Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:38:37 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
| So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion

| about human rights

| and the freedom to share information first ....after

| that has been settled, we

| can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures

| there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who

| are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax

| on information that can be distributed to those who create new

| content in proportion to how popular their creations are).



So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?

You have a human right to use everything in the world?

You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you

claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others

use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should

everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady

Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people

like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly

wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.

So I see no justification for the public paying her way.


Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
regardless of whether they read books or not.
Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is
a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but
not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or
reproduction of their creations.



|

| Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume

| information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you

| are not a paying member from that library)?



Libraries do not make copies. They lend copies. We

pay for those books with our taxes. Apparently you

neither work nor pay taxes. In that case your parents

are paying for your use of libraries. They are funded

by the public and they buy the books that they lend

out.

Everybody buys things and whenever you buy something, you pay
taxes. Some of those taxes are used to finance things like public
libraries and they might likewise be used to finance a system
that ensures financial incentives for people who create new content.
Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax
on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed
to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..),
even when they download them from the internet from unauthorized sources.
Now there is a lot that can be improved about that system (regarding
transparency in particular), but I think that's the most sensible way
to deal with the fact that it's virtually impossible for creators
to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of creations
once they have been made public (regardless of whether they were
sold or given away).
Research shows that people who obtain culture/information from
unauthorized sources are actually the same people who spend the
most money on culture/information from authorized sources.
Just like public libraries stimulate an interest in books and
are more likely to contribute to the profits from commercial
bookstores rather than detracting from it.

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-15 07:43:01 -0800, sobriquet said:



Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize

filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise

I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or

parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.



What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect

and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except

usually the bitstrings are much longer.



These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,

etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.



We have been through your rationalizations at tedious length before.

What you fail to address is, there is a big difference between

"sharing", "dissemination of information", and "distribution" of an

individually, proprietary, or corporately owned product or media file.


It seems your mind is a corporately owned product of some sort.
If you were able to think critically and independently for
yourself, you'd see through this obvious propaganda from the
intellectual property mafia. Heck, we can't even seriously claim
that we're living in a democracy, because people are brainwashed
in school and by the media, rather than learning to think
critically for themselves. So all this bull**** about voting
for elected representatives in the government is just a
phony show, while the government is actually a shady extension
of corporate interests rather than a neutral institution that
guarantees human rights.



Just because a legitimate method of commercial distribution can be via

the internet, does not make unauthorized copying, and redistribution

via P2P sites, and subsequent unauthorized use, any less immoral and

theft.


There is nothing immoral about the distribution and reproduction of
information. You might as well call education immoral.



If a creator of the image, music, movie, etc. choses to protect their

property, and states so, any unauthorized use is theft and

exploitation.

Bull****. Here, I'll create a bitstring 001001011111010000001110001.

Now that's my intellectual property and I can go out on the
internet to find people who have it on their computer and I can
sue and harass them.



Those creative individuals and corporations have every

right to be rewarded for their creative efforts regardless of your

perception of their motives. Those files are far from being declared

"public domain".

They are public domain. My government actually grants people the freedom
to copy such creations (music, video, books, pictures, etc..) for
personal use, regardless of how their original creators feel about it.



As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, try making the same

demand of a food vendor, restauranteur, food franchise, or farmer

(individual or agri-business).

Yet, the difference between such commodities and information
is that information can be duplicated indefinitely free from
additional costs. If I have a single loaf of bread, unless
I'm Jesus, I can't easily multiply it to supply a million
loafs of bread to a hungry crowd.


...or for that matter any manufacturer of any product, from your

clothing to the table your computer sits on, or the materials they are

fabricated from, and designs they dare to retain copyright of.


The difference being that physical tangible products like
computers or articles of clothing are scarce because they
can't be easily reproduced like information on the internet.



Even with image files on the great majority of sharing sites, the

ownership and sharing options are retained by the creator.


You must be visiting the wrong sharing sites then.




For most truly "public domain" files creators would actually prefer

some attribution and will let you know their feelings regarding that

issue by including an appropriate statement in the copyright

information field of the exif of their images.

Consider that there is the simple honoring of a creator's request when

they include a Creative Commons license to their work. I for example

will use the CC "Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike" license

notification. Read it, and try to understand it.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...3.0/deed.en_US


That is just bull****. You can come up with any nonsense license
you like, but whether people will take it serious is another matter.

Most people just skip all that legal mumbo jumbo and press the OK
button to accept a license without reading it, whenever they
are confronted with that nonsense.



All you propose remains a rationalization for theft.







--

Regards,



Savageduck

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:50:25 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:38:37 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:

| So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion



| about human rights



| and the freedom to share information first ....after



| that has been settled, we



| can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures



| there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who



| are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax



| on information that can be distributed to those who create new



| content in proportion to how popular their creations are).







So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?



You have a human right to use everything in the world?



You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you



claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others



use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should



everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady



Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people



like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly



wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.



So I see no justification for the public paying her way.





Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,

regardless of whether they read books or not.

Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is

a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but

not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or

reproduction of their creations.


What happened to "information is free"? Why tax it and who would decide who is a good artist and how much revenue they should get?

BTW, some information is not free.

The only people who deserve my money are the ones I like so it means the only way for my money to reach them is me buying their work.


DanP

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:36:45 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:07:36 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
sobriquet writes:
[..]
How would you work out this financial compensation while you make 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or renting is the way to go.


So you're opposed to public libraries that offer free access to
information?
Free in the sense that anybody can go to the library and read a
book there for free, instead of buying that same book in a bookstore.



Also depends what you mean by sharing.

P2p sharing. So a bitstring going from one individual on the internet
to another individual on the internet, so they both end up in
possession of the same bitstring.

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:56:40 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:

They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.



if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.


You can put any value on any item as you see fit, but the price of
things is not just determined by the supply side but also by the
demand side. Why would somebody pay you for something when they can
obtain that same thing for free from others?
Why would anything that isn't scarce to begin with (like a bitstring)
be associated with a monetary value (that is usually an indication for
how scarce a particular item is)?

I can sell the number 29358238385 on ebay, with a licence and a
usermanual, but people are unlikely to spend any money on it,
because numbers belong to the public domain and they can use
numbers for free.

[..]
So post you bank details including passwords and anyb other info it's just binary digits.

So your not prepared to share yuor bitstrings are you.

well that typical isn;t it.


Nobody is forced to share anything (as they are not forced to
disseminate their creations). My banking details are not my
intellectual property and should other people obtain it, I simply
have to contact my bank to obtain a new password and things like that.











These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,



etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.



bank accounts....


Money is scarce, by definition. If everybody could duplicate money as
easily as they can share information via p2p sites, money wouldn't be
useful as a universal substitute for things that are scarce.

Something like a unique oilpainting can be very expensive *because*
it is a unique item. It would be very strange if a digital piece of
art would be sold at an auction for a few million, while that same
digital piece of art can be downloaded for free from a p2p network.

[..]
Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume



information for free .



I pay taxes for library books.


So why can't you pay taxes to ensure there is a financial
incentive for people to create new content, while content can be
freely shared online?





(if you read books at the library, even if you



are not a paying member from that library)?



The internet plays that same role in society of making information



more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the



general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,



except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a



library.



But peole won;t write those books and other bitstrings unless they getv somnething back, you don;t understand that because you're probbaly not created anythijng useful or wanted by others in your life.


Oh, I have created things that were viewed online by more than
50.000 people.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6337..._politici.html

So it seems even an idiot like me can create things that other people
like to see.



perhaps if yuo did you'd understand and there's little chance of that until your IQ gets into double figures

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:14:13 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:50:25 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
regardless of whether they read books or not.
Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is
a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but
not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or
reproduction of their creations.

What happened to "information is free"?

Information is free, because I can download all the information
I like for free from p2p networks and this is completely independent
from the fact that I pay taxes. The only relationship there is,
is that information is often stored on things like harddisks and
where I live, there is a special tax on such information storage
devices to compensate for the fact that people can download
most content for free. This tax money is supposed to be distributed
among people who create new content, but I find the current system
rather shady because I can't easily find out how this tax money is
distributed and to what degree that system is fair.

Why tax it and who would decide who is a good artist and how much revenue they should get?


Well, they can statistically monitor how popular creations are among
people who share it freely online.
So surely we can have a technological solution for that to ensure that
the people who contribute the most appreciated content (as reflected in
the relative popularity of their creations) are also entitled
to reap the greatest rewards for their creative efforts.



BTW, some information is not free.



The only people who deserve my money are the ones I like so it means the only way for my money to reach them is me buying their work.


Nonsense, if you read a book for free in the library, that also
contributes to the author of that book being payed indirectly
via taxes to finance public libraries.



DanP

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:31:05 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:56:40 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:



They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.







if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.





You can put any value on any item as you see fit, but the price of

things is not just determined by the supply side but also by the

demand side. Why would somebody pay you for something when they can

obtain that same thing for free from others?

Why would anything that isn't scarce to begin with (like a bitstring)

be associated with a monetary value (that is usually an indication for

how scarce a particular item is)?



I can sell the number 29358238385 on ebay, with a licence and a

usermanual, but people are unlikely to spend any money on it,

because numbers belong to the public domain and they can use

numbers for free.

I can convert anything to a number therefore everything is public domain (your point, not mine).

You cannot sell me a number but I pay money for music in MP3 format. Explain that.

The song can be encoded into a very big number, and you are free to write it down or say it but it is illegal for you to play a MP3 file with that number in it (unless you legally own it) or sell it on mentioning it is in fact a song.


DanP

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:42:29 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:31:05 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:56:40 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:



On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:02 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:



On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:







They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.















if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.











You can put any value on any item as you see fit, but the price of



things is not just determined by the supply side but also by the



demand side. Why would somebody pay you for something when they can



obtain that same thing for free from others?



Why would anything that isn't scarce to begin with (like a bitstring)



be associated with a monetary value (that is usually an indication for



how scarce a particular item is)?







I can sell the number 29358238385 on ebay, with a licence and a



usermanual, but people are unlikely to spend any money on it,



because numbers belong to the public domain and they can use



numbers for free.



I can convert anything to a number therefore everything is public domain (your point, not mine).


Anything? Not exactly. Try to convert a commodity like a car or
a screwdriver to a bitstring and share it on p2p networks.

They are working on that though, but 3d scanning and printing is far
from being able to duplicate things up to molecular details.



You cannot sell me a number but I pay money for music in MP3 format. Explain that.


You might not realize it, but when you buy an mp3 from itunes, you are
actually buying a bitstring.



The song can be encoded into a very big number, and you are free to write it down or say it but it is illegal for you to play a MP3 file with that number in it (unless you legally own it) or sell it on mentioning it is in fact a song.

You seem to be confused about the laws in the place where I live.
It is not necessarily illegal for me to download an mp3 via p2p
networks for free, even though that very same mp3 might be for sale
at the itunes webstore.
It would be illegal for me to share such an mp3 again via p2p
networks, but in practice people tend to share content freely as
the chances of getting into legal difficulties because of that are
rather minimal.

If you allow people to collect bitstrings for personal use, you
can't really expect them not to share and exchange bitstrings
with other collectors.


DanP

Mxsmanic writes:

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
"songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
"director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed.
As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem.

Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
drastically.

What are the "major uses" of a book, anyway? Everybody either reads it, or
doesn't.

And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway,
so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is
the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating
software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties.

Well, stuff I've worked on hasn't brought in that much, but that's how
*I* make my living. But I'm not particularly worried about that,
because mostly what I do is for custom uses, or to drive custom
hardware, so people will still need it.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

sobriquet writes:

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
sobriquet writes:



There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

it theft.

But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

information".



So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

"songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

"director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?


You missed this part?

"What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "

Any idea what such a system could be? In particular, how do you decide
how worthwhile some fresh content is, in the face of people aggressively
working to muddy the waters (as we already see on the web, in sites
trolling for search hits to drive ad revenue)?
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info