 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
>> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
>> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
>> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
>
> they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders. Hence
They would also not be able to do this if not for politicians.
I suppose you'd be OK with a tax on all printers, their accessories,
and all paper because of book piracy?
How about just a general statewide tax for all the products that
normally get pilfered in stores?
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
>> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
>> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
>> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
>
> they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders. Hence
> the phrase " freeloaders that are ruining it for *everybody* ". It's the
> same old story: Some break the law, everybody is made to pay the price
> because they either protect the law breakers or are oblivious to it.
I also, BTW, find it amusing that you invoke "free market" in one
message on the issue, and then seem to think little of them using the
government to get what they want.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Now, if all the effort people put into finding ways of stealing other
> people's works could be put into actually creating something of their own...
Thanks for the non sequitur.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a060cba$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
> >> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
> >> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
> >> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
> >
> > they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders.
Hence
> > the phrase " freeloaders that are ruining it for *everybody* ". It's the
> > same old story: Some break the law, everybody is made to pay the price
> > because they either protect the law breakers or are oblivious to it.
>
> I also, BTW, find it amusing that you invoke "free market" in one
> message on the issue, and then seem to think little of them using the
> government to get what they want.
Free market != lawlessness/stealing. On the contrary, free market works on
the principle that people speak with their money. If product X is deemed
unworthy of the price, people don't buy it, period. Or if a product Y is
good, people buy that product and the manufacturer gets its reward and is
infused with funds to further develop good products. With rampant
piracy/stealing, free market doesn't work as it is intended to. In the
extreme case that, say, all art is being pirated, you have the complete
antithesis of free market where government has to support all artists via
mandatory taxes from the population. Which is of course highly undesirable,
as then art will be subject to government politics and censoring. So, for
free market to work, both the manufacturer *and the consumer* have play by
the rules that create a fair environment. If the consumer is not, then
government compensates for it. Is it desirable for government to intervene
after the fact? Of course not. But it's the consumer that broke the fair
play.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 15:46:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The owners are appealing their case,
>
> They still lost, and it's still only Sweden. Even if they win, it's not
> going to be worth the hassle for people to run search sites if they're
> in it for the money instead of the fame.
Arguably for most, search sites for any content (with a few notable
exceptions) aren't huge money makers...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a060c38$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> >> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
> >> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
> >> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
> >> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.
> >
> > they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders.
Hence
> They would also not be able to do this if not for politicians.
>
> I suppose you'd be OK with a tax on all printers, their accessories,
> and all paper because of book piracy?
I don't know how widespread that is, but if so, yes, such a levy might be
deemed necessary. Again, it would be undesirable of course, since legitimate
users would be put into the position of subsidizing pirates. That's why
legitimate users need to support motions for ISP filtering, prosecuting
uploaders as well as downloaders... etc, if they know what's good for them.
> How about just a general statewide tax for all the products that
> normally get pilfered in stores?
Law abiding customers already pay for that with their bills, in terms of the
cost of cameras, security personel and/or compensated pricing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a060b30$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests.
It's
> I can blame them for making me pay for other people's crimes. I can
> also blame lawmakers, but that's a different story.
Do you blame the actual criminals at all?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:47:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
> That's why legitimate users need to support motions for ISP filtering,
Absolutely not. Once you get the ISPs in the business of deciding what
can and can't be viewed by the public, then you get into legislating
morality.
Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a063563$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:47:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > That's why legitimate users need to support motions for ISP filtering,
>
> Absolutely not. Once you get the ISPs in the business of deciding what
> can and can't be viewed by the public, then you get into legislating
> morality.
Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
> Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
There's no single easy easy solution. You also need to make it hard for
people to violate the law.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 20:09:36 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a063563$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:47:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>>
>> > That's why legitimate users need to support motions for ISP
>> > filtering,
>>
>> Absolutely not. Once you get the ISPs in the business of deciding what
>> can and can't be viewed by the public, then you get into legislating
>> morality.
>
> Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
You're changing the subject. Surveillance (sic) does not interfere in a
person's activity and is itself a passive activity. Packet filtering
interferes with legitimate traffic and is not a passive activity.
>> Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
>
> There's no single easy easy solution. You also need to make it hard for
> people to violate the law.
While we're at it, let's make it illegal to use photocopiers and
scanners, lord knows those are used for illegal activities.
How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit crimes.
In fact, let's outlaw any device or technology that can be used to commit
a crime of any sort.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
