If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Most people are decent. If they want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair, they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay and don't get stones laid in their way there. And if they haven't already ripped off a copy. If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily. Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how I feel about ripping off. So you didn't dump it when you got it. You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need for that old version. I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics. So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could theoretically punch your face? I kept it around so I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet". *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic control freak. Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession, you STOLE from Adobe. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again, since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least. I didn't steal. I received a copy of stolen intellectual property. A receiver of stolen goods is also a thief and worse than a thief, for they form the financial basis of theft. You almost got it right. Just aping your logic, thief. Having that copy in my possession put Adobe at risk of never selling me CS2. :-) Yep. It absolutely was a lost sale for Adobe. In fact Adobe puts themselves at risk of never having me as a customer by their pricing policy, but that's a different matter. And you're stealing from Adobe again, by not buying for the price they're asking. people not wanting to buy, but people not knowing there exists something they'd want to buy. A free sample, a test drive, so to say, is an effective way of finding out if the pig in a poke is actually something they'd enjoy. Paying 20 bucks on the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something quite different .... Yeah, people buy music they have never heard all the time. Yes, they just walk into a CD shop and grab a bunch of CDs at random, hoping they'll like 1 or maybe 2 of the whole bunch. You are taking it to a ridiculous extreme. I've stopped buying recently but I used to regularly go in and buy music by composer even though I had never heard it. OK, so now you're cutting down your own straw man ... ... let me quote the original: | Paying 20 bucks on | the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you | joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something | quite different .... See ... you admit you were buying by group (or composer), not randomly. You are confused. Those are your own words you were quoting. I am confused: What is your point? Do you agree that a "test drive" of some group or composer's work is valuable when you don't know them, or not? If something new comes on the radio they close their ears so they don't have a chance to decide whether or not they want it. You really must feel clever, reducing music to the top 40 pops, top 40 Country and top 40 Rock-n-Roll. When was the last time you heard Gregorian Chants on radio? Or Early Music? 7:10 am this morning, I woke up to a choral by one of the lesser Bachs (I can't quite remember each one). We do have a 'Concert Program' in this part of the world. Bach is a superstar. So which one of the ones named here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mposers_by_era did you hear this year on your concert program? Not that many. See? How many of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medieval_composers have you ever heard on radio? Certainly Hildegard of Bingen, Bernard of Cluny, Albertus Parisiensis, Chrétien de Troyes among others. 4 out of 198 (unless I miscounted). "If something new comes on the radio they close their ears so they don't have a chance to decide whether or not they want it." said you. Well, there's not much need to close ones ears if most of the stuff never even comes on non-mainstream radio. And the situation is much worse with contemporary bands. You probably couldn't find all the bands in the surroundings of the next large city, never mind hearing them or their music. Do you really want them as your customers? If they have got money and are prepared to pay - yes. More brain damage? If they had money and were prepared to pay, why would they take physical copies from shops? Can you explain that or is that just you being contrary? The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can afford to pay for it but are determined not to. Which evidence? Well, this discussion for a start. Where exactly? And don't dare to point at me: I don't download music unless it's been put up with consent from the copyright holder for that express purpose. So: where is your "many/most" evidence? Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way more than average on music. Which evidence? For example he http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-243463.html See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Promotional_power Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave #11). Where's youre evidence? Same place as yours. http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp Your URL please? If they can't sell copies because people have ripped them off then they will pay the original copyright holders less. But I'm sure you know that. Please find your way to the Baen Free Libary and read the Prime Palaver articles. It seems you haven't found the way yet, even though it's just a google away. Here's one for you: http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver.asp No more excuses now. Go read. Why does he keep using the word 'theft'? Is that ALL you have to say? No other comment? Really? If you genuinely wonder why an author may choose to use a word which, even though technically incorrect, is commonly used by those who think different ... send him an email. If you honestly declare you're too stupid to differenciate between a very specifc crime of a certain name and something else, namely illegal copying, I'll use the word as well. Wouldn't what to overtax your brain. -Wolfgang |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 11:00:54 PM UTC, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Most people are decent. If they want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair, they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay and don't get stones laid in their way there. And if they haven't already ripped off a copy. If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily. Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how I feel about ripping off. So you didn't dump it when you got it. You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need for that old version. Oh, and don't forget: By having that copy in your possession, you STOLE from Adobe. Is that really true as the word stole can't be applied to IP. Eric doesn't believe in that. he can't have stolen it as it was given to him too. A fence is just as bad as a thief. And you'll never buy any Photoshop again, since you already ripped off a copy. By your logic, at least. He didn;t rip off the copy. He had one, and it was not legal. Ergo: ripped off. The evidence is that many/most of the people who rip off music can afford to pay for it but are determined not to. Which evidence? Yes I'd like to see that evidence, not the stories or the fertile imagination of the music or software industry but real evidence. Well, maybe some people are barely held in check by the threat of punishment and they think everyone is that way. Or maybe they are paranoid and think everyone but themselves is evil. Would that count as evidence? Evidence shows that the ones who were most active on Napster (i.e. ripping off big style, according to you) also spend way more than average on music. Evidence shows that when people can (legally) 'rip off' the books offered in Baen's Free Library *more* is being sold of the very same books. Solid evidence, bolstered by numbers and facts. Seems the same works for music (read Prime Palave #11). Where's youre evidence? The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money. Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off. -Wolfgang |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 04:43:37 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:54:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Most people are decent. If they want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair, they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay and don't get stones laid in their way there. And if they haven't already ripped off a copy. If they are you, sure. Not everyone is. Luckily. Some years ago I was given a bootleg copy of Photo Shop, complete with the numerical key to unlock it. The guy who gave it to me died recently and it was just yesterday that I dumped it unused. That's how I feel about ripping off. So you didn't dump it when you got it. You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need for that old version. I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics. So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could theoretically punch your face? We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him. In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either personally or for a long time. I have no hesitation in telling you my analysis of what you have said to me. As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a logical argument. I presume you desire to punch me comes from me saying to you: "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is." Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of arguing leaves the impression that you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your fists. I kept it around so I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet". *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic control freak. --- snip --- I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:00:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money. Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off. I would never claim "every copy" is a lost sale but the industry argument is that a significant proportion of them are. What's more they have produced evidence to support that argument. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:00:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg The most 'ripped off' artist also seem to be those making the most money. Eric'll just argue that every copy is a lost sale and therefore they'd be even richer without being ripped off. I would never claim "every copy" is a lost sale but the industry argument is that a significant proportion of them are. "significant" is such a ... variable word. As seen by the last Space Shuttle disaster, it can mean --- on the very same powerpoint slide! --- "just measurable, no ill effect at all" and "everybody dies". (Look up the statistical meaning of significant.) I guess there are a few sales that are lost and they probably could be measured[1]. I also guess that there is a siginificant number of sales which were only made because of the copy. Which people arguing for "lost sales" conveniently tend to forget in public. In fact, every company that offers student and education versions and/or pricing is voluntarily losing part of a sale (namely the difference to the full price) on the recognition that students one day earn income and, once used to or addicted to a product (say Windows) will continue to buy the product or it's replacements and on the recognition that students often aren't rich and therefore the full price would mean a fully lost sale as well. What's more they have produced evidence to support that argument. see [1]. What evidence did they produce that does not immediately fail with glaring obvious mistakes to anyone skilled in the art of economics and statistics? Name URLs. -Wolfgang [1] Not that e.g. the music industry who always flogs that horse ever seriously did. Assuming an economic downturn does not affect CD sales is pretty stupid even for them. But maybe they did and on purpose never admitted the real effect ... |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg So you didn't dump it when you got it. You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need for that old version. I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics. So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could theoretically punch your face? We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him. So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it. In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either personally or for a long time. So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word, but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who disagrees with you might do the same .... THAT casts an interesting light on your morality. We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware if the opposition does something not *fully* right ... .... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard that's being applied, and rightly so. I have no hesitation in telling you my analysis of what you have said to me. And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments. Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that. As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a logical argument. Your characterisation of me is not an argument. You might think the path to that characterization "logical", but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken". I presume you desire to punch me See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone taking offense in a way that hurt you directly. comes from me saying to you: "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but ^^^^^^^^ that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is." Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of arguing leaves the impression ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question. At least you got that your characterization might be considered offensive by some recipients. that you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your ^^^^^^^^ I *think* it's backpaddeling. fists. I kept it around so I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet". *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic control freak. I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen. You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a lot ... -Wolfgang |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:42:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg So you didn't dump it when you got it. You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need for that old version. I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics. So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could theoretically punch your face? We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him. So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it. In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either personally or for a long time. So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word, but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who disagrees with you might do the same .... The copying had already been done and the chain of events stopped with me. My criticism of you is based not on my suspicions but on your own words. THAT casts an interesting light on your morality. We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware if the opposition does something not *fully* right ... ... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard that's being applied, and rightly so. I have no hesitation in telling you my analysis of what you have said to me. And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments. Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that. Of course I dislike your arguments in this case: they are dishonest and I have told you so to your face. As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a logical argument. Your characterisation of me is not an argument. You might think the path to that characterization "logical", but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken". You laid the path. I presume you desire to punch me See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone taking offense in a way that hurt you directly. If you felt no urge to punch me, why did you raise the question? comes from me saying to you: "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but ^^^^^^^^ that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is." Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of arguing leaves the impression ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question. At least you got that your characterization might be considered offensive by some recipients. I knew damned well you wouldn't like it. But neither did the burglar when I told him to stop trying to break into my house. that you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your ^^^^^^^^ I *think* it's backpaddeling. What you think doesn't matter. fists. I kept it around so I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet". *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic control freak. I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen. You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a lot ... -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:42:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:55:03 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg So you didn't dump it when you got it. You did dump it when it was clear you will never have any need for that old version. I didn't dump it when my friend was still alive so I wouldn't have to tell him to his face what I thought of his ethics. So you would not talk to me the way you do when I could theoretically punch your face? We had been friends for more than 50 years when he gave me the copy of CS2. I saw no point in telling him that I wouldn't use the copy and why. After all that time I didn't want to hurt him. So for you, illegal copying (you may call it stealing) suddently isn't that much of a problem any more when a friend does it. No comment? In your case the situation is different. I haven't known you either personally or for a long time. So crime is OK when a friend does it --- to the point that you receive *and keep* "stolen goods" without uttering a word, but if you even *suspect* (wrongly, at that!) someone who disagrees with you might do the same .... The copying had already been done and the chain of events stopped with me. You did nothing to undo the untold damage (just look at what a single song costs when copied, and you get them at less than a dollar! Compare that to the damages awarded. Compare that to the retail price of a full Photoshop. Connect the dots.). My criticism of you is based not on my suspicions but on your own words. The same way that killing people who don't convert to their religion is based on the holy books by fanatists: sloppy, willfully misreading and ignoring what doesn't fit the preconceived results. THAT casts an interesting light on your morality. We see that behaviour from many politicans: if one of their own party does something wrong, that's OK and they defend that person at least until he's completely untentable, but beware if the opposition does something not *fully* right ... ... and normal people are quite put off by that double standard that's being applied, and rightly so. No comment? Well, at least you seem to have the sense to stop digging sometimes. I have no hesitation in telling you my analysis of what you have said to me. And you colour your analysis by your dislike of my arguments. Maybe you're not even aware that you're doing that. Of course I dislike your arguments in this case: they are dishonest So for you arguments are people, have morality, etc. instead of having some truth or not and being logically correct or incorrect, supporting or not supporting some position? and I have told you so to your face. When did we meet where, then? Perhaps you did tell my arguments when they were displayed on your screen ... As for you punching my face, this is hardly a logical response to a logical argument. Your characterisation of me is not an argument. You might think the path to that characterization "logical", but when it does come to incorrect results, it's "broken". You laid the path. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water ... You need to *follow* the path, not stumble off it after a few steps and run off in circles. I've done my part, more than that. Now it's your job. I presume you desire to punch me See, there you do it again. You (wrongly) assume I have such a desire, when I merely questioned your willingness to behave the way you do in the face of the possibility of someone taking offense in a way that hurt you directly. If you felt no urge to punch me, why did you raise the question? To test a hypothesis. Which turned out to be true. Seeing you jump from a hypothetical possibility to a desire is merely a bonus, and a nice insight into your psyche. comes from me saying to you: "The manner of your arguing tells me you know right from wrong but ^^^^^^^^ that you don't want to respect it. In other words, you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. I'm sorry about that, but there it is." Punch me if you will, but that won't alter the fact your manner of arguing leaves the impression ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Backpaddeling or learning, that is the question. At least you got that your characterization might be considered offensive by some recipients. I knew damned well you wouldn't like it. Let's play Eric: "I presume you are itching for a beating". But neither did the burglar when I told him to stop trying to break into my house. You objected to him copying your CD collection and you sued him on the wear and tear of your CDs and CD cases. that you are not entirely honest or trustworthy. Nor will your possible desire to settle debates with your ^^^^^^^^ I *think* it's backpaddeling. What you think doesn't matter. So why do you spill your tinking all over the place, even after being repeatedly told you're wrong? Who died and made *you* king? BTW: thanks for telling me I'm on the right track. It *is* backpaddeling. I kept it around so I could show it to him if he asked what had happened to it and I could explain that I "just hadn't got around to it yet". *rolls eyes* Yeah, sure. And you *did* see an oyster walk upstairs, too. Your friend might even have punched you in the face if you silently disposed it, because he was a psychopatic control freak. I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point but from here on I had to wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen. You read that from the *inside* of your screen? Explains a lot ... -- Regards, Liar. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Copyright | Walter Banks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 78 | May 31st 10 06:33 PM |
Potentially discontinued cameras | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | March 26th 08 03:06 AM |
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? | Colin B | Digital Photography | 191 | January 19th 07 09:00 AM |
Possible Changes to the Copyright Law | - | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 2 | March 11th 06 02:50 AM |
Copyright - How do you do it? | C Wright | Digital Photography | 90 | January 18th 05 04:02 AM |