK!
Jim Thompson
What a pile of BS. "Traditions"?
What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented
and/or copyrighted?
They say, "Ignorance is bliss". You must be very deeply into that
state ;-)
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> >John Fields wrote:
> >
> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
> >> no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
> >> Wanna go back to that kind of a life?
> >>
> >> I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.
> >
> >Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
> >your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
> >considered ownable "intellectual property"
>
> What a pile of BS. "Traditions"?
>
> What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented
> and/or copyrighted?
Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to
prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before
the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies.
To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly
ignore the fact that they existed without it.
Jim Thompson
Huh? Sounds like double-talk to me. Anything know to the public
beforehand CAN NOT be patented or copyrighted.
Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example.
cs_po...@hotmail.com
Jim Thompson wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 13:21:42 -0700, cs_po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> >John Fields wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
> >> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
> >> >> no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
> >> >> Wanna go back to that kind of a life?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.
> >> >
> >> >Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
> >> >your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
> >> >considered ownable "intellectual property"
> >>
> >> What a pile of BS. "Traditions"?
> >>
> >> What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented
> >> and/or copyrighted?
> >
> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to
> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before
> >the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies.
> >To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly
> >ignore the fact that they existed without it.
>
> Huh? Sounds like double-talk to me. Anything know to the public
> beforehand CAN NOT be patented or copyrighted.
>
> Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example.
Beowulf
Jim Thompson
Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf?
You're being vague and ignorant again... you are about to become
amongst those of the great ignored ;-)
John Fields
---
Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
(which is the way to do it) belongs to them.
let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...
Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
them the data.
Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?
To someone else?
Who?
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> >> >Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to
> >> >prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before
> >> >the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies.
> >> >To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly
> >> >ignore the fact that they existed without it.
> >> Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example.
> >
> >Beowulf
>
> Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf?
No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the
concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption
that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the
concept of copyrights.
Jim Thompson
Can you refer me to a copyright on the work?
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
> something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
> thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
> allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
> (which is the way to do it) belongs to them.
Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as
granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property.
> let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...
>
> Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
> way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
> around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
> them the data.
Data? From what input? For what purpose?
The irony of course is that calculus would not be protectable even if
first discovered today.
> Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
> knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
> data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?
Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Yet
there are lots of advances ongoing there as well...
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> >No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the
> >concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption
> >that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the
> >concept of copyrights.
>
> Can you refer me to a copyright on the work?
Of course not - which is exactly the point. It's an example of a
creation that managed to get created even in John Field's supposedly
dull and monochrome world without intellectual property.
I can however refer you to a copyright on the modern story "Grendel" -
as a demonstration on how much modern creativity owes to the public
domain past.
she...@yahoo.com
John Fields wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2006 13:06:21 -0700, cs_po...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >John Fields wrote:
> >
> >> You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
> >> intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
> >> no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
> >> Wanna go back to that kind of a life?
> >>
> >> I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.
> >
> >Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
> >your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
> >considered ownable "intellectual property"
>
> ---
> Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
> something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
> thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
> allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
> (which is the way to do it) belongs to them.
Yes, as it consists of only a neural arrangment in their head. Or
perhaps a collection of notes in their possession, symbolic
information, or perhaps in binary form on a hard drive. Any theft of
these objects is a clear violoation of your rights. Especially the
head.
Once others have seen or recorded this information, they now also
possess copies of that information. If you don't want anyone to know,
you'd better be careful who you tell.
>
> let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...
>
> Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
> way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
> around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
> them the data.
>
> Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
> knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
> data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?
>
> To someone else?
>
> Who?
>
Johannes Kepler :)
Or maybe some other giants who's shoulders you've stood upon.
Now that you've told me you have such an idea Isaac, I would be
curious. Probably not much commercial application however. Have you
tried to write or sell your idea as a proposal to some religious or
academic bigwigs? Perhaps you'd best publish it openly in a concise
form and you'll have any academic job offer you'd like and more. As
for your ideas about calculus, you should have published them openly
much earlier. Sure, you still obtained fame and fortune, but with his
earlier publication Leibinz stole some of the glory that could have
been yours in inventing the Calculus.
Sorry for the diversion.. how about an example for the discussion
using someone who actually benefitted from intellectual property law?
Cheers - shevek
John Fields
---
You seem to think that we still live in that time. We don't. Fast
forward about a thousand years into the future from then and it
becomes apparent that the need for copyright has come about
precisely because of the need for artists to be protected from the
wolves who would otherwise prey upon them.
Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right
to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit,
under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives.
In fact, all you're really interested in being able to do is graze,
free range, on what's out there for your own benfit. That kind of
attitude and behavior can only contribute to the theft of resources
from the artist, quite conceivably lowering his output and
diminishing any enrichment our lives might attain from that source.
Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with
people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and
deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe
was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and
your ilk would be the first to cry wolf.
cs_po...@hotmail.com
> >> >Beowulf
> You seem to think that we still live in that time. We don't. Fast
> forward about a thousand years into the future from then and it
> becomes apparent that the need for copyright has come about
> precisely because of the need for artists to be protected from the
> wolves who would otherwise prey upon them.
I assume by wolves, you mean record companies?
You're first mistake is to assume that the way things have turned out
is the only positive path of development that could have occured.
> Wolves like you, for instance, who think it's your God-given right
> to copy anyone's works and disseminate them in any way you see fit,
> under the pretense that by so doing you enrich our lives.
Your second mistake it putting words in my mouth. How do you know my
views?
I haven't actually expressed any - I merely pointed out counterexamples
to your argument.
> In fact, all you're really interested in being able to do is graze,
> free range, on what's out there for your own benfit. That kind of
> attitude and behavior can only contribute to the theft of resources
> from the artist, quite conceivably lowering his output and
> diminishing any enrichment our lives might attain from that source.
Third mistake: continuing off on a tangent
> Other than the Nazi aspect of it, I don't understand what it is with
> people like you who think it's OK to take other people's work and
> deal with it as if it were your own, but I'm sure that if the shoe
> was on the other foot and you had anything worth protecting, you and
> your ilk would be the first to cry wolf.
Fourth mistake: triggering Godwin to try to end an argument you realize
you're loosing...
Fifth mistake: assuming the present status quo will persist. For
software and music recording it clearly won't. In the case of
software, because the industry is rapidly outgrowing traditional
publisher/monopoly concepts of copyright. In the case of music
recordings, because copyright is so divorced from it's alleged purpose
that an increasing segment of the public would no longer support the
law if it were put to referendum. That doesn't mean that the
alternative to the present system is no system; but it does mean that
thiings will continue to change.
John Fields
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
>> something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
>> thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
>> allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
>> (which is the way to do it) belongs to them.
>
>Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as
>granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property.
---
The point you seem to be incapable of understanding is that granting
them ownership isn't necessary. The fact that the idea was theirs
in the first place makes them inherently the owner of the idea and
whether they choose to develop that idea commercially themselves or
license someone else to do it is none of your business.
Why do you think we say, without even thinking about it, "That was
my idea", or "That was her idea"?
It's because it's so obvious it doesn't need explaining.
Except, perhaps, to you.
Same like with kids. We don't need anyone to to tell us they're
ours, they just are.
In the same vein, your tacit assumption that those who originated
the idea need to be granted the right to _use_ the idea smacks of
that you think you should be in control of what they do with what's
theirs.
Not a pretty picture.
Say I get an idea about writing a poem which makes you look like a
Nazi, since you do.
According to your rules, prior to publishing it here I'd have to
send it by you for approval and unless it was couched in terms which
you considered to be innocuous (that wouldn't be too hard to do, I
think) it would never see the light of day.
Who needs that kind of crap?
None of us.
---
>> let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...
>>
>> Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
>> way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
>> around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
>> them the data.
>
>Data? From what input? For what purpose?
---
It doesn't matter.
The point is that it was _my_ method which yielded the data, and
using _my_ method I can demonstrate that I can predict the future.
It's easy. I'll tell you where your anus will be one year from
today, today, and if you go and look for it a year from now and it's
precisely where I said it would be you'll know I was right.
Still, It's _my_ method. I own it, and unless I choose to share it,
for whatever reason, it will go with me to the grave.
---
>The irony of course is that calculus would not be protectable even if
>first discovered today.
---
That's ridiculous. The secret is to not disclose.
---
>> Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
>> knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
>> data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?
>
>Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Yet
>there are lots of advances ongoing there as well...
---
As always, ignorance is the best posture to assume.
Rich Grise
> It's easy. I'll tell you where your anus will be one year from
> today, today, and if you go and look for it a year from now and it's
> precisely where I said it would be you'll know I was right.
>
> Still, It's _my_ method. I own it, and unless I choose to share it,
> for whatever reason, it will go with me to the grave.
Ah, but if I can make the same prediction, using my own method, even
if the method duplicates your own, if you haven't disclosed it, then
it's mine as well, wouldn't you say? Which is why they have all these
copyright laws and what-not?
As a matter of fact, I have a real-life story about something very much
like this. It was one of the semi-finals or finals in some foo-foo college
class, and there was a big flap that someone had cheated because these two
students' answer sheets were so similar. After investigating, they
couldn't find any evidence that either had cheated - this was a lecture
class of about 300, and they were essentially sitting in opposite corners
of the auditorium - they just, coincidentally, happened to come up with
exactly the same answers. I think the thing that made the authorities so
suspicious was that it was an essay test. =:-O
But, whoever gets it to market first wins, right? ;-)
(BTW, I can also predict the position of people's ani, barring disaster
(pun initially unintended, but I'm leaving it in. %-D )
Thanks!
Rich