On 2011-08-08 10:33, Warp wrote:
>    He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
> some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
> playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
> by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
> of sense does that make?

I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the 
game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It 
throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes 
infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.

It's part of why it's so hard to get any money for a digital drawing 
you've made; value lies in uniqueness.  Even if you make 1,000,000 
prints of a drawing, those are numbered and you can sell the physical 
item for more than a copy of the digital file, even though the image is 
the same (and, for all intents and purposes, what is supposedly being 
bought).

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:
> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".

Do the lawyers know this?


-- 
<Insert witty .sig here>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
> 
> Do the lawyers know this?

Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other 
intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 17:33, Warp wrote:
> Ive<ive### [at] lilysoftorg>  wrote:
>> Am 08.08.2011 01:48, schrieb Darren New:
>
>>> And this is why creative people hate pirates, even if "they wouldn't
>>> have bought the content anyway."
>
>> This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."-argument is something I was
>> always wondering about. Does it mean that someone prefers (take music as
>> example) to listen to songs he actually doesn't like just because he was
>> able to get them for free.

Often it means that people do like things, but not enough to buy them. 
One potential flaw in this argument is that they don't like them enough 
to buy, *because* they can get it and similar things for 'free'.

I also know people that collect music. Even the sort of music they don't 
like themselves. Just for the sake of collecting. They might simply be 
addicted to collecting, I don't know.

>    Some time ago I was at a friend's home, and another friend of his gave
> him a pirated and cracked version of Assassin's Creed 2 on DVD-R. I asked
> why. It's not like his life depended on the 50 euros that it would have
> costed to buy the game.

I have been given copies of music CD's for my birthday. Most people know 
that I try to keep my music collection clean from content that I did not 
buy. Even knowing that does not stop them. I simply can not understand 
that. Why would you give somebody something you know he doesn't want and 
certainly is not going to keep?

(OK, you might do that to introduce me to some music that I might like, 
so I would buy it myself if I liked it, but I am pretty sure that was 
not the intention)

BTW I find it hard to throw these disks away, because they were gifts. 
But I never listen to them again. (just once, see above).


>
>    His answer: "What if I don't have 50 euros?"
>
>    I was perplexed. I asked what exactly forces him to play the game in
> question if he can't afford it.
>
>    He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
> some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
> playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
> by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
> of sense does that make?

None at all (to us).



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 20:05, Ive wrote:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>
> www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm
>
> Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses
> POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an
> image of mine some others by well known povers

I see about 7 images that I recognize without going to the hof, some 
were just in the pba newsgroup, I think.


> and no need to mention
> that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images
> are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?
>
> -Ive


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 20:05, Ive wrote:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>

I can only find one image of mine included in two blogs, so that is not 
too bad. And they were of a ceramic thing (the death of rats in this 
case), so in a sense it is not even what I would consider original work. 
(it is, but the proces of making and baking it was what took most of the 
time, whereas a POV image is the direct result of spending time, so i 
would feel more infringed if they took a POV image from me).


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> > wrote:
> >> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
> >
> > Do the lawyers know this?
>
> Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other
> intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think that.

People don't give a fuck.

We've had previously a gigantic thread on mobileread forums with many readers
arguing against copyright:

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122033

This in a supposedly sane environment of readers with some intelectual prowess.
The OP is an anarcho-socialist lunatic, but he seems to echo quite well the
thoughts of the millions of freaks downloading their daily doses of life from
torrents and darknets.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.

Precisely.  It doesn't matter it took you years of your life to develop a high
level of artistry and publish something that quite certainly rings a chord with
people:  they won't give you a dime after they downloaded their free copy of
your work pressed against the thousands of others in a single night.

We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
(specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
their very own press.

Society should rethink the way artists get their income.  I think online content
providers should be the ones nurturing new talents, but sadly that only means
demented garbage to please a crackhead audience.  Indies are out of luck, no
success with the masses and no way to limit the work of several years quickly
spreading through decentralized torrents at no dime.  DRM is a joke that limits
no one but honest buyers.  Perhaps a few generous souls will turn out to at
least send the guy an email with "thanks"?

Post a reply to this message

Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
>> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
>> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
>> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
>
> We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
> their very own press.
>

Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post 
and this one really made me LOL:

"Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their 
creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to 
create will never go away."

Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a 
punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs & 
rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new 
strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and 
starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me 
sick.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 09.08.2011 04:06, schrieb nemesis:
> > Tim Cook<z99### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the
> >> game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It
> >> throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes
> >> infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.
> >
> > We've come back to an age where starving artists gotta make live performances
> > (specially popular ones that strike a chord with youtube users) for daily bread,
> > not by selling their work to publishers.  That's what happened when everyone got
> > their very own press.
> >
>
> Just skimmed over the discussion you mentioned within your other post
> and this one really made me LOL:
>
> "Content creators would need to find new ways to monetise their
> creations (should they feel the need to do so), but the human desire to
> create will never go away."
>
> Well, many years ago I was a professional musician (bass player within a
> punk-rock band) and surely we managed it to live only from sex, drugs &
> rock'n'roll. No need to buy gas for the tour van, no need to buy new
> strings and especially no need to eat sometimes a burger.
> This sentence reminds me of the cliche that an artist should be poor and
> starving to create "true" art. Sure, and this kind of attitude makes me
> sick.

Precisely so.  But the nutjob there was advocating also for a society where
everyone could exchange services.  So, hey, you'd be able to get a beer in
exchange for a soul-soothing song at the end of the day.

I still have some faith in manking because that thread got so long from many of
us with some common sense trying to counter that bull.

Post a reply to this message