The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Breaking News * Feds Arrest Website Owner (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..14..17..20..23..26..28~29~30 [Next]
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Bob, it has to do with the exact tactic I advocated, and you criticised, clearly working to dissuade someone from doing something you disagree with, so, yeah, it has a LOT to do with the discussion.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
OF COURSE public protest can effect change. In this cased it served to get Congress to reevaluate the law. The protest was not intended to be, nor was it, an example of how private group action should be a substitute for the rule of law as you have suggested.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Bob, it was an example of EXAVTLY what I described, doing EXAVTLY what I suggested using it for. And I was referring to Go Daddy rescinding their support, not congress temporarily shelving the bills, doing nothing but providing lip service to the demands of the people. I guarantee you that bill/those bills will be back, and will still contain just as much, if not more objectionable aspects. Whether or not they will be as prominent, or they'll just attach them to some other bill that's all but guaranteed to go through, or pass them in the middle of the night like the ndaa, I don't know, but I assure they will be back. Congress is far too susceptible to cooperate pressure.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I hope the bills come back - in a more reasonable form that protects copyright while also providing protection to content providers who make use of user supplied information.

But we are now so far off topic that this conversation has become pointless.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
I have property in the woods that Ipurchased as an investment. I put up a cabin on said property and I even live in it a short time. I then leave to come back to my property in 6 months. However upon leaving I post signs all over the property saying "Private Property" (same as copyright laws) trespassers will be proscuted to the fullest extenet of the law unless they have permissionfrom the owner or rent this property from the owner. Well someone comes along and knows that I won't be back for six months and it is not rented so he decides to take up residence in my cabin without my permission and definitely without paying any rent. I come back early and find him there, using my property to reside in and sleep in and use it as if it were his own with no compensation or permission from me.

Tell me Glen how is that any different from taking and using someones material that they develop and try to sell in order to make an honest living. Yet some low life comes along and copies it just as the person comes and uses my cabin when I am not looking. Both have laws that forbid doing so and I see no difference in these matters. In both instances someone is stealing from someone else and depriviing the owner or orginator of his due compensation. In the copyrighted material his ideas are out there and he hopes to profit from them just as the property is out there and he hopes to profit from it. Yet someone comes along and deprives him of doing so because they just take it because they can.

Only a coniver would try and justify either of these acts. Someone who has very little concern for his fellow man and shows it by taking from him and giving back NOTHING. Let me see if I can find a nice word to call this individual...dirtbag comes to mind. the something for nothing mentality and then try and justify it. I really am not interested iin your off the wall ideals. How about some common decency for a change.

My God show some self esteem and pride.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5833 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Obnoxious so so... What were you out while someone used yur' unused property fer a while? Nothin' so stop yer whinin'.

Just walkin' a few steps in the deluded shoes of others...

;)
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-01-22 00:46, Tom Cutts wrote:
Obnoxious so so... What were you out while someone used yur' unused property fer a while? Nothin' so stop yer whinin'.

Just walkin' a few steps in the deluded shoes of others...

;)


No one used my property I do have a hunting cabin (3,000sq ft of living space) on MY property which I purchased on 223 acres and I do have it posted. You don't want to be caught trespassing on it. It is patroled and I will prosecute..


Do you mind if I use your car when you are not using it. Just leave the keys in at and please fill the tank I do not want to have to put gas in it jeez. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
I think Tom was intending to be sarcastic, and posting as he thinks gdw would. I may be mistaken, but that's how I read it.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-01-22 01:12, balducci wrote:
I think Tom was intending to be sarcastic, and posting as he thinks gdw would. I may be mistaken, but that's how I read it.


If you notice after rereading I came to the same conslusion. I changed my post.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5833 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZactly! Smile
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
The onlly way that would be even remotely similar would be if you sold the cabin, and were then trying to claim you still hold rights over it and restrict what the person you sold it to does with it. There's quite a difference between property existing, and you yourself "putting" it out there explicitly to make it available up others.
Come on, you're comparing something just existing, and you actively putting it in the possession of others. How on Earth you can compare leaving your property unattended, and selling something, willingly putting it in the possession of others, is beyond reason.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-01-22 08:38, gdw wrote:
The onlly way that would be even remotely similar would be if you sold the cabin, and were then trying to claim you still hold rights over it and restrict what the person you sold it to does with it. There's quite a difference between property existing, and you yourself "putting" it out there explicitly to make it available up others.
Come on, you're comparing something just existing, and you actively putting it in the possession of others. How on Earth you can compare leaving your property unattended, and selling something, willingly putting it in the possession of others, is beyond reason.


As usual you change the playing field when it does not fit your agenda. When something does not fit your agenda you make some sort of off the wall statement such as the one you just made: "The onlly way that would be even remotely similar etc" . You say this and we are just supposed to accept it? You have a very high opinion of yourself by trying to estblish the ground rules to fit your agenda. As they say, Nothing new here move along.

By the way do you stil live in Mom's basement? Smile Don't you hate being sidetracked?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Aces, the difference should be obvious. One, you willingly give someone your property, in exchange for money, and the other you just leave it unattended. I didn't change anything, you compared apples and airplanes.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
I have just one last thing to say on this subject. You've all just been punk'd.
Ok, no, but seriously, what I have to say is that I view intellectual property the EXACT same way I view physical property. If I give/sell you a book, you now poses the physical property of the book, as well as the intellectual property contained within it. I have no more right to tell you what you can do with the paper contained within the book than I do the information. You poses both, and I was the one who turned BOTH over to your possession.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
We know that's your position. By your simplistic logic, you are free to purchase a book, copy the contents verbatim, put your own name on it as author, and sell it on the open market.

Also, by your logic, you may buy a Coca-Cola, and, since you purchased the logo on the bottle, are also free to use that logo on your own product.

Welcome to Wonderland!
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Who said anything about claiming authorship? There are a whole different set of concerns ther via fraud.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
You said that once you owned it you could do anything you wanted with it.

But, that aside, is it your position that you could use, say, the Coca-Cola logo, which you purchased when you bought a bottle of Coke, as a tee shirt design without obtaining permission from Coca-Cola? (Keep in mind that trade marks are also considered intellectual property.) If I understand you correctly, you would seem to have no problem with that.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Personally, I do not believe anyone should have a right to stop you from doing that, no. Trying to sell such t shirts, claiming they are from Coca-Cola, or officially licensed, etc, would be a form of fraud, defrauding the person you sell them to, IMHO.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-01-22 14:26, gdw wrote:
Personally, I do not believe anyone should have a right to stop you from doing that, no. Trying to sell such t shirts, claiming they are from Coca-Cola, or officially licensed, etc, would be a form of fraud, defrauding the person you sell them to, IMHO.


Would someone so defrauded have any direct legal recourse against the seller? Hard to argue for (monetary) "damages" - they got the shirt they were expected to get.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
By Glen's logic, I don't think they could sue precisely for the reason you mentioned. And since in Glen's scenario there are no enforcement remedies except for social ostracism and shame, there would be no point in suing anyway, for judgements would be meaningless.

The idea that ostracism is an effective remedy against those who do wrong is highly questionable. Those who shamelessly steal the intellectual property of others have had no problems finding those who are shameless enough to obtain it from them. There is, and always has been, an extremely lucrative market for stolen goods. And that is the fundamental problem with Glen's "solutions." They don't work in the real world.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Breaking News * Feds Arrest Website Owner (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..14..17..20..23..26..28~29~30 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL