|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..18..23..28..33..38..39~40~41 [Next] | ||||||||||
Don Dasher Special user 535 Posts |
Someone here is exhibiting signs of mental illness.
And for once it's not me! DD |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 15:35, gdw wrote: My point exactly. I haven't just reiterated "claims" (translation: facts) about what copyright law says; I've also explained why it's my opinion that copyright law is good. Why I think it should exist. I've asked you why you think copyright law is immoral and hurts creators, but you don't want to have that conversation; you want to have an abstract conversation about whether intellectual property rights even exist. But you don't present that position in abstract terms; you present it in concrete terms, as if what you think about IP rights is objective reality rather than opinion. This despite a marked lack of relevant examples -- or even hypotheticals -- to illustrate why you believe what you believe. (As I said, your knife analogy doesn't apply to IP rights unless you make it about who owns the design of the knife, the idea behind its physical form -- not the knife itself.) So we make another lap around the oval, both of us yelling out our driver's side windows "You're missing the point!" and -- most tellingly -- "As I said before...!" At some point, somebody's got to take an exit ramp, and I think I see one up ahead in my lane....
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Meanwhile, for anyone still interested in the law:
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...." -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution Thank goodness for the Copyright Clause!
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 14:43, BatsMagic wrote: I just want to live in a world where a creative person can make a living without worrying about who's enjoying or profiting from his work without compensating him for it -- and without worrying about who's out there convincing people intellectual property is a myth in order to justify having things they want but don't need and don't want to pay for (i.e., piracy). (Many anti-copyright people will insist they're not pirates and don't believe in piracy, but they invariably end up making the same arguments as people who claim "piracy is not theft.")
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 15:09, gdw wrote: So, copyright and buying under that premise is not a contract? OK. I thought once you give out information for anything, then its up to the other person to do whatever they want with it according to your rules? Ladeeda... I went a looking and I founda this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1310886 http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/e......051.full http://journals.cambridge.org/action/dis......=2484572 Hmm... but just to give a crumb http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......282.html good day! (Aside: BB must be happy this thread went off the rails!)
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
DanHarlan V.I.P. 998 Posts |
Don't let GDW fool you. He understands that there is a distinct difference between physical and intellectual property. Heck, even children know the difference... "That's MY ball, give it back!" or "Hey, that was MY idea and you're too stupid to come up with your own! Copycat!" Infinite reproducability and all that.
What he's saying is it would be okay (in his opinion) if a creator would tell you (up front) that (by agreement) he doesn't want you to give away his work, or re-sell it, or claim it as your own. GDW has a problem with this "agreement" being in a pre-existing form which claims that creators have certain rights. Rights, privileges, limitations, restrictions... call it whatever you want. Current copyright law attempts to standardize most creators' desire to be recognized and compensated for their work. Flawed as it may be, it is also quite generous allowing for fair use and derivitive works. It's also possible for a creator to disregard the protections afforded by this flawed law (agreement) and simply choose not to enforce it. Other artists attempt to extend the reach of this copy-agreement by adding specific requests of their very own which may or may not be enforcable. Ultimately, you can go 'round 'n 'round all day trying to defend giving away ideas which you did not create, but I have a question: "If you aren't willing to pay the asking price for an original expression in a fixed form, then why do you want it for free?" All you are saying is "it costs too much." You are justifying theft, or claiming that expressions have no value, or that you (somehow) should determine the value of an expression. So, Copycat... what gives you that right? --Dan Harlan |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 17:49, DanHarlan wrote: I'd like to think he does...but I've got brick-wall imprints in my forehead that cause me some doubt. Quote:
Flawed as it may be, it is also quite generous allowing for fair use and derivitive works. True. I didn't want to muddy the waters with this information while I still held out some hope for the discussion with GDW, but...I actually think copyright law should be stronger than it is. Quote:
All you are saying is "it costs too much." And everything costs too much if you can easily steal it and have no qualms about stealing it. One way to banish those qualms is to convince yourself no single person has the right to own what you're stealing...not even its creator. "Information wants to be free...no one owns a song...copyright only protects big, faceless corporations and rich people...copyright only hurts artists...copyright is obsolete in the information age...." Etcetera. All worn-out mantras of the digital thief.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Stucky Inner circle I'm Batman! 1355 Posts |
Quote:
Heard any good jokes lately Stucky? Nothing that won't get deleted. How about this: What's red and bad for your teeth? A brick! Quote:
I just want to live in a world where a creative person can make a living without worrying about who's enjoying or profiting from his work without compensating him for it. So what you are saying is you want to bomb China then?
Official Thread Killer
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 18:54, Stucky wrote: Let's not take anything off the table!
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
Quote:
That's very funny. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
So many assumptions.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
". . . in order to justify having things they want but don't need and don't want to pay for."
FrenchDrop, if you cannot get past this assumption which you seem to want to project on me, then there is no hope of having a discussion, whether we are having the same conversation or not.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 19:15, gdw wrote: Why do you believe I was projecting it on you? I'm just stating facts based on my experience: Lots of anti-copyright people say they're against piracy, but I find they use the same arguments as people who believe piracy is okay. I haven't said you're a pirate. You've said you're not. Maybe you're just that rare person who's so infallibly honest that he thinks everyone would behave honorably in the absence of laws that coerce them to do so.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
I wonder if they'll ever bring back My Mother The Car. I think the reason it was not well received is because the theme song was so poor ( all shows back then had catchy theme songs ).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj46NpAw8f4 |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 17:06, FrenchDrop wrote: Well that clears up some of the talking past each other aspects. What I've been trying to discuss is, yes, the basis for IP law. The legitimacy, or lack there of, for intellectual "property" in the first place. There is no point discussing anything else past that if the foundational claim is not accepted/agreed upon. The fundamental difference between our positions is the disagreement on the notion that one retains rights to control information which they give to others. That is the ONLY thing we CAN discuss at this point. As for the knife analogy, it only makes sense without bringing patents into it. I probably confuddled things by bringing up the notion of replicating it. The point of the knife analogy was, IF information can be considered property, then lets look at how actual property is treated. If the property is transferd to another person, the rights go with it. It doesn't matter if you possess an identical copy of the property or not, you don't get to tell someone what they can and can't do with the copy they possess. If you sell me a knife, I can use it for whatever I want, including carving pork, irrespective of whether you're views on pork are, or your desire for how you want someone to use a knife you made. If information is considered property, then it should be treated the same way. Every copy of it is it's own piece of property, and belonging to the person to whom that copy was sold. That's IF information IS property. If it shouldn't be treated like that, then why call it "property?" If you're real concern is that people be able to make a loving off their ideas, I actually HAVE backed up the claim that people can make a living, and very likely a better living, without IP restrictions. I've provided modern examples, facilitated by modern technology, as well as historical ones long before the (relatively) modern advent of IP law. As for the idea that creators shouldn't have to worry about who's using the products of their labor and possibly profiting from them, perhaps a better analogy would be an apple. If I'm selling apples which I grew, do I get to retain ownership over the seeds (not talking about some genetically modified apples with a patent on them) and control who can and can't plant them? Again, used as an example of how physical property is treated. You can't claim that, when someone buys the apple, you some how retain an intangible right over the seeds that go with it, and which you yourself will never possess again.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 19:19, FrenchDrop wrote: Not at all. I maintain that view in response to the current system. If people were choosing the release information under a system without IP law, then, unless it was done with a direct contract with me, or information given in confidence, then I would very likely be downloading "free" information; along with also paying many people for, perhaps different things they offer. In other words, yeah, I would listen to "free" music from the Dead (well maybe not necessarily the Dead, just referencing them as they understood this back when) and then paying to see them live, or for other services and products they may offer, if I really liked them. By the way, if you think that is some utopian vision of an otherwise impossible business model, reality is, currently, proving you 100% wrong. Aside from historical ones, like the Dead, there are countless modern day examples of people, and business adopting, and profiting from, such "freemium" business models, as well as the seemingly even more "crazy," pay-what-you-want model. Whether you believe it's possible or not, reality, in this case, without a shadow of a doubt, is proving you wrong.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 17:35, Dr Spektor wrote: "So, copyright and buying under that premise is not a contract?" If it was, then it would only be applicable to those who "accepted" that premise. You can't force a contract on those who don't agree to it. What does that have to do with the personal information?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 20:02, gdw wrote: ...if we agree that you will dictate what our discussion is about, and if I'm interested in following you along this new line of discussion, which I think is pretty far removed from the original matter of whether BB's book test props could be a violation of their respective authors' rights. Quote:
As for the knife analogy, it only makes sense without bringing patents into it. I probably confuddled things by bringing up the notion of replicating it. No, you briefly flirted with making it relevant to discussion of Intellectual Property rights by bringing up the notion of replicating the knife. You didn't muddle anything; the analogy only makes sense if you discuss who owns the design of the knife -- not who owns the physical knife itself. IP is about intellectual property, not physical property, so your bringing up the notion of replicating the knife was the closest you came to actually having a relevant analogy. Your subconscious instinct was edging you toward the point, but you veered off. Quote:
The point of the knife analogy was, IF information can be considered property, then lets look at how actual property is treated. Here's the core problem: Information CAN be property, but it's not synonymous with actual, physical property. A physical copy of a novel is just that: It's not the 12 months of blood, sweat, and tears the author poured into imagining and writing it. So buying a physical copy of a novel does not confer on you ownership of the author's work. You only own the physical copy you bought. As Dan pointed out, even a child should be able to understand this distinction: "That's MY idea, copycat." Quote:
If the property is transferd to another person, the rights go with it. It doesn't matter if you possess an identical copy of the property or not, you don't get to tell someone what they can and can't do with the copy they possess. If you sell me a knife, I can use it for whatever I want, including carving pork, irrespective of whether you're views on pork are, or your desire for how you want someone to use a knife you made. Okay, now I'm really wondering if you don't understand the difference between physical property and intellectual property, or if you're just being obstinate. You can repeat the knife/pork analogy as many times as you want; it's not going to suddenly, magically become relevant to the discussion. Quote:
If you're real concern is that people be able to make a loving off their ideas, I actually HAVE backed up the claim that people can make a living, and very likely a better living, without IP restrictions. No. You haven't. You've provided, near as I can tell, one example of a pop singer (Psy) who managed to make a lot of money despite not pursuing his legal rights. That does not remotely approach the level of proof that copyright law does not protect (or harms) an artist's ability to make a living. Quote:
If I'm selling apples which I grew, do I get to retain ownership over the seeds (not talking about some genetically modified apples with a patent on them) and control who can and can't plant them? Another utterly irrelevant example that ignores the distinction between intellectual and physical property. I almost think you want to be wrong.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
I guess no one remembers My Mother The Car.
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 20:23, gdw wrote: Your purchase of a CD that bears a copyright notice that's not hidden from your view constitutes an agreement to the terms of the copyright. It is an implied contract, and it's as good as your signature on the dotted line. Your failure to read the fine print doesn't mean you didn't enter into a contract.
"A great magician has said of his profession that its practitioners '… must pound and rack their brains to make the least learning go in, but quarrelling always comes very naturally to them.'” -- Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Brian Brushwood's new book test (45 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..18..23..28..33..38..39~40~41 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |