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

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

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

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

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 ...

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

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

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