 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> If you do take the context it is clear that Darren is using Pirate Bay
> to signal that now persons can be held responsible for things on their
> server if they can know that it may be violating copyrights.
I wonder how long it will take before copyright holders will stop chasing
individuals and instead lobby western governments to impose huge taxes on
internet connections which everybody must pay (regardless of whether they
download music illegally or not), the money going to the music industry.
After they tax the internet, they will start taxing everything that can
contain data, such as, rather obviously, mp3 players, but less obviously
memory cards, usb sticks, cellphones, hard disks, CD-R(W)s, DVD-R(W)s, etc.
After that they will start taxing everything that can *transfer* data,
even if it can't *store* it. This will include things like ADSL modems,
network cards, routers, usb hubs, wlan access points...
After that they will be start taxing people for the sole reason that
they *might* listen to music illegally.
Am I exaggerating here? I'm not. In Finland they are trying to pass a
law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
tax". Yes, this will include people who are deaf or blind (or both), and
people with no TV, internet or even computers. And this regardless of how
much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In Finland they are trying to pass a
> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
> tax".
Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will nevertheless
*still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the internet
(even if those episodes have been broadcast here already).
Of course.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2009 15:37, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If you do take the context it is clear that Darren is using Pirate Bay
>> to signal that now persons can be held responsible for things on their
>> server if they can know that it may be violating copyrights.
>
> I wonder how long it will take before copyright holders will stop chasing
> individuals and instead lobby western governments to impose huge taxes on
> internet connections which everybody must pay (regardless of whether they
> download music illegally or not), the money going to the music industry.
>
> After they tax the internet, they will start taxing everything that can
> contain data, such as, rather obviously, mp3 players, but less obviously
> memory cards, usb sticks, cellphones, hard disks, CD-R(W)s, DVD-R(W)s, etc.
>
> After that they will start taxing everything that can *transfer* data,
> even if it can't *store* it. This will include things like ADSL modems,
> network cards, routers, usb hubs, wlan access points...
>
> After that they will be start taxing people for the sole reason that
> they *might* listen to music illegally.
>
> Am I exaggerating here? I'm not. In Finland they are trying to pass a
> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
> tax". Yes, this will include people who are deaf or blind (or both), and
> people with no TV, internet or even computers. And this regardless of how
> much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
>
sounds familiar. One of the side effects of the current financial crisis
might be that legislators start realizing that it may not be optimal to
adjust laws to benefit those that can afford to buy a politician. Though
I doubt that that will happen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a0547b8$1@news.povray.org...
> From: "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> Newsgroups: povray.off-topic
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:00 AM
> Subject: The next evolution in P2P
>
>
> > This would eliminate the ability to rationally accuse some site like The
> > Pirate Bay of knowing what's in the torrents they're serving. The site
> > would have to actively go and try to download some of every data stream
> > and then check it to find out what's in the torrent.
>
> I'm not sure that would change anything. Either the site can point to
> torrents in a usable way (providing content descriptions, rating etc.) or
it
> can't. It it can then the site can be accused to assist in copyright
> infringement and no amount of obfuscation or "king kong defense" will
> matter. If it cannot then the site is useless and whatever business model
it
> has falls apart.
> BTW, there's an idea floating around, that consists in encrypting content
> without giving the key, but still making it not too hard to crack, so
people
> wanting the content can easily get it (by using a cracking tool and
waiting
> a couple of minutes). However, people wanting to prove an infringement
would
> also have to crack the key, which could be illegal in some legal systems
and
> make the proof null in court, a little like B&E someone's house to prove
> that he stole your things. I don't think it's workable in practice either
> (law enforcement agencies could bypass it of course) , but it's cute.
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a0586fc@news.povray.org...
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > If you do take the context it is clear that Darren is using Pirate Bay
> > to signal that now persons can be held responsible for things on their
> > server if they can know that it may be violating copyrights.
> I wonder how long it will take before copyright holders will stop
chasing
> individuals and instead lobby western governments to impose huge taxes on
> internet connections which everybody must pay (regardless of whether they
> download music illegally or not), the money going to the music industry.
>
> After they tax the internet, they will start taxing everything that can
> contain data, such as, rather obviously, mp3 players, but less obviously
> memory cards, usb sticks, cellphones, hard disks, CD-R(W)s, DVD-R(W)s,
etc.
I'm not sure if it's tongue in cheek, especially since Finland already has
that for CDs and DVDs. Blank media levies and taxes on audio recorders have
been implemented since the days of the tape recorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax
> After that they will start taxing everything that can *transfer* data,
> even if it can't *store* it. This will include things like ADSL modems,
> network cards, routers, usb hubs, wlan access points...
>
> After that they will be start taxing people for the sole reason that
> they *might* listen to music illegally.
>
> Am I exaggerating here? I'm not. In Finland they are trying to pass a
> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
> tax". Yes, this will include people who are deaf or blind (or both), and
> people with no TV, internet or even computers. And this regardless of how
> much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests. It's
the freeloaders that are ruining it for everybody. If content creators are
not able to sustain a living in the free market, we will end up with arts
that needs to be fully supported by the government, in which case it will
all come out of your income tax directly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests.
My major complaint is that priorities are all wrong in this.
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.
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?
Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
to be even nearly as bad as music piracy. Music piracy is considered so
bad that it feels like the entire society is going to crumble if people
are not stopped.
The priorities are completely reversed. Illegal copying of things which
*do* matter, of things which people use to make actual money, is not
considered even nearly as bad as people copying something which is
irrelevant and doesn't affect anyone's life.
So what if someone's song is copied? He can go and get a real job like
anyone else. What about those whose programs are being copied and used,
illegally, to make actual money? What about those who support the economy
and industry with their software? Who protects them? Who is going on a
witch-hunt against people who illegally copy their software?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A fine is a tax on doing something wrong.
A tax is a fine on doing something right.
There are only two things certain in life, death and taxes. And doctors
are making remarkable progress with death!
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 6:40 AM, Warp wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> In Finland they are trying to pass a
>> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
>> tax".
>
> Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will nevertheless
> *still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the internet
> (even if those episodes have been broadcast here already).
>
> Of course.
>
I would think you'd have a good case against that, claiming that since
you paid the tax, you paid for the content, and so you are entitled to
it for free.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> luckily nobody said or even implied that
>
> I disagree. The original point seemed to be "now that the pirate bay is
> down, the bittorrent idea might need to be changed", as if bittorrent somehow
> depended on the pirate bay.
No. The original point was "now that people see it's possible to get
prosecuted for providing search engines that index starter-seed (aka torrent
files) for copyrighted materials, starter-seeds for P2P sharing can and I'm
guessing likely will be modified to where you can search them without the
search host knowing what keywords will return what hits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will nevertheless
> *still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the internet
Well,that's rather awful. I read a study somewhere that estimated if
everyone in the USA paid $5/month, it would cover all the costs of the music
industry. I.e., that it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to get rid of
copyright and pay for music with a universal tax. (Whether that's good or
not is of course debatable.) I also don't think it covered the movie
industry, which would seem to have a different economic model.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a052107$1@news.povray.org...
| pan wrote:
| > What makes you guess that http://thepiratebay.org/ has been taken
down?
|
| The owners have been taken down. You don't need to actually shut down
| servers to put a crimp in things.
|
Site seems just as operational as before.
And - the appeals are yet to be litigated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm guessing that with the move to DHT and the take-down of the Pirate Bay,
>> the next step is going to be to decentralize or at least plausibly deny-ify
>> the actual searching.
>
> Since when bittorrent == the pirate bay?
I didn't say it is. I'm talking about P2P, using bittorrent terms to
describe what I'm saying, especially considering bittorrent added DHT to
decentralize the trackers.
It's really stunning to me that everyone's picking nits and not actually
commenting on the substance of what I'm saying.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> My major complaint is that priorities are all wrong in this.
It's also the case that the whole "music industry" as it exists now is a
temporary aberration. The whole thing is predicated on the fact that it's
*possible* to record music but not *cheap* to record music.
The same thing will happen with books eventually too, I expect, once the
technology for book reading (e.g. Kindel) gets cheap and ubiquitous and
convenient.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
pan wrote:
> Site seems just as operational as before.
> And - the appeals are yet to be litigated.
You know how I lost my job once? The USA started arresting people in
countries where online gambling is legal, and suddenly nobody wanted to do
any software for online gambling. Someone with less cajones and fewer
servers than the pirate bay owners is going to fold a lot easier.
But thanks for missing my point.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> A fine is a tax on doing something wrong.
> A tax is a fine on doing something right.
I like that!
> There are only two things certain in life, death and taxes. And doctors
> are making remarkable progress with death!
"Oh, some of the boys were worried you were a revenooer."
NO. I'M THE OTHER ONE.
"That's good. Grand-dad always said tax collectors were
worse because they show up every year."
NOT TO ME.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> I'm not sure that would change anything. Either the site can point to
> torrents in a usable way (providing content descriptions, rating etc.)
> or it can't.
It doesn't have to provide content descriptions to make them usable, is my
point. You can have a search engine search content without knowing what
that content is or what you're searching for. That's what the bloom filters
give you.
The way I was originally doing it was to double-hash the keywords, then send
the single-hash of the keywords around the network, having each client with
content hash it once more, then compare the results. (The double-hash was so
people storing stuff locally wouldn't be able to look at the search requests
and fake a "yes" answer, basically, or something like that. I'm not sure I
remember the details.) The problem with this is you have to actually spell
the keyword exactly right, which is kind of messy for full text searches.
> BTW, there's an idea floating around, that consists in encrypting
> content without giving the key,
I saw that program. The start of the documentation made no sense until you
got down to the rationale.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It's really stunning to me that everyone's picking nits and not actually
> commenting on the substance of what I'm saying.
Maybe because nobody disagrees with the substance, and thus there are
only the small details to pick about?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 9:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
> pan wrote:
>> Site seems just as operational as before.
>> And - the appeals are yet to be litigated.
>
> You know how I lost my job once? The USA started arresting people in
> countries where online gambling is legal, and suddenly nobody wanted to
> do any software for online gambling.
How was the USA able to arrest people in foreign countries?
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a05a3c2@news.povray.org...
> 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?
>
> Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
> to be even nearly as bad as music piracy.
Of course not. Music industry is *music* industry. It's not their fault that
the *software* industry is not as adamant as protecting their rights as the
music industry.
> So what if someone's song is copied? He can go and get a real job like
> anyone else.
The discussion of what's a real job and what is not is not very fruitful.
With a software developer's hat, I've done many projects that even I cannot
say improved anyone's quality of life other than bring cash to the pockets
of the vendor who I did the work for. In that respect, the garbage man who
picks your garbage every week so you don't drown in filth, or the farmer who
grows wheat so you don't starve to death have "more real" jobs than both
programmers and artists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> How was the USA able to arrest people in foreign countries?
Well, the guy in Aruba (or wherever it was) was "invited" to talk to the FBI
about the problem, and he was foolish enough to actually show up in Miami.
Of course, he hadn't broken any laws in the USA, but we enforced it anyway.
The guys in England got arrested in Germany (or vice versa, I forget which)
when they visited, too.
So, basically, they weren't arrested in the foreign country, but they were
either arrested when they visited or they were deported by their local
government for doing things that weren't crimes where they were doing them.
Interestingly, the guy in Aruba argued to the WTO that it was restraint of
trade, since the USA allowed online gambling if you were in the USA. (i.e.,
in much the same way that Kentucky allows online gambling but only if your
business is also in Kentucky.) His proposed solution was that Aruba gets to
ignore copyright. You can imagine what a s__tstorm that started. :-)
Google for 'online gambling arrests' for the ugly details.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> It's really stunning to me that everyone's picking nits and not actually
>> commenting on the substance of what I'm saying.
>
> Maybe because nobody disagrees with the substance, and thus there are
> only the small details to pick about?-)
That would be cool. :-) In that case, it's probably best to start with "I
agree with your main points, but..." That's what I try to do, as I've
noticed people get worked up if I don't say something like that at the start
some time.
What's stunning is nobody seems to be able to shoot down the idea, since I
haven't really thought it through very much. :-) I'd be stunned if there
aren't fundamental flaws or missing but required features that this would
disallow.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2009 17:23, somebody wrote:
much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
>
> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests. It's
> the freeloaders that are ruining it for everybody.
In this context it is not clear which freeloaders you mean
- the persons that download music and movies that they can not afford now
- 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.
;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2009 19:22, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> It's really stunning to me that everyone's picking nits and not
>>> actually commenting on the substance of what I'm saying.
>>
>> Maybe because nobody disagrees with the substance, and thus there are
>> only the small details to pick about?-)
>
> That would be cool. :-) In that case, it's probably best to start with
> "I agree with your main points, but..." That's what I try to do, as
> I've noticed people get worked up if I don't say something like that at
> the start some time.
>
> What's stunning is nobody seems to be able to shoot down the idea, since
> I haven't really thought it through very much. :-) I'd be stunned if
> there aren't fundamental flaws or missing but required features that
> this would disallow.
>
While I agree with your main points ;) it is a long time since I wrote
communication protocols and I have never had to think about security on
that communication line. ATM I don't have much free space left in my
brain for new challenges, so I can not comment on the substance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2009 17:54, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will
>> nevertheless
>> *still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the
>> internet
>
> Well,that's rather awful. I read a study somewhere that estimated if
> everyone in the USA paid $5/month, it would cover all the costs of the
> music industry. I.e., that it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to get rid
> of copyright and pay for music with a universal tax. (Whether that's
> good or not is of course debatable.) I also don't think it covered the
> movie industry, which would seem to have a different economic model.
>
Wouldn't that mean that they get money no matter if they produced
anything worthwhile?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A0### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 9-5-2009 17:23, somebody wrote:
> much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
> > I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests.
It's
> > the freeloaders that are ruining it for everybody.
>
> In this context it is not clear which freeloaders you mean
I mean:
> - the persons that download music and movies that they can not afford now
as well as
- the persons that download music and movies that they can afford now
As for:
> - 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 May 2009 23:21:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> pan wrote:
>> What makes you guess that http://thepiratebay.org/ has been taken down?
>
> The owners have been taken down. You don't need to actually shut down
> servers to put a crimp in things.
The owners are appealing their case, and the site is still active.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:30:19 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 23:21:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> pan wrote:
>>> What makes you guess that http://thepiratebay.org/ has been taken
>>> down?
>>
>> The owners have been taken down. You don't need to actually shut down
>> servers to put a crimp in things.
>
> The owners are appealing their case, and the site is still active.
Oh, and Darren, I should mention, I'm not missing your point, just not
commenting on it yet. I think you're probably right that decentralised
search is probably in the future for this technology.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Wouldn't that mean that they get money no matter if they produced
> anything worthwhile?
I don't remember the article suggesting how the money would be distributed.
Only that it was a surprisingly reasonable small amount.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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:
>> - 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] nawazorg<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "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
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
