 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieee org> 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
Never said nor implied that it was.
Companies try to market the result of artwork. They're free to change
their business model to survive. They've fought it in the past, lost the
fight, changed their model, and all signs indicate that they made more
profit as a result.
They'll do the same here. They've already begun to.
What irritates people is the attempts to tax goods is simply an attempt
to get innocent people to fork over money to them because of claimed
losses due to a business model they refuse to change. Then they'll
change it - and reap the benefits of both. It's simply an attempt to
accumulate more wealth.
What also irritates some is that likely, the artists aren't getting any
of the money that people are paying fines for. (Too lazy to look it up
in detail, but this came straight from the mouth of an artist) The whole
idea was to recuperate amount lost in sales, wasn't it? And artists get
paid a percentage of the sales of each album they sell. So why aren't
they getting any of that money?
The claim is always "losing sales". The evidence and the distribution
of the money they "reclaim" suggests otherwise.
The specifics of the notions behind copyright are *not* universally
applicable throughout all times, and are quite related to technology. As
such, technology can and does change what is considered acceptable.
Copyright's main purpose is to promote the production of artistic
material. The financial aspect is merely a means to maintain that
promotion - not an end in itself. Once copyright law exceeds that goal
it has exceeded its bounds. I can't see a good reason for a law that
guarantees one can profit from something one created 70 years ago, for
example. 10? 20? Maybe even 30. But 70? Nope. Certainly not an argument
to support the promotion of arts. If anything, having such a long
lifetime discourages artists from producing more work.
As I said - copyright is not by any means a human right. It has become
a government enforced privilege - and unlike driving licenses, it is a
privilege that has gone well beyond its benefits.
And once you greatly exceed any bounds, you'll create the outlaws that
exist. You advocate the erosion of others' freedoms to go after the
outlaws. I advocate a revamping of the laws because they don't seem to
support the reasons those laws existed to begin with.
I just can't see an argument supporting taxing others, and passing laws
that interfere with how other people live, over excessive rights for
which there's no reason certain people have. If you can't enforce those
rights without encumbering the majority, it's a sign that those rights
are questionable.
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
Do surveillance cameras impede my movement and ensure I buy only
certain items?
>> Prosecute those who *actually violate the law*.
>
> There's no single easy easy solution. You also need to make it hard for
Which could be a hint that the problem may not be what you think it is.
Copyright is not a human right, you know.
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> 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
I must say I wouldn't.
> 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.
You're advocating losing certain freedoms to save a few bucks? I can
easily see lots of legitimate users disagreeing with you. It's not like
you're advocating a solution that has no harm. And certainly, it's like
a false dichotomy. Why can't legitimate users just say "Go after the
criminals, and if not feasible, then too bad."?
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "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?
For forcing me to pay extra? Not at all. If their crimes were so
serious that the welfare of the society were seriously at stake, I'd
understand. As it is, their crimes are against an obsolete business
model. Those behind the model may have legitimate complaints, but I see
no reason why I should make up for their losses.
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, and the recording companies somehow can't raise what they charge?
For one case, you're supporting a tax. Over here, you're saying it's
not needed because people already pay for it via security devices. Use
the same logic to those companies in the art world to avoid the tax.
(Missed this one the first time round)
--
He who slings mud generally loses ground.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0639f3$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
How so? I use spam filtering and while spams indeed get filtered out,
legitimate content just passes through. Active/passive activity distinction
is arbitrary. Everything is "active" on the internet, otherwise packets
never will go from one point to another.
> >> 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.
Glad you brought it up, you are only helping my case. See, commercial
copiers already have "active" filters in them, and will block and even lock
up when trying to copy currency. That's a very "active" measure taken to
*prevent* a crime, and it's a good one, IMO. Google "Eurion Constellation",
for instance. Sure, it will only deter amateurs with bad judgement, but like
I said above, there's no single easy solution to combatting piracy. I lock
my door every day, even though it would take a professional 5 seconds to
unlock it. You *have* to make it hard to break the law.
> How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit crimes.
Did I ever mention outlawing internet or copiers? In any case, that's a very
silly slippery slope argument not worth countering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Do surveillance cameras impede my movement and ensure I buy only
> certain items?
If we install high-powered lasers on 'em, they do. XD
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a065733$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "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.
> >> 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?
> For forcing me to pay extra? Not at all. If their crimes were so
> serious that the welfare of the society were seriously at stake,
Fine, if you think the crime is not serious and that it doesn't affect
society, pay the levies, fees and taxes that result.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a065596$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> > news:4a060cba$1@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:
> > Free market != lawlessness/stealing. On the contrary, free market works
on
>
> Never said nor implied that it was.
> Companies try to market the result of artwork. They're free to change
> their business model to survive.
Something like: If I steal your car, you are free to ride a bike to work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
> downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a bigger
> crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to make
> money.
It's not the music industry's fault that the software industry does not go
after illegal software as vigorously. There's nothing stopping Microsoft or
similar other software giants trying to take the same route as the music
industry. I wonder why they don't?
> Where is the corproration that protects *my* rights as a professional
> programmer? That hunts people who copy my software without paying the
> proper price, who sues them and then gives me the money I deserve?
I guess you could work for a "real" industry and then you'd have the proper
legal support :-)
> Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
> to be even nearly as bad as music piracy.
Why on Earth should the music industry care about the software industry?
> So what if someone's song is copied? He can go and get a real job like
> anyone else.
Same could be said for computer games and their programmers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
