Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by gamer_reg, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. gamer_reg

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I'm not sure it's as simple as that, a lot is to do with what goes on around you especially as a kid.

    Kid's also like collecting stuff, in fact they are encouraged to do so whether it be baseball cards, gold stars, or wards for tying knots.

    There aren't that mmany soem softeare and the music industry likes you to think there are that many and that they are losing vast amounts of revenue because of these people.
    Is there wrong in that behaviour or rather how wrong, who decides.

    I beliebve teh record industry should be fined for insistign a 12 year-old buy their music over and over again depending on how or where they wish to listen to it. They should be allowed to re-release music as a new mix and charge full price because they've added a bit of bass.


    certian industries have been getting away with theft for years, and now they are losing out.

    Or the induistries refuse to understand their cash cow is about to be slaughtered.

    Then there's the Q why is marijuana illegal and alcohol and tobacco legal, is it niot because of te etaxes going to govenrment and the pressure those companies hold.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jul 1, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Maybe I misparsed.

    I read it as
    "Okay, intellectual property is (any) property that has
    an owner".
    Or as
    "Correct; intellectual property is (any) property that
    has an owner".
    Or as
    "(A) correct (type of) intellectual property is (any)
    property that has an owner".

    The alternative of "intellectual property is (intellectual)
    property (that has an owner)" makes no sense, IMHO, there can
    be property without an owner. (The same IP can even have an
    owner & be restricted and be free-for-all just by changing
    jurisdictions.)

    What is "OK IP is property that has an owner." supposed to mean?
    I do.
    I even understand what the easy ability of copying (which
    outside of Star Trek replicators doesn't apply to property)
    really means. Do you even have the slightest inkling what
    that means?

    And --- while we're at it --- do you understand what copyright
    and patents are supposed to do for the society that created
    these laws?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 2, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Of course not.

    In fact, you have a blazing need *not* to research to prove
    that copying without permission is "common theft", because you
    KNOW that you won't come up with any law that defines copying
    without permission as "theft".

    I'll call your bluff: how much money would that need?
    I now fully expect an outrageous sum or silence ...
    .... or some website of some "IP defender" who equates copying
    with theft, but no actual law text tying copying to the word
    "theft" and then claims that that would prove it.


    You simply fell for the oldest trick in the book: since
    "intellectual property" equals "property"[3] negating any
    hypothetically possible sale[4] must equal "theft".

    -Wolfgang

    [3] a easily falsifyable claim
    [4] which for property includes, but is not solely, theft ---
    you can also damage or destroy property so it's not
    saleable any more, just for example ...
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 2, 2013
  4. gamer_reg

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I didn't write that sentence. I forget who did.

    I read it as "Intellectual property is property that has an owner",
    but understood it to mean that it is non-physical property (a creation
    of the mind) of which rights are accorded to the person creating it.
    Being somewhat familiar with the concept, I could read that meaning
    into it without it being stated.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jul 2, 2013
  5. gamer_reg

    Savageduck Guest

     
    Savageduck, Jul 2, 2013
  6. gamer_reg

    luxitman Guest

    Would agree
     
    luxitman, Jul 3, 2013
  7. For a long time the US of A didn't recognize non-US authors'
    copyright. So the same book (an IP) could have rights in, say,
    England and no rights in, say, the USA. (And that doesn't even
    encompass that the person creating the IP, e.g. writing the
    book, may never have had moral and/or commercial rights ---
    signed them away before the IP was created, for example.)

    Additionally, the IP rights in the US are often not the ones
    of the creator. (At least over here you can't sign away your
    moral rights ...)

    That definition also makes no sense.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 4, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.