|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7~8~9~10~11..17..22..27..32..37..39~40~41 [Next] | ||||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 10:41, FrenchDrop wrote: Oh my god, when you possess a cd, do you, or so you not, possess the information contained on said cd?
"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 12:56, gdw wrote: You possess a CD containing a copy of information. You do not own the rights to that information. Purchase of a CD (or book, or DVD, etc.) does not transfer copyright from the creator to you. Nor should it. I find it hard to believe you really don't grasp this concept. Did you think you could buy the rights to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for 15 bucks? If you're not just arguing for the sake of being argumentative, then I'd suggest you read up on copyright law so you don't have to ask such basic questions about a subject you're inclined to argue so vehemently.
"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
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
FrenchDrop, you are continually begging the question, basing your argument upon the premise that the concept of an exclusive right to copy is a valid concept inherent to reality, rather than actually proving that assertion to begin with.
THAT is what I am arguing against, the foundational concept that one has an inherent and exclusive "right" to copy. The coercive part is the fact that you require the state to enforce this "right." It's not a "right," it's a privilege. Copy"rights" and a patents are claims of control over other people's physical property and bodies. You are claiming that you have a right to control what someone else can do with their own computer, their own CDs, and the information they possess (which is the undeniable reality, they POSSESS that information, and whoever put the cd out gave them that information.*) *If I give you a cd, for money, or not, in your hands, do you, or do you not now posses the information that is sitting in your hand, and did it, or did I not give it to you? THAT is the reality. If you're denying that fact, then I am not the one living in another reality.
"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 13:08, FrenchDrop wrote: Again, you are begging the question. I'm not arguing whether or not you "own" the "rights," I'm arguing the existence of that "right" in the first place. You are basing your argument upon your presumed conclusion, rather than providing an argument and proof for your conclusion. I'm not arguing what the law says, I'm arguing the morality, and legitimacy of it and its foundational premises and assumptions. I don't need to read up on IP law, I've done plenty of that. Perhaps you need to read up on the history of IP law. Again, I recommend Stephan Kinsella, who's an IP attorney. It was largely his arguments which made me realize I was simply wrong in my views supporting IP in the first place. As for PressPlay,Pause, I found the time code for at least the one particular point I was referencing, 21:05
"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 |
GDW, what other rights protected by the government do you believe are really just "privileges"?
How about the right of women and blacks to vote? Is that really just a privilege? How about the right of people not to be held in involuntary servitude? Is that really just a privilege, not a right? Aside from copyright law, what other portions of the U.S. Constitution do you feel are immoral? Quote:
Copy"rights" and a patents are claims of control over other people's physical property and bodies. No. They absolutely are not. They are statements of ownership of a creator's intellectual property. They have nothing to do with anyone's "physical property and bodies." Not in this reality. Again: Do you think you can buy the rights to Sgt. Pepper for $15? As I said, you should do some reading -- outside of anti-copyright web sites, especially -- if you really want to argue this issue from a standpoint informed by anything more substantial than wishful thinking and misinformation.
"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
|
|||||||||
lokikross Special user An Undying Heart of Chaos; Stabbed with 719 Posts |
This thread is on rails.
As a graduate from the School of Informatics, (IU), with a degree in New Media; I have several "opinions" about copyright law, as well as some knowledge. But it would do no good to share this knowledge here, as many are set in their opinions. I will say that I have a method published in which law enforcement tried to keep me from publishing the information. (Only due to the fact they knew about it, through my own nefarious use of it. Years ago.) I thought about fighting it, and realized it was too much work. So I released it in another "context". I have only received one "stern" letter, no action. Because information, (unless National security), as "actionable", is not enforceable by law. (Even motion pictures use class lawsuits, not cops). I had a mentor in Intelligence/Information work tell me this long parable, which ultimately summed up as: "Knowledge is Power, if Kept; but once Shared becomes Useless Information". Or: There are 3 types of controlled information. 1. Those learned through trials, or by honor-ship. 2. Those not meant to be shared, but too interesting not to. 3. Those that should not be known. As magicians, we operate in the second definition. The first would be like an apprenticeship, or education. And the final would be akin to you finding out how to "break" the laws of Gravity, for one full second. Now, if you could, you could float 3 feet in the air, for 1 full second. Suspended. Not very impressive sounding to us magicians, but if it were real, the owner of that information could start a new religion, cult, following, et cetera. But if they just shared that information... In 3 months it would look like the "pogo-ball" had made a sudden "comeback". http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4gazz......_400.jpg The information would not only be useless, it would also force change on the world. As there are 2 impacts that truly "new" information cause: 1. The world seeks it, and desires to change with it. 2. It is exposed to the world, and the world is forced to change. (ie. pogo-ball example. They would have to destroy buildings to raise ceilings and all of that, rather than being ready for it to manifest.) I think the copyright issue going on here is about those books being remade, if I am not mistaken... (Lots of copyright debates lately... Hmm...) Well, in magic we sell things where we can say what the product does, but not what it is. (Very bad, big deal, in normal markets. Because I could sell you an "intelligent vacuum that learns your house layout." And you may expect me to send a "Roomba", but instead you get a baby I bought in some other country.) And while some of you may be laughing. I am not joking. These things actually happen. Also we take normal items like Pepsi cans, Magazine covers, boxes to items, designs on brands, and modify them for trickery. This has happened to the aplomb of magic users everywhere, "organic" ring a bell? A book is not different. As far as copyright hurting sales; I have a little product out, look at all these bootlegs! http://s.taobao.com/search?q=Loki+Kross+......20130115 http://www.smalltao.com/product/18715751......%20Kross (BTW, "2013 Super revolutionary invincible Guards bunker lingers Fax by Loki Kross" is hilarious. But what is a "Bunker linger"? ) Does this stuff worry me? Nope. Everyone that wanted to learn it, bought it, or it would seem. I also used my TVE bonus as a bootleg deterrent, but I am sure they have copies of that, as well. Am I making a point in all this? No. I have no real "public" opinion on it. But you may find the thoughts I shared to be interesting. Or they may turn into a Pogo-ball. LokI |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 13:31, FrenchDrop wrote: Voting is a privilege, for anyone, man or woman, regardless of ethnicity. Anything that is contingent upon another is not a right. Quote:
Again, you keep falling back on this. You are begging the question. You are basing your questions and "arguments" on the acceptance of your conclusion, the notion of an exclusive "right" to copy. Try asking a question which is not dependant upon accepting that conclusion. That does not mean you have to presume the opposite in your question, but you can't build your argument upon the acceptance of the conclusion you are attempting to prove. As I have said, I HAVE done my reading. I started my research trying to SUPPORT the notion of exclusive rights in ideas and information. I started with an interest in "protection" for magic ideas and methods.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
lokikross Special user An Undying Heart of Chaos; Stabbed with 719 Posts |
I may have just gotten this thread deleted. My apologies.
|
|||||||||
Jamie Ferguson Inner circle Alba Gu Bràth 3640 Posts |
Has anyone ordered one of his books yet?
Until someone has one all this talk about copyright is irrelevant as we don't know the facts. If I don't get my free copy (Brian Brushyourwood still hasn't got back to me, how rude!) then I will find another way to procure one.
When the chips are down, the duvet is uncomfortable.
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
How about those vanishing coke bottles?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
lokikross Special user An Undying Heart of Chaos; Stabbed with 719 Posts |
Nope. glitch in the system. Funny Though.
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
So, GDW, you avoided this question above - why for you avoid my questions... so I'll rephrase it again.
You buy a cell phone plan - the company collects information on you you give for the service. Your name, address, perhaps loved ones info, and they can collect all your data for calls etc. Now, despite the fact you want them not to share it with third parties, in theory, they can do anything they want with it, except for the law which really is bogus in your eyes - because if you decided to share the info for a $ or goods, that was your choice. So if they sell it to industry vendors, serial killers or whoever, that is just tough cookies? Or please tell me that somehow when it comes to your personal ID info, the rules are different now?
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
Again, you keep falling back on this. You are begging the question. You are basing your questions and "arguments" on the acceptance of your conclusion, the notion of an exclusive "right" to copy. No. I'm basing my argument on actual copyright law. I think that's the problem we have here: I'm describing actual, existing copyright law and saying why I think it's a good thing, and you're describing the world you would like to live in and presenting it as if it's objective reality. I'm saying "Here's how the world we live in works," and you're saying "I don't believe it should work that way, and so it doesn't." I can understand why you would want the world to work your way: I can see how some might find appeal in a world where, as soon as anyone creates anything, everyone in the world immediately owns it. Or where you can buy a CD, then sell as many copies of it as you want, because the simple act of buying the disc gives you complete ownership of songs you didn't write or perform. I'm just saying the world demonstrably does not work that way, and I've explained why I think it's good that the world doesn't work that way. But we're just too far apart to find any common ground to argue from, let alone a meeting of minds. We're as far apart as concrete and abstract can possibly be. As far apart as practical and theoretical can possibly be. As far apart as reality and wishful thinking can possibly be. So we can only go around in circles.
"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
|
|||||||||
BatsMagic Inner circle New York 1052 Posts |
Some here want to live in a world of anarchy.
Most others do not. "It's a brave new world- get with it or get out of the way". That tells me all I need to know. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 14:24, Dr Spektor wrote: That's a matter of a contract which you explicitly agree to. Completely different, irrespective of what information is exchanged. That information is also given in confidence, again, as outlined via an agreement. As such, said contract would also serve to outline what the company is agreeing to do, or not do, and, ideally, what consequences there would be for violations of said agreement. Also, I DID answer your question about ebooks.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 14:03, lokikross wrote: I think you added greatly to the discussion! |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 14:26, FrenchDrop wrote: We are not so far apart as we cannot have a conversation, however we have to be having the SAME conversation. As I have repeated so many times, I am WELL aware of what the law IS, and, not once have I disagreed with you on what the law SAYS. The problem here is that you seem to be ignoring, or missing, the fact that I am discussing the VALIDITY of the law, NOT what the law does or does not say. I'm not challenging whether or not IP law says something, I'm challenging the veracity of it's foundation. To have a discussion on that, you must respond by backing up the principles of IP law, not by re-iterating what IP law claims. Restating a claim is not an argument. The idea that there is some mystical "right" over something that is retained after the actual thing is given up to someone else is insane. Claiming that, while you own that CD I just sold you, I retain ownership over the actual copy of the information you now posses. Not just the originals which I still possess, but somehow I own that which I do not, and never will again, possess, and you do. I am claiming ownership over something which is now inherently connected to the object you own. It is the equivalent of selling you a knife, but claiming that you only own the handle, and I retain ownership of the blade, and I can tell you what you can and cannot do with the blade. However, the blade itself will forever remain in your possession, I will never be taking it back, just as I cannot reclaim what I apparently "own," that being the information which is contained on the physical CD which YOU own. Now, responding with "IP law says the artists retains ownership" is not an argument. It is simply a claim. You may as well be responding, without citing the law, with "Nuh uh, the artist still owns that copy that the purchaser possesses." That is merely an assertion, and does nothing to back itself up. It also does absolutely nothing to address my argument, nor does it do a single thing to back up the foundation of IP. I repeat, it is an assertion, NOT an argument.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Lawrens Godon Inner circle France 1108 Posts |
I'm surprised that no one mentionned this alternative :
http://creativecommons.org/ I think it would be perfect for the release of certain work in magic... |
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
"There are no facts, only interpretations"
....Freddy Nietzsche |
|||||||||
Jamie Ferguson Inner circle Alba Gu Bràth 3640 Posts |
I wonder what Mike Danata would think about this whole discussion?
When the chips are down, the duvet is uncomfortable.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Brian Brushwood's new book test (45 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7~8~9~10~11..17..22..27..32..37..39~40~41 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |