Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Stevens, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. If someone burgles my bicycle, I don't have any and have to walk.
    If someone COPIES my bicycle, I STILL have mine and will ride it.

    See any difference?

    (Of course you cannot admit there is one. Because you would
    then have to admit that your "burgle" example has been dragged
    in by the hair.)

    Do you have to work hard to find such completely idiotic and
    wrong interpretations, or are you just naturally blonde?

    So microsoft was never in court and judged guilty for that
    crime? Even if all they got was a slap on the wrist as

    And the Earth *is* flat and I killed Kennedy *and* Genghis
    Khan, too.

    Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?

    Or can you point me to where the law says "Theft is ... the
    copying of intellectual property"?

    The manner in which you try your hand in character assassination
    tells me that you are either too stupid to know what you are
    doing, or you know fully well that you have lost the argument
    and resort to beating the messenger to a virtual pulp to save
    your hide.

    The way in which you avoid answering questions when the answer
    is bad for you rules out the "too stupid" part.

    Which means that --- I am sorry to say that --- you are
    intellectual dishonest and should pursue a career where lying
    and sidestepping reality and attacking everyone who challenges
    you is an advantage. Extremist politican, terrorist ("We had
    to kill them, it's your fault for not doing as we ordered you
    to") or war crimes apologist come to mind.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 10, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. [/QUOTE]
    So you didn't dump it when you got it.
    You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need
    for that old version.

    Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession,
    you STOLE from Adobe. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again,
    since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least.

    OK, so now you're cutting down your own straw man ...
    .... let me quote the original:
    | Paying 20 bucks on
    | the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    | joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    | quite different ....

    See ... you admit you were buying by group (or composer), not

    Bach is a superstar.
    So which one of the ones named here
    did you hear this year on your concert program?

    How many of
    have you ever heard on radio?

    Which evidence?

    Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster
    (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way
    more than average on music.

    Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the
    books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of
    the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers
    and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave

    Where's youre evidence?

    It seems you haven't found the way yet, even though it's just
    a google away. Here's one for you:

    No more excuses now. Go read.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 10, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to
    tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics. I kept it around so
    I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could
    explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet".
    I didn't steal. I received a copy of stolen intellectual property. You
    almost got it right. Having that copy in my possession put Adobe at
    risk of never selling me CS2. :)

    In fact Adobe puts themselves at risk of never having me as a customer
    by their pricing policy, but that's a different matter.
    You are confused. Those are your own words you were quoting.
    Not that many. A few years ago they moved the transmitter antennae and
    I'm now in the shadow of a hill. The best FM reception is on my alarm
    clock-radio. However, I have some 2000 vinyl LPs and a lesser number
    of CDs. They cover music from Carmina Burana to Schubert. There is
    great swag of German organ and choral music and an almost equally
    large collection from Monteverdi to Schubert. There is a certain
    amount outside this range also. This is where I get my music these
    Certainly Hildegard of Bingen, Bernard of Cluny, Albertus Parisiensis,
    Chrétien de Troyes among others.
    Well, this discussion for a start.
    Which evidence?
    Same place as yours.
    Why does he keep using the word 'theft'?
    Eric Stevens, Dec 10, 2012
  4. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Actually, I've got this bicycle shop and there is a guy outside the
    door who has a machine which copies the bikes in my window and he
    gives them away for free.
    And you have twisted it away from the actual line of argument.
    I'm saying the fundamental question of theft of intellectual property
    has nothing to do with anyone being convicted as a monopolist.
    It's not character assassination by me. Your arguments speak for
    A freedom fighter I see.
    Eric Stevens, Dec 10, 2012
  5. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    What I wrote wasn't character assassination. It was an opinion reached
    on the basis of your own words.Irrespective of the words used, the
    argument all along has been about the unauthorized copying of
    intellectual property. It doesn't matter whether it is music or a book
    The law gives the creator the right to control the use of their own
    work (intellectual property).

    They are entitled to limit the number of people who have access to the
    work, they can license the use of a specified number of copies under
    specific terms of their choice, they can sell the rights to control
    the use of the intellectual property to others etc.

    At the root of the argument is the fact that unauthorized copying
    causes the creator to lose control of the use of their property.
    That's what copyright is all about: control of the use of the
    property. I am sure you understand this.

    You are a strong advocate of the unauthorized copying of intellectual
    copying. You have consistently avoided the problems caused to the
    creator by the loss of control of their intellectual property by

    1. It's only copying, you haven't deprived the creator of the
    intellectual property or its use.

    2. You determinedly ignore the loss of opportunity cost and argue
    that copying does no harm.

    3. You argue that the creator has already been ripped off by the fat
    cats of the record companies so the damage to them might be a form of
    social reparation.

    4. You argue that the creators obtain the benefits from a wider
    dissemination of their work as a result of unauthorized copying.

    .... and similar arguments. None of these arguments can be regarded as
    honest and your persistent use of them paints an unfortunate picture
    of your personal ethics.
    Eric Stevens, Dec 11, 2012
  6. Eric Stevens

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Is that really true as the word stole can't be applied to IP.
    he can't have stolen it as it was given to him too.

    He didn;t rip off the copy.

    Sebastian's a superstar :-0

    Yes I'd like to see that evidence, not the stories or the fertile imagination of the music or software industry but real evidence.

    The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money.
    Whisky-dave, Dec 11, 2012
  7. [/QUOTE]
    What's your address? I want to shake the hands of the guy
    outside who managed to win several Nobel prices upending all
    of our physics, singlehandedly solving the problem of free,
    clean energy for everyone, teaching us how to transmute atoms at
    will and form them into any possible shape, near instantly ---
    thus solving world hunger (just transform atoms into food),
    nature catastophy help (just transform the atoms into houses,
    new roads, phone lines, or whatever is needed), solving the
    problem of limited parking space (just transform your car into
    air or something small and compact --- and transform it back
    again when you need it), solving the problem of pollution
    (just transform the pollution into inert or useful stuff),
    solving worldwide access to clean water everywhere (even in
    the driest desert: just transform some sand into a bottle
    full of good water --- or a full luxury meal with fine wine
    in a clima controlled restaurant (minus patrons and personal
    outside yourself)), solving all poverty (just transform air
    or ground into whatever you want right now) --- and thereby
    instantly solving (almost) all problems of theft or other
    property crimes (people who are mentally ill and steal because
    of that exempted), solve all and any oil crisis (transmute water
    or air or rocks to fuel), freeing everyone from drudgery and
    jobs where little creativity is needed, and so on and so on.
    Never mind opening the solar system for easy travel and easy
    colonization of the Moon (transform the regolith to air and
    water and shelters and food) and Mars (send in a couple of
    machines --- powering the rocket on the way --- in 15 days
    on a fuel saving 0.01g brachistochrone course, landing and
    starting to transform the Martian soil to more such machines
    and transporters for them, which then in a couple months are
    everywhere over the planet and create a breathable athmosphere,
    while the new settlers (on more zero-cost-per-unit rockets
    and fuel come in at a 1g brachistochrone transfer in 4 days.))

    And all YOU do is "whine whine he's giving away bicycles
    whine whine in front of my bicycle shop whine whine we need
    him stopped whine my outdated business model must be protected
    whine whine he's a thief, a pirate whine whine".

    So where's your bicycle shop?

    I guess your kind was the same that made laws so that at least
    one person had to walk or run in front of an autombile waving
    a flag to warn everyone ... because otherwise buggy whip makers
    might suffer.

    Your actual line of argument, which insists that there is no
    difference between physical objects and information, and that
    copying is theft (it's not, just like libel isn't slander).

    What's fundamental about the simple fact you have to remove
    the last copy an entity owns to perform something similar to
    a theft[1] of intellectual property?

    As to your poor bicycle shop: You loosing money because someone
    can produce bicycles for much cheaper than you can is not
    theft either. Even if they build identical copies.

    I notice your silence. Stunning.

    What my arguments speak is something completely different from
    what you want them to say.

    Nope. Just someone who's looking through your rethoric and
    lies (you might have a bicycle shop --- but I doubt it --- and
    there ISN'T someone copying your bikes for free. The latter
    is not simply doable with our technology. That you feel the
    need to invent the impossible[2] ... well, your arguments
    speak for themselves.


    [1] in as much as then the taker has an embodyment of the
    intellectual property and the takee doesn't have one.

    [2] and very badly. An SF writer would have seen implications.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  8. In the same way in which hate mongers preaching that God wants
    all others but their own sect dead use the Bible or the Quran
    as the basis.
    What argument? That's not an argument but a statement of facts.
    One of the arguments is whether the current parameters of
    these laws are good for society as they are.

    No, they are not, not after the first sale.

    One copy is all that is needed, it just needs to be passed
    along a lot.
    They can try.
    Try licensing a physical book that way.
    Try licensing a music sheet that way.
    Those were your examples: a book and music.


    A sale also causes the creator to lose control of the use of
    their INTELLECTUAL property.

    Nope, that's not what copyright is all about.

    Copyright is all about maximising the works available to the
    public --- for which purpose a limited monopoly is granted.

    If you really, honestly think that, I question your ability to
    impartially read what other write when they disagree with you.

    But I don't think you could be that dense.
    And that's a fact.

    It does however hurt artifical scarity and prices seen as
    unfair by the broad public --- which one could claim is harmful
    to society.
    Where would I have claimed that? I've claimed that a copyright
    over the current period of time causes loss and cost to the
    public in a bad relation to the wins of a few.

    I also claim that trivial patents --- as they are extremely
    common these days --- cause extremely high costs and hinders
    innovation instead of promoting it.

    I am saying that in the case of record companies --- one of
    the parties really screaming bloody murder regarding illegal
    copying --- do in no way fight "for the artists" as they claim,
    but rip them off whereever they can. True. But where did
    you get the "so" part? Please show me where I said that, or
    stop smoking whatever you are smoking!

    I argue --- and point to the numbers --- that prove that (given
    quality works) wider dissemination does cause people to get
    interested and buy, which otherwise would not have done that,
    causing an overall win.

    I don't argue that that has to be by unauthorized copying,
    in fact, my main example uses completely authorized copying.

    read: You found that I have real numbers from real people living
    by their creativity and have nothing at all to counter them,
    so you go ad hominem.

    You probably cannot comprehend that one can argue for a change
    of laws without breaking the very same laws one wants changed.

    Or do you understand that and therefore like your character
    assassination? Demonizing people thinking or being differently
    from one is a tactic extremists, racists, tyrants and terrorists
    of all kinds like.

    Either way: you're either too stupid or evil, and neither
    paints a fortunate picture of your character.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  9. [/QUOTE]
    So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could
    theoretically punch your face?
    *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk
    upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the
    face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic
    control freak.

    A receiver of stolen goods is also a thief and worse than a
    thief, for they form the financial basis of theft.
    Just aping your logic, thief.
    Yep. It absolutely was a lost sale for Adobe.

    And you're stealing from Adobe again, by not buying for the
    price they're asking.

    I am confused: What is your point? Do you agree that a "test
    drive" of some group or composer's work is valuable when you
    don't know them, or not?

    4 out of 198 (unless I miscounted).

    "If something new comes on the radio they close their ears so
    they don't have a chance to decide whether or not they want it."
    said you. Well, there's not much need to close ones ears if
    most of the stuff never even comes on non-mainstream radio.

    And the situation is much worse with contemporary bands.
    You probably couldn't find all the bands in the surroundings
    of the next large city, never mind hearing them or their music.

    Where exactly?

    And don't dare to point at me: I don't download music unless
    it's been put up with consent from the copyright holder for
    that express purpose.

    So: where is your "many/most" evidence?
    For example here:

    See also:

    Your URL please?

    Is that ALL you have to say? No other comment? Really?

    If you genuinely wonder why an author may choose to use a word
    which, even though technically incorrect, is commonly used by
    those who think different ... send him an email.

    If you honestly declare you're too stupid to differenciate
    between a very specifc crime of a certain name and something
    else, namely illegal copying, I'll use the word as well.
    Wouldn't what to overtax your brain.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  10. Eric doesn't believe in that.
    A fence is just as bad as a thief.

    He had one, and it was not legal. Ergo: ripped off.

    Well, maybe some people are barely held in check by the threat
    of punishment and they think everyone is that way.

    Or maybe they are paranoid and think everyone but themselves
    is evil.

    Would that count as evidence?

    Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and
    therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  11. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of
    CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and
    why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him.

    In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either
    personally or for a long time. I have no hesitation in telling you my
    analysis of what you have said to me.

    As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a
    logical argument. I presume you desire to punch me comes from me
    saying to you:

    "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but
    that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not
    entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it

    Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of
    arguing leaves the impression that you are not entirely honest or
    trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your
    --- snip ---

    I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to
    wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen.
    Eric Stevens, Dec 16, 2012
  12. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I would never claim "every copy" is a lost sale but the industry
    argument is that a significant proportion of them are. What's more
    they have produced evidence to support that argument.
    Eric Stevens, Dec 16, 2012
  13. "significant" is such a ... variable word. As seen by the
    last Space Shuttle disaster, it can mean --- on the very same
    powerpoint slide! --- "just measurable, no ill effect at all"
    and "everybody dies". (Look up the statistical meaning of

    I guess there are a few sales that are lost and they probably
    could be measured[1]. I also guess that there is a siginificant
    number of sales which were only made because of the copy.
    Which people arguing for "lost sales" conveniently tend to
    forget in public.

    In fact, every company that offers student and education
    versions and/or pricing is voluntarily losing part of a sale
    (namely the difference to the full price) on the recognition
    that students one day earn income and, once used to or addicted
    to a product (say Windows) will continue to buy the product or
    it's replacements and on the recognition that students often
    aren't rich and therefore the full price would mean a fully
    lost sale as well.

    see [1]. What evidence did they produce that does not
    immediately fail with glaring obvious mistakes to anyone
    skilled in the art of economics and statistics?
    Name URLs.


    [1] Not that e.g. the music industry who always flogs that horse
    ever seriously did. Assuming an economic downturn does not
    affect CD sales is pretty stupid even for them. But maybe
    they did and on purpose never admitted the real effect ...
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 16, 2012
  14. [/QUOTE]
    So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently
    isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it.
    So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you
    receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word,
    but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who
    disagrees with you might do the same ....

    THAT casts an interesting light on your morality.

    We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their
    own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that
    person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware
    if the opposition does something not *fully* right ...

    .... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard
    that's being applied, and rightly so.
    And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments.
    Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that.

    Your characterisation of me is not an argument.
    You might think the path to that characterization "logical",
    but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken".
    See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such
    a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave
    the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone
    taking offense in a way that hurt you directly.

    Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question.

    At least you got that your characterization might be considered
    offensive by some recipients.
    I *think* it's backpaddeling.
    You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a
    lot ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 20, 2012
  15. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    The copying had already been done and the chain of events stopped with

    My criticism of you is based not on my suspicions but on your own
    Of course I dislike your arguments in this case: they are dishonest
    and I have told you so to your face.>
    You laid the path.
    If you felt no urge to punch me, why did you raise the question?
    I knew damned well you wouldn't like it. But neither did the burglar
    when I told him to stop trying to break into my house.
    What you think doesn't matter.
    Eric Stevens, Dec 20, 2012
  16. [/QUOTE]

    No comment?

    You did nothing to undo the untold damage (just look at what
    a single song costs when copied, and you get them at less than
    a dollar! Compare that to the damages awarded. Compare that
    to the retail price of a full Photoshop. Connect the dots.).
    The same way that killing people who don't convert to their
    religion is based on the holy books by fanatists: sloppy, willfully
    misreading and ignoring what doesn't fit the preconceived results.

    No comment? Well, at least you seem to have the sense to
    stop digging sometimes.
    So for you arguments are people, have morality, etc. instead of
    having some truth or not and being logically correct or incorrect,
    supporting or not supporting some position?
    When did we meet where, then?
    Perhaps you did tell my arguments when they were displayed on
    your screen ...

    As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water ...

    You need to *follow* the path, not stumble off it after a few
    steps and run off in circles. I've done my part, more than that.
    Now it's your job.

    To test a hypothesis. Which turned out to be true.

    Seeing you jump from a hypothetical possibility to a desire is
    merely a bonus, and a nice insight into your psyche.

    Let's play Eric: "I presume you are itching for a beating".
    You objected to him copying your CD collection and you sued
    him on the wear and tear of your CDs and CD cases.

    So why do you spill your tinking all over the place, even
    after being repeatedly told you're wrong? Who died and made
    *you* king?

    BTW: thanks for telling me I'm on the right track. It *is*

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 27, 2012
    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.