Re: Canon challenge.. any submissions from people here?

On 24 apr, 02:19, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"sobriquet" <dohduh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:cd70681a-45ec-41b9-8e31-5153bc1b3e3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On 23 apr, 15:28, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"sobriquet" <dohduh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:384482be-9752-4488-8c0f-be21fe09a499@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 22 apr, 22:12, -hh <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Better read the fine print...ie, the "I donate my copyright" bit:

I refuse to acknowledge copyright anyway. There is no copyright on the
internet.
Copyright is a relic of the past and once people publish things, there
is no way to control who distributes their information and on what
terms.
Copyright is just legal mumbo jumbo and a way to keep lawyers busy.
Companies like micro$oft or adobe with all their economic power can't
do much to prevent people from pirating (aka sharing) their software.

sweet so you won't care when I steal your identity, after all no one owns
anything on the net as far as your concerned ;-)

There is no copyright on my identity.

I already know your in the Netherlands, from Utrecht. A thorough Google
groups search would un-earth a lot more information about who you are,
what
you do for a living etc, to a dedicated professional criminal, your
posting
history is like a fingerprint and if they really wanted to they could
probably hack into your system, get all the info they need to own your
identity and let it out to the wider internet community and then go on a
spree that would make a drunken football riot seem like tea time at the
local church bingo night. and the best thing is you don't care because
"there is no way to control who distributes their information and on what
terms." :-)
--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

So what does all this (lack of privacy) have to do with copyright
infringement?
How exactly is that supposed to prevent people from sharing stuff
online at the piratebay?

just because it is being shared doe not make it legal, maybe you missed
those life lessons on ethics ??

Laws and ethics don't necessarily coincide. Legal activities can be
unethical and illegal activities can be ethical.
Besides, the difference between legal and illegal isn't as clear cut
as you might like to portray it. For instance, I'm in the Netherlands
and here it's perfectly legal to duplicate an audio cd or movie dvd
for personal use, even if you have not bought it.
So where people draw the line exactly between legal and illegal
information is rather arbitrary and illogical.
If you record a movie with a video recorder, it's called time-shifting
and if you download the same movie from a bittorrent site it's called
theft, though it basically amounts to the same thing.


Your the one saying that "there is no way to control who distributes their
information and on what terms."
I was just pointing out that if that's the case then you won't mind when
someone steals your identity. after all you have probably published enough
personal info on the net to allow even a half decent crim to fill in the
blanks and then disseminate that info over the web.
same thing for Copyright, it is someone personal property, just because they
have published it on the web does not mean it is now open slather to anyone
who wants to just take it.

Intellectual property is a rather abstract idea compared to concrete
property of physical things. Who decides what's legal or illegal with
respect to digital information? Can someone own the number 1 or 0? Can
someone own bitstrings provided the bitstrings are long enough?
If I come up with a bitstring (which might be the bitstring that
represents a piece of software, music, video or whatever), does that
give me the right to deny other people access to it or to dictate the
terms under which it can be used?
As far as I'm concerned, ownership is a concept that cannot be applied
to information, just like it would be silly or nonsensical to apply
the concept of ownership to numbers between 0 and 9.
You have to look at copyright from a historical perspective. When did
we first come up with it? We've been creating things long before
copyright existed. If someone made a cave painting, he didn't paint a
copyright symbol under it to 'protect' his creation.
Copyright is something that emerged when people were able to reproduce
information on an industrial scale, to protect centralized publishers
from unfair competition and it works in such a scenario, because you
can actually hold someone responsible if he disseminates information
in a centralized way. On the internet everybody can distribute
information and distribution happens in a decentralized way, usually
not for commercial purposes. This means centralized publishing is no
longer economically viable (because there is no way a centralized
distributor can compete with decentralized grassroots distribution via
p2p). It might mean that people who create things lose some control
over the distribution process and it might even mean people can no
longer make money from their creations in a direct way. But that
doesn't mean people who share things are criminals. It's just a
technological development that has implications with respect to the
economic viability of certain ways to generate an income.

At a fundamental level, there is nothing criminal about sharing
information. It's big corporations (like publishers) that realize they
lose an easy way to make an income and economic power to portray it as
an immoral or unethical activity.
Artists will always find a way to exploit any popularity that ensues
from their creations being enjoyed by a wide audience, even if their
creations are being shared freely and there is not much an artist can
do to prevent it, even if they wanted to. The flip side of this is
that artists have free access to an enormous amount of material from
other artists via the internet and this can be a powerful incentive to
create things, apart from a financial incentive that used to be
associated with publications involving centralized distribution.
Copyright is an invention, like money and steam engines and there is
no reason to assume it's something we have to keep using indefinitely
or something that needs to be protected and respected at all costs in
the face of technological developments that render it
counterproductive.
Copyright is incompatible with modern information technology.
If we insist copyright must be retained, we should ban computers and
abandon the internet, because those inventions were specifically
designed to share information freely.


--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Canon challenge.. any submissions from people here?
    ... to own your identity and let it out to the wider internet ... way to control who distributes their information and on what ... decentralized grassroots distribution via p2p). ... It's big corporations (like publishers) that realize ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: some further comments...
    ... but the Internet is risky. ... They also want to reduce support costs. ... satisfy corporate customers. ... to gain some control over the Internet and profit from the ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript)
  • Bush wants control of the internets!
    ... Bush wants control of the internets! ... Internet computers. ... Thursday's declaration means Commerce would keep that control [of ICANN], ... Bush administration annexes control of the Internet ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: UN wants internet
    ... World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis came to a close ... without control of the Internet being ceded to a collection of foreign ... Once again, if you're not a real government, the next best ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Funimation v Shinsen-Subs smackdown
    ... already existing content distribution categories. ... internet distribution, it MUST fall under existing laws. ... agreements with regards to "home video" and broadcast. ... I am not necessarily convinced that they outweigh the fact that if you asked pretty much any person on the street what a "home video" was they would give an answer involving a VHS tape or a DVD or the like. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)