-- Why is that a trick? AFAIK, copyright law doesn\'t prohibit the dissemination or use of information gained by assimilating copyrighted material unless that dissemination takes the form of copying a document and distributing it without permission.
My apologies for continued snipping if I hit the wrong parts. Trying to leave the juicy stuff.
The 'trick' here is that some companies want to publicly be anti-piracy, but behind doors help some of these so-called pirates. That's why Nike and Oakley work with some of those knock-off manufacturers, and MS makes sure there's a version out there that will boot even though thousands of others are using the same license code.
But now we're talking about how to take advantage of copyright laws. I'd rather talk about how there shouldn't be any.
And vote with your wallet. I agree!
I use the term "price-inflated" because monopolies can inflate the price greatly, as any competition will be shut down by the government.
Even if I did, that wouldn't make me a thief.
OK dubya :) If the problem is that record executives don't get paid enough, you're right that my solution would exacerbate the problem.
My point exactly! Free markets can work. Nobody's suing the Gideons.
Maybe you should press charges against me pre-emptively.
My hard-drive has a photographic memory.. is that assimilation? You said that assimilation of copyrighted information was OK above..
OK, now suppose that the paper and ink is mine to give away. Should that be illegal?
I would of course think that this is a great scam I am in on. You're jealous aren't you. Perhaps I am too, hard to turn down money for nothing..
Exactly!! The free market should decide that; not a government body manipulating the market by enforcing monopolies given to the highest bidders.
There's a good example, thank you. Other examples include works of art made for a specific publisher, works of art made for a specific concert or performance, works of art made under salary, etc..
We already gave the examples of any copies of the Bible or Romeo and Juliet sold today.
You really don't think there's profit to be had in free market?
No. I never said I should decide. I said a free market should decide.
I don't think people should be able to sneak into a movie theatre without the owner's permission. A movie theatre is private property, made of massive materials and existing in a permanent location. You can't go in without permission - trespassing and theft of services, with the services being easily quantifiable due to the expensive speakers and projection equipment.
The theatre is also allowed to search you on the way in if they want and to not allow camcorders. However if you don't want the information to go into the public domain, you probably shouldn't be showing it to the public. You especially shouldn't be selling DVDs.
Cheers - shevek
-- Well, you were the one who brought up the "taking advantage" part. As for me, I\'ll continue to defend patents and copyrights because I think they\'re the fairest way to make sure that artists don\'t get fucked over.
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, I think the free market should decide that kind of thing. IP laws suggest that the government should decide.
I can see why you put that in quotes here.. because you control the world? Hard to be free when your every action is controlled isn't it.
OK, so now your rigorous line betwee assimilation and reproduction is free will?
To make a profit by forced manipulation of markets by centralized power, if that's what suits us. That's the game being played today. I hope a better world will exist for our children.
We agree about that. The question is if it should remain that way.
Thank you very much. I have and I intend to continue following exactly that advice. What percentage of publications do you think are copyrighted?
You miss the point. My point is that I entirely respect the work and talent it takes to bring a product (be it an invention, a book, whatever) to market. I don't think it should be usurped by the talent and work it takes to pay an armed government to enforce a monopoly in the marketplace.
What patent, trademark, or copyright, is not for sale to the highest bidder? They are routinely brought and sold, and I doubt the buyer is selected by many other criteria.
No, I argue that monopolies shouldn't be enforced by the government.
Hello mr. strawman. What are you talking about here? You are the one arguing for government control of markets. Thank you for admitting at least that much.
-- > >> --- > >> What you\'re advocating here is no different from stating that it\'s > >> OK to let people sneak into a movie without paying as long as the > >> movie makes as much as _you_ think it should. > >> --- > > > >No. I never said I should decide. I said a free market should decide. > > --- > Bullshit. By stating that someone makes too much, you make yourself > the arbiter of how much is enough. I never said that either. I said JK Rowling might make less without IP laws, and I asked what you thought about that. Care to put any other words in my mouth? > --- > > >I don\'t think people should be able to sneak into a movie theatre > >without the owner\'s permission. A movie theatre is private property, > > --- > So is the film being shown there. > Yes, the film, being made of an organic compound, having a clear weight and position in space, is also private property. > > >made of massive materials and existing in a permanent location. You > >can\'t go in without permission - trespassing and theft of services, > >with the services being easily quantifiable due to the expensive > >speakers and projection equipment. > > --- > Theft of services being watching the movie without paying for it. > Same as theft of services by buying a copy of a bootleg DVD, say, > the theft having been committed by the pirate and his knowing > customer. > --- I don\'t follow you there. If I buy a piece of plastic legally purchased by Joe Schmoe.. how have I committed theft? > --- > The information doesn\'t go into the public domain, it becomes > illegal material publicly available, and it isn\'t shown to the > public, it\'s shown to that segment of the public which can afford to > pay to see it. > > As far as not selling DVD\'s goes, your premise becomes one of "Since > we know that DVDs are going to be bootlegged, the only real defense > against that is not to produce DVDs at all." Patently ridiculous. > > I never said that you shouldn\'t produce DVDs. I said you shouldn\'t produce DVDs if you didn\'t want the material to appear in the public domain. You can still make big money by making and selling DVDs. Cheers - shevek
-- So if someone made a billion in your system it would be OK, but in the current system it wouldn\'t?
In the case of flavoured water with famous name there is no patent protection on the material itself, anybody is allowed to make similar products. Many have done that, think of Pepsi.
But the customer has the right to know what product he is buying. Hence it is not allowed to place the label "Coca Cola" onto your homebrew and sell it. After all, if your customers get intestinal problems from your product, they should sue you, and not Coca cola. That is what we have rules about trade names and brands for.
It also allows companies to achieve a reputation for their products and then claim a higher price, because customers have learned to trust them.
They'll be even more likely to have to work for a living without the protectionism. I encourage them to stand on the shoulders of giants, and not to re-invent the wheel.
Because it could mean cheaper consumer goods, more efficient use of funds, elimination of vast beaurocracy, and more rapid progress of humanity.
Sorry for my krappy sentence. Should have been "surpassed".
I have no problem with consensual contractural arrangements. However as I'm sure you're aware one shouldn't put too much faith in one of those if the material is that sensitive.
I'd rather you patted them on the back for helping spread your idea. I'd rather you made a deal with him for the plans of your ideas. I'd rather you had a better grasp of the idea and were able to undercut his production.
Your two clauses in that senetence contradict each other.
I imagine she will handle the responsibility well, but I haven't read anything about her other than the fortune 500 tagline. I'm a little torn on the issue. On the one hand I feel that government control of the market leads to corruption and inefficiencies, but on the other hand a "benevolant monarchy" can solve some of the predator-prey problems of free markets, and help deserving parties such as Rowling.
Yeah, I know. Pretty silly isn't it? Hard to believe this is the 21st century. When do you think this barbarism will end?
:)
Well the bootleg producers for one..
OK sorry.. DVDs put the information into the domain of the public.
You don't see the difference?
In a bank robbery the property is tangible, it exists. You have threatened peoples lives, and taken some object from its owners.
When you sell a bootlegged DVD, let's say copyrighted by Viacom, you have not taken any physical object from Viacom. All you have done is competed with them. They may claim that your actions prevented them from doing business, but that is true of any business with competition.
--- Yeah, and make a lot less than they could by having their talent protected. That is, _if_ they had any talent.
---
--- Standing on the shoulders of giants doesn't mean climbing up there without their permission.
---
--- All at the expense of the innovators, as it was in the past?
You advocate a system where those who make the system better by contributing to it in an intellectually meaningful way have to fight a losing battle to stay alive even though they were the ones who allowed the system to thrive because of their contributions.
That's just plain old vanilla communism, and it doesn't work.
We aren't a colony of termites. We all have our individual hopes and dreams and most of us aren't willing to subvert them to idiots like you, who claim to have all of the answers and want us to kow-tow to your ideas of how things should be, for your convenience.
Or, more accurately, to give you license to steal from us.
-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
No. I think we should fight a winning battle. A battle in which our contributions are what keep us alive, rather than government intervention in the marketplace.
?? Vanilla capitalism you mean! IP laws represent centralized control of the means of production, and are thus quite clearly a socialist institution. I thought we'd agreed on that point at least..
I never said I had all the answers. I think I've been more open-minded to all sides in this discussion than you have. It's not for my convenience, I argue for our convenience.
If you feel that I've stolen from you, I'm sorry. I do appreciate that you have given me a chance to voice the laissez-faire approach to IP law. If you feel that competition is theft, and you are in business, you can expect that people will try to rob you.
Cheers - shevek
-- Hogwash. The system you advocate is parasitical and demands that the ideas of the innovators be placed into the collective, where any parasite can feed on any contribution by any innovator without even acknowledging the innovator. I know it\'s difficult for you to grasp that concept, since you admit to being one of those parasites, but those of us who aren\'t parasites want more than that. For example: If you want to get rich off of something I thought up, why shouldn\'t I get rich too? I give you the idea and all of a sudden all that matters is that you get the idea to market and work hard to fill your coffers. What about me? If it hadn\'t been for my idea you would never have been able to do any of it, yet you want to try to disclaim me as unimportant just so you won\'t have to pay me my just dues. Or have me take over your world. Grr...
On Mon, 01 May 2006 15:24:46 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian Gave us:
Actually, the entire post is utter gibberish.
On 29 Apr 2006 10:21:43 -0700, cs snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com Gave us:
No so different at all.
It would still boil down to IP. It took intelligence to create the symbol.
Copyright is copyright, whether it refers to a hard design, a trademark, or even merely an idea.
In systems integration, one doesn't sell the gear in the system, one sells one's capacity to set up a system capable of getting the task done.
When the systems cost millions of dollars each, the gear is a different end of it. They come from several makers. The systems integrator company sells their expertise in assembling an integrated solution for the task required.
That is an idea. So is software that integrates the functions of a computer and its peripherals into performing a task. That too is an idea that has been assembled into a tool for folks to repeat the functions need to perform the task that the idea was meant to solve.
You don't get to steal it.
Pretty soon, all software will be hard keyed. Again.
We won't be thwarting it with any great ease this time either.
Bye bye pirate retard market.
Say hello to better internet access when all the bandwidth is no longer being wasted by these idiots and their ISO image ULs and DLs.
Next... Movies.
Hogwash indeed. The system I advocate does not demand -anything- of the ideas of innovators - it allows innovators to choose themselves what to do with their ideas.
That parasites exist is simply a fact - legislation will not change it. Indeed they have a valuable role to play in economics and ecology.
Exactly! Why not? Why should a central government decide who does or doesn't get rich, when a free market could decide?
Sorry, I don't actually run a production company. Otherwise, I'd certainly make you an offer. I'm sure you'll find one, and if not, why not start your own?
I don't want to disclaim you as unimportant. Where did you get that idea? You can be rich and famous for applying your ideas even without protectionist government policies.
The point is that what are "just dues" are open to debate. Perhaps a free market is a better way to decide what is "just".
If I start producing DVDs and selling them at a fraction of the protected monopoly cost, the IP police will try to come in and shut me down. That is control of production.
If you want to defend the socialist institution of IP laws, do so. There are many socialist institutions worthy of defense, and I have admitted that IP laws may be one of them, though here I play the part of attacking them. But don't make false claims about their nature!
Almost.. I guess you gave me a little more hope with your last post. Cheers - shevek
And there was I thinking IP regulation was a *Capitalist* thing ! Silly me !
Graham
So you put yourself above the law.
You will pick and choose which laws to follow, and which laws to disregard, based on your opinion.
Do you want everyone to have the right to pick and choose which laws to follow, and which to ignore?
Ed
--- No, it doesn't.
Since you say, "their ideas" you're admitting that the ideas are the property of the inventor but, as you've stated previously, your system requires that the IP behind any product made available to the public become the property of the public and, as such, may be used for any purpose anyone chooses. That means that, unlike things are now, where by disclosing the ideas behind the products we get small monopolies for a while in return, your system limits our freedom to do what we want to with what is ours since we must keep it secret to keep from losing it. That is neither good for us individually or collectively.
---
--- That's not true. IP legislation has kept many would-be parasites at bay.
---
--- As examples of what not to be, for instance.
---
--- I stand a much better chance of getting rich by having a government behind me which will keep you from stealing my ideas from me than I would with the chaotic system you advocate in place.
---
--- You missed the point, which was that if you get ahold of my idea and it's not protected, then you could easily run with it and use it for your own benefit while leaving me in the lurch. Not much of a system...
---
--- Maybe by becoming a basketball player or something like that, because you couldn't steal my talent, but where IP's concerned it's so easy to steal if it isn't protected that your staement is laughable.
---
--- No, it isn't. I should be the one to maximize my own rewards, not some committee or individual who thinks that I've had enough so they're going to distribute the rest as they see fit. Is that the "freedom" you're boasting about which would come about under your system?
---
--- A free-for-all where the biggest thief takes it all is what you're talking about. Where's the justness in that?
---
--- No, that's shutting down a criminal enterprise and bringing a thief to justice.
Control of production would be if the government told Warner Brothers, say, How many CDs they were allowed to make.
---
--- There's nothing socialistic about it, since under socialism the government owns or controls the means of production and distribution of goods.
Contrast that with someone who temporarily owns a patent in a largely capitalistic society like ours and you'll see that the government isn't telling them how much to produce or even whether or not _to_ produce.
---
--- Glad I could help.
Are we done yet? ;)
-- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Copyright doe NOT refer to ideas. A trademark is also different from a copyright (though a trade mark CAN be a copyrighted logo).
For example, a rope manufacturer has a trademark: a black line woven in every rope. Is a single black line something that can be copyrighted? Bet not.
A piece of classical music can be a trade mark for something. Is the copyright exhausted on that? Yes. Can the trade mark be valid still? Yes.
Trade marks are about selling. If you do not sell, they do not apply. But they are protected as long as they are in use (while patents and copyrights expire). Trade mark law does not apply when I give someone a DVD.
For the different "IP" types there are diffeent rules - with a reason. And they don't mix.
You get to steal this one often! It might not be advisable, but a sales person selling you the right equipment invests time and knowledge. Can you buy it cheaper next time mail-order? Of course.
Most software will be free. The paid-for software tries to extract more and more of the existing customer base, to meet investor growth demand (which is not sustainable). So the customers will run away.
Thomas
It works both ways. Disney may make most money selling their DVDs for 2 weeks, taking them back and destroying them (they studied that method I think), but for the world as in environment and number available for a certain cost it would be better to sell them all and discount them in the end.
There is something to be said for: "if you do not use what you created, someone else can use it".
It works both ways. If the state wouldn't mingle, everyone would be free to copy and expand on work of others.
Copyrights were invented to reward authors. They have a monopoly on their creations. Like everything, copyright has its abusers. In music, but also in the visual area. For some buildings, money is demanded if a picture of the building is printed. I'd think an architect would be paid by whoever builds or rents, but no by whoever prints. But a copyright organization is abusing...
Patents are for inventors. Patents have this problem that independent re-creation still violates a patent. That doesn't scale: with the number of inventors rising, the number of patent attorneys will rise with the square. You may not like it, but it is the reality. So what? Invalidate patents as they become 'obvious'?
Everyone builds on work of others. Without the base, no-one would create anything.
Those who have (existing business) tries to protect that.
Inventors should make money, extortionists should not.
How cool is it to create a funny shape ink tank that is patented so customers can only buy your ink? Abuse of the patent system to protect a business model? Didn't the customer buy an implicit licese to the patent when buying the printer?
Draw the line somewhere - it should be clear that isis not a matter of 'just needing more protection'.
As for the music industry: it is a relic. Not needed any more. Recording equipment is affordable, and so is distribution. Maybe the producers?
Thomas
On Mon, 08 May 2006 22:26:44 +0200, Zak Gave us:
Hahahaha... You're dreaming.
It's all about FEATURES, dude. The productivity software with the best feature set ALWAYS wins. Price is sometimes weighed in by smaller penny pinching firms.
If Quake 5, Unreal 2020, Half Life 3, or Battlefield 3 came out tomorrow, but only worked with the included hardware dongle key that came with it, you can bet any of those titles would still sell like hotckaes, despite any authentication measures or requisites.
Hell, one cannot even play BF2 even single player without logging into the master server and getting authenticated for your ENTIRE SESSION... Over and over again, each server... each round. They are lame! Those retarded bastards (EA Games) took it to a foul extreme, but they are on the right track. The right way is to include an RFID authentication device. A thimble, if you will. No need for thrashing my hard drive digging keys out of my registry and such other CRAP!
Expensive EDA software that requires dongles doesn't have their sales foundering due to authentication measures either. It is in demand, and it will get bought. The older Dongles were circumnavigatable. The new generation is NOT, nor will it be any time soon. Too costly to even think about hacking it.
Back in the floppy days, Broderbund tried this (hard sectored, uncopyable floppies), and almost went under due to a response like that which you describe... ALMOST. It failed to be boycotted by all, however. Still, BI took the hint and stopped the practice. You can thank video gamers for the new trend in authentication and validation. well, at least, the pirates of the software are to blame.
I see the future. You only wish it could be a certain way. Hard keys are in our future.
Regardless of what we might like things to be like, there are hard realities. One of which WILL be software (firmware) runtime authentication and validation measures. Many softwares send messages to their authors when you run it on a connected machine.
We will go to USB key thimbles. It IS in our future... too f****ng bad. Put that in your ICE and try to hack it. Good luck.
On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:10:07 -0500, John Fields Gave us:
snip
Great retort.
Long live free enterprise and entrepreneurship, and the good ol' fashioned buck, and the labor behind making one!
Back in the ol' west days, they'd call that guy a thief and take the ultimate possession... from him.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.