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..10~11~12~13~14..18..21..24..27..28~29~30 [Next]
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 11:30, Ray Tupper. wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 11:22, acesover wrote:
Because he is a -----------. Fill in the blank.

I ran out of blanks.


Just use live ammo then.
Ray Tupper.
View Profile
Special user
NG16.
750 Posts

Profile of Ray Tupper.
HA!
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes!
When do we want it?
C*nt!
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
OK. I did not say fill in the "blanks" meaning each space meant a letter. I said fill in the blank, blank just meaning a word of your own choosing.
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
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 08:45, gdw wrote:
Nope.


Then speaking of inconsistencies, let me suggest this. In your examples of why one should be able to do anything at all with a book, CD, etc., you continually analogize to other forms of physical (non-intellectual property) and ask "What's e difference?

However, you see nothing wrong with reselling a bookcase, but you DO see something wrong with the mass production and re-selling of, say, a book or e-book. You repeatedly said that it was a mischaracterization of your position to infer that you didn't think it was wrong; you just don't think that wrong should be legally enforceable.

So despite all of your protestations of "What's the difference?" apparently (I deleted "clearly") you DO perceive the difference - in fact, a significant difference; one is a moral wrong equivalent to cheating on one's spouse - even if nobody has articulated that difference to your satisfaction.
"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."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 11:09, mastermindreader wrote:
So why doesn't that argument apply when you give someone your credit card number or your name and other personal information? If you voluntarily put it into their possession it is, according to you, no longer yours to control. Just because you have the original you have no right to control what they do with the information you gave them.


Who said it doesn't apply? To me, it's the same as you right to privacy. If I make an image of myself available to someone else, I put it out there. I may be trysting them to keep it to themselves, but that's all it is. We may have an explicit agreement, but outside of that, I'm still the one who made that information available in the first place.

As for using someone else's personal info, I'm assuming you are referring to identity theft, then they would be misrepresenting themselves, again dealing with fraud. They like defrauded me in the first place as well, violating what ever agreement we had when I made the information available.
Of course if I just give someoney cc number, I'm an idiot.

Quote:
On 2012-01-24 11:50, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 08:45, gdw wrote:
Nope.


Then speaking of inconsistencies, let me suggest this. In your examples of why one should be able to do anything at all with a book, CD, etc., you continually analogize to other forms of physical (non-intellectual property) and ask "What's e difference?

However, you see nothing wrong with reselling a bookcase, but you DO see something wrong with the mass production and re-selling of, say, a book or e-book. You repeatedly said that it was a mischaracterization of your position to infer that you didn't think it was wrong; you just don't think that wrong should be legally enforceable.

So despite all of your protestations of "What's the difference?" apparently (I deleted "clearly") you DO perceive the difference - in fact, a significant difference; one is a moral wrong equivalent to cheating on one's spouse - even if nobody has articulated that difference to your satisfaction.


The difference would be pretty similar to what I said above. It's about respecting the creators wishes. If someone made the bookcase for me, and asked that I not resell it, then that's a different thing. It would be "wrong" for me yo resell it then.
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
Aces your accusation of me just trying justify my own actions shows, once again, your complete and utter ignorance here.
The same way my not wanting to throw heroin users in jail has nothing to do with justifying my own actions, as I don't use heroin.
I'm sorry your closed minded thinking simply can't allow for someone to support the rights of others to do things with their own property that he may personally disagree with.
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
Lobo, realising I was being inconsistent was exactly what lead me to change my mind in the first place.
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
Correct. Identity theft is fraud IF you misrepresent yourself to be someone else. If you give me your credit card number and I use it to purchase something, I have merely represented that I had your permission to do so. I am not claiming to be you. By your rationale, if you gave me the number it was up to me what I did with it. Thus, because you gave the number out, I am free to do with it as I wish. That is exactly what you have maintained regarding other forms of intangible property.

Identity, cc numbers, the right to privacy (which you cited) etc. are ALL examples of intangible property to which LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE property rights must necessarily attach. Copyrights and patents are also intangible property that carry concomitant rights.

As to it being foolish to give out one's cc number, you do so everytime you make a credit card purchase.

We have now reached, I believe, the point where the libertarian/anarchistic position collapses under the weight of its own logic.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Bob, chances are if I have you my credit card, it was with permission to use it, once. So representing yourself to have permission to use it indefinitely WOULD be misrepresenting yourself.
As for making purchases, again, there's an agreement that the cc is being used for that one purchase.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 13:32, gdw wrote:
Bob, chances are if I have you my credit card, it was with permission to use it, once. So representing yourself to have permission to use it indefinitely WOULD be misrepresenting yourself.
As for making purchases, again, there's an agreement that the cc is being used for that one purchase.


Yes, of course. That's the inevitable conclusion I'd hoped you'd arrive at. It is the same logic that applies to obtaining copyrighted works. There is an agreement that they are for your own use only.

Same thing.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 13:38, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 13:32, gdw wrote:
Bob, chances are if I have you my credit card, it was with permission to use it, once. So representing yourself to have permission to use it indefinitely WOULD be misrepresenting yourself.
As for making purchases, again, there's an agreement that the cc is being used for that one purchase.


Yes, of course. That's the inevitable conclusion I'd hoped you'd arrive at. It is the same logic that applies to obtaining copyrighted works. There is an agreement that they are for your own use only.

Same thing.


YES! I have already said exactly that. That is why I think it IS wrong to copy without permission. My point is, exactly as I outlined in response to Lobo's point about reselling a bookcase, it would be "wrong" to resell the bookcase if you had a similar agreement, just that the original seller has no inherent "right" to control what you do with it after they sell it to you. They DO, of course, have every right to refuse to sell it to you if you do not want to agree to their conditions.
Also, agreements are between the parties involved, you can't force a third party to be bound to an agreement they had no part in. So, unless the bookcase maker had the absurd condition that you don't let anyone else even look at the bookcase,* they have no right to stop a third party, who does see the bookcase, from making his own of similar design.

*Or the condition that, if you wish to let anyone else see it, you have them first agree not to use its design as well.
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.
Frank Douglas
View Profile
Special user
555 Posts

Profile of Frank Douglas
Bob

Slight side trip here....

What is the feasibility and legality of not selling IP but leasing it with set terms and conditions of use and return at end of use?

Cheers
Frank

Addendum:

IP being a book/etc
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Frank-

I've seriously looked into that as well as the idea of licensing the performance of copyrighted works. Of course that required copyrighting presentations as plays. (Note that unique sequences of "moves" can also be copyrighted as choreography.)

The idea is feasible, and legal.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Frank Douglas
View Profile
Special user
555 Posts

Profile of Frank Douglas
That's what I thought. And the ability to require the return of the original printed/recorded media to preclude it being re-sold or given away?

How Practical is it?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
It is practical if the owner of the IP is serious about enforcing his rights in court and is financially able to do so. (There's the rub. That's why intellectual property laws are more effective than private contracts.)

Good thoughts,

Bob
Frank Douglas
View Profile
Special user
555 Posts

Profile of Frank Douglas
That's the kicker.... who has the deeper pockets.

Thanks Bob

Cheers
Frank

We now return you to your previously scheduled merry-go-round.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 14:44, Frank Douglas wrote:
That's the kicker.... who has the deeper pockets.

Thanks Bob

Cheers
Frank

We now return you to your previously scheduled merry-go-round.


Thanks for the brief detour into the real world, Frank!
debaser
View Profile
Special user
Boulder
553 Posts

Profile of debaser
So much is being argued about what the guy did that was legal vs. illegal. this is not the question but rather what laws did the us government use to arrest him. Most likely the case will not hold water at trial, but regardless it sets dangerous precedent that because law enforcement doesn't understand how the websites work and are being guided by us corporations that only have their own agenda (irregardless of laws).

Congress has tabled a set of laws which they admit they never understood in the first place but were going to vote on until smaller companies had to fight just to get them to realize what they were doing instead of just trusting the people who wrote the bills.

it is a lot harder to reclaim writes we have given up than to protect them before they go away.

jonathon's comment relating this to prohibition is useful to be looked at from both sides. prohibition led to more crime and corruption than the liquor distribution it prevented ever did.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 15:48, debaser wrote:
Most likely the case will not hold water at trial.


I've read the indictment. The case, contrary to your assertion, appears to be very strong. What facts are you aware of that support your assertion that the case will not hold water at trial?

You've alleged that the indictment was in retaliation for SOPA going down but still haven't addressed the facts that the investigation leading to the indictment began over a year ago - before SOPA was even brought up for debate, and that SOPA has, in fact, not even been voted on.

But, more importantly, do you support the illegal distribution and "sharing" of copyrighted materials?
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-01-24 14:42, mastermindreader wrote:
It is practical if the owner of the IP is serious about enforcing his rights in court and is financially able to do so. (There's the rub. That's why intellectual property laws are more effective than private contracts.)

Good thoughts,

Bob


How does that show that laws are more effective than private contracts? What you just described sounds like it would be a pretty similar procedure taken with a private contract as well.
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.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Breaking News * Feds Arrest Website Owner (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14..18..21..24..27..28~29~30 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 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