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]  1~2~3~4~5..10..14..18..22..26..28~29~30 [Next]
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 13:27, MobilityBundle wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 08:32, irossall wrote:
I am waiting for my local public Library to get busted. Anyone with a Library card (free) can take home many different books, CD's and DVD's without any money changing hands and no money going to the Artist's and Author's of these properties.
I often loan my DVD's and Books to Family and Friends. I guess I should be thrown in Jail or fined as well.
Iven Smile


Libraries are largely excluded from liability by statute. For details, see

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc......00-.html


I believe he understands that, he's just pointing out the contradiction of it.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 13:25, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 13:14, gdw wrote:
Oh, ok, so it's NOT the "sharing" of the files then that's the issue, but the duplication? So what if I make a copy, but keep it to myself?
Or is it only when the two come together? So it's perfectly ok for me to make a copy, and also perfectly ok for me to give something to someone else, but never the twain shall meet?

Just want to make sure we're clear here.
Are you really not comprehending or are you just playing dense? The answers to your questions are:
Yes
No
No
No


Well, as already pointed out, you are wrong on the duplication of files. You are "allowed" to make copies of digital files for yourself, I believe this is largely an allowance for back up purposes, of course your computer itself often makes copies of many different files, that you would otherwise be in trouble for duplicating, just in its normal operation.

If the underlying issue has to do with lost revenue for the producers, then it really shouldn't matter WHAT you copy, or how, if it's for your self.
Of course, if they were to actually focus on that as the issue, then you shouldn't be allowed to loan, or resell anything. Regardless of whether or not you keep a copy. At least by the reasoning being purported. Of course I have no expectations for you, Tom, to actually be consistent in applying any principles here.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 13:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

Sounds like you have no problem with illegal file "sharing" and don't, in any case, believe that government should protect intellectual property rights. Am I wrong?


As I've repeated several times, I DO have a problem with it, and I also have a problem with lying, cheating on a person you're in a relationship with, and doing heroin, but I don't think government should be involved in enforcing those things either.
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 2012-01-20 14:54, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 13:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

Sounds like you have no problem with illegal file "sharing" and don't, in any case, believe that government should protect intellectual property rights. Am I wrong?


As I've repeated several times, I DO have a problem with it, and I also have a problem with lying, cheating on a person you're in a relationship with, and doing heroin, but I don't think government should be involved in enforcing those things either.


What is the purpose of laws if there is no governmental authority to enforce them? Are you saying it should just be "every man for himself?"
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 14:53, gdw wrote:
Well, as already pointed out, you are wrong on the duplication of files. You are "allowed" to make copies of digital files for yourself, I believe this is largely an allowance for back up purposes, of course your computer itself often makes copies of many different files, that you would otherwise be in trouble for duplicating, just in its normal operation.

If the underlying issue has to do with lost revenue for the producers, then it really shouldn't matter WHAT you copy, or how, if it's for your self.
Of course, if they were to actually focus on that as the issue, then you shouldn't be allowed to loan, or resell anything. Regardless of whether or not you keep a copy. At least by the reasoning being purported. Of course I have no expectations for you, Tom, to actually be consistent in applying any principles here.
Uh, NO, I'm not wrong on the duplication of files. Your misinterpretation of anything I've said is what is wrong, Glen. But then that is par for the course with you. Now, go read copyright law completely and thoroughly. You may find where you have gone awry... But I can't guarantee you will either see it or admit to it.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 12:40, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 12:35, acesover wrote:

I am just curious. Why would you not let us know which third party you uploaded too? You did mention it is a free site. Again just curious.


Well, at least one reason is that I can't remember which one I used this semester. I suppose I could go look, but is it important to the discussion?


Well it could be iportant to the discussion if the reason you did not list it is because you did not want anyone copying those files.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 14:22, stoneunhinged wrote:
Glenn, let's just ask you point blank:

1. If someone downloads a copy of one of Bob's books without paying for it, is that OK or not OK?

2. If it's not OK, who is responsible for trying to compensate Bob for having stolen from him?

Two easy questions, I think. On the other hand, I know that you are good at avoiding direct questions. Doesn't make you a bad person, but it makes you difficult to have discussions with.

Have a beer!

:stout:


1. No, it's not "ok," the same as cheating on ones boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancé/spouse. Actually I'd say the one making it available would be more akin to those comparisons, the one they cheat with would be comparable to the downloader.

That's fairly direct.

2. I didn't realize Bob had less than when he started here. Is he no longer in possession of something he had before?
If he had some sort of agreement with the person who initially bought the book from him, then I would say that person. Did they have some sort of contract?

To jump back to the cheating comparison, who is responsible for compensating the scorned girlfriend? Are either the cheater, or cheatee forced to compensate them?
Things seem to change when it's a marriage, but then we have an explicit contract. In this case, the person who cheated may be held accountable in some form.
Considering the third party was not a part of the marriage contract, can they rightfully be held to it? Can an agreement between two people be forced upon third parties?

Again, not saying there's nothing "wrong" with being the other woman/man, especially if one does so knowingly, but should that person be the one prosecuted for someone else breaking an agreement?

Ok, that one was a little less direct, but to be fair, it wasn't such a "simple" question, as there were several presumptions within it.
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 2012-01-20 12:40, stoneunhinged wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 12:35, acesover wrote:

I am just curious. Why would you not let us know which third party you uploaded too? You did mention it is a free site. Again just curious.


Well, at least one reason is that I can't remember which one I used this semester. I suppose I could go look, but is it important to the discussion?


It could be important to the discussion if the reason you did not list it is because you did not want anyone from the Café seeing them or copying them for whatever reason.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 15:11, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 14:53, gdw wrote:
Well, as already pointed out, you are wrong on the duplication of files. You are "allowed" to make copies of digital files for yourself, I believe this is largely an allowance for back up purposes, of course your computer itself often makes copies of many different files, that you would otherwise be in trouble for duplicating, just in its normal operation.

If the underlying issue has to do with lost revenue for the producers, then it really shouldn't matter WHAT you copy, or how, if it's for your self.
Of course, if they were to actually focus on that as the issue, then you shouldn't be allowed to loan, or resell anything. Regardless of whether or not you keep a copy. At least by the reasoning being purported. Of course I have no expectations for you, Tom, to actually be consistent in applying any principles here.
Uh, NO, I'm not wrong on the duplication of files. Your misinterpretation of anything I've said is what is wrong, Glen. But then that is par for the course with you. Now, go read copyright law completely and thoroughly. You may find where you have gone awry... But I can't guarantee you will either see it or admit to it.


Tom, what on Earth did I misrepresent? I asked of making a copy and keeping it to yourself was ok, you said "no."
As is shown on the law, this is not the case, you CAN make copies and keep them for yourself, as I said, largely for backup/archival purposes, among other things.
What the hell was misrepresented about anything you said there?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. I can hardly expect honestly, or integrity here.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 14:59, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 14:54, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 13:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

Sounds like you have no problem with illegal file "sharing" and don't, in any case, believe that government should protect intellectual property rights. Am I wrong?


As I've repeated several times, I DO have a problem with it, and I also have a problem with lying, cheating on a person you're in a relationship with, and doing heroin, but I don't think government should be involved in enforcing those things either.


What is the purpose of laws if there is no governmental authority to enforce them? Are you saying it should just be "every man for himself?"


I'm sorry, there are laws against simply lying, or cheating on a girlfriend? Obviously there are laws against heroin use, but I strongly disagree with them.
The only "laws" that I think there should be are "natural" laws.
Do you think government should be enforcing honesty, and making sure high school students don't cheat on each other?
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.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 15:19, gdw wrote:

Tom, what on Earth did I misrepresent?
You misrepresented that you knew what this topic was even about. This is about torrent file copying sites. Your attempt to make an argument that all digital file copying is the same is simply ignorant. Here is the difference, Glen. You don't legally own the files on a torrent site. Therefore you have NO RIGHTS toward making copies of them.

The "example" you presented does not pertain as you are interpreting it to mean something other than the topc at hand, which IS... copying files from a torrent site which one does not legally own.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Although others have pointed it out before me, gotta love the irony of the history of Hollywood, considering who is largely behind pushing these ideas.
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
Glen-

You asked in an earlier post what have I been deprived of that I didn't have before when my eBooks are illegally copied and distributed.

That is the standard specious argument made by pirates trying to justify their acts. I have been deprived of the right, pursuant to international copyright laws, to be fairly compensated for my work. Over the years I have been deprived of significant revenue.

Sorry that you seem to think that I don't have a "right" to be paid for my creative endeavors.

If you ever get stiffed out of a fee for doing a show, ask yourself what you are out that you didn't have before.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 15:43, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 15:19, gdw wrote:

Tom, what on Earth did I misrepresent?
You misrepresented that you knew what this topic was even about. This is about torrent file copying sites. Your attempt to make an argument that all digital file copying is the same is simply ignorant. Here is the difference, Glen. You don't legally own the files on a torrent site. Therefore you have NO RIGHTS toward making copies of them.

The "example" you presented does not pertain as you are interpreting it to mean something other than the topc at hand, which IS... copying files from a torrent site which one does not legally own.


Like I said, no reason to expect integrity. You said I misrepresented what YOU said, now you seem to want to trying and point things in a different direction.

Ok, so lets address your claims here. What IS this topic about, well, where else can we look, if not the OP?

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_19776085

This topic would seem to be about a file sharing site (and in this case, file sharing is EXACTLY what it was) being shut down, and it's owners arrested.
The site in question was megaupload.com

Tom, if YOU "knew what this topic was even about," as you seem to represent yourself as knowing, you would know hat megaupload.com was NOT a torrent site, but a file sharing site. That is, it was/is a site which allows people to upload actual files, and store them via the site, to be transferred elsewhere. It's a site similar to Yousendit.com

These sites are actually NOT marketed as being for "piracy," but rather, as I said, file sharing. As a video editor, I make use of these types of sites quite frequently, when clients uploading video for me, along with other services like FTP.

That's not to say people could not, and did not, upload "copyrighted" material to these sites. That's the nature of the beast, as it were.

A for "torrent" files, in particular, owning the files uploaded to "torrent sites," again, if you did know anything about this "topic" you probably would know that torrent files are not actually the copyrighted files themselves, but rather more like pointers. The essentially point the user of said file to where the possessor of another file is, allowing the file to be copied to the user of the torrent.

SO, if we want to get technical, and, as you seem to want to harp on details, I guess we do, the files actually uploaded to "torrent sites" ARE owned by the people uploading them. The same way that, if I were to make and HTML file for a website, and that website used images for it's backgrounds, for example, them, whether or not I "owned" the images it refers to or not is a separate issue to whether or not I "own" the actual HTML file.

If you think otherwise, then the simple fact that I can posses the HTML file completely independent of the images in question should held straighten you out. That is, I could make a copy of the HTML file, put it on another computer, or simply move the original image files, and suddenly the HTML file is completely separated from the images.

The same can be said of the torrent file. Without the original "copyrighted" file, the torrent file is like a dead link, and as it is the torrent files themselves uploaded to torrent SITES, not the "copyrighted" material, those uploading them to said sites DO own the files, and DO have a "legal" right to copy them.

Also, it would seem that you are now attempting to misrepresent what I said, as I was NOT making an argument that ALL digital file copying was the same, as the information I referred to in the post you quoted when accusing me of misrepresenting what you said is specifically about "exceptions" where you are "allowed" to make copies.
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
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 15:50, mastermindreader wrote:
Glen-

You asked in an earlier post what have I been deprived of that I didn't have before when my eBooks are illegally copied and distributed.

That is the standard specious argument made by pirates trying to justify their acts. I have been deprived of the right, pursuant to international copyright laws, to be fairly compensated for my work. Over the years I have been deprived of significant revenue.

Sorry that you seem to think that I don't have a "right" to be paid for my creative endeavors.

If you ever get stiffed out of a fee for doing a show, ask yourself what you are out that you didn't have before.


Bob, it is not specious, and I also am not quite using it the same way those trying to justify downloading would use it.

To start with, you do NOT have a "right" to be payed for your creative rendezvous. You certainly have a right to try to sell them, or make money off of them in other ways, but you do not a "right" to BE payed.
The simple example of someone producing something completely useless with their creative endeavours should illustrate this clearly enough.
You only get to be payed if, and when, someone is willing to pay you.

That's NOT to say that anyone else has a "right' to your creative endeavour, or the products thereof. I am certainly not arguing otherwise.

As for depriving you of POTENTIAL future earnings, so does someone who writes a bad review of one of your products. No, it is not exactly the same, but it DOES produce the same results, you being deprived of potential customers. Similarly, so does competition in the market. You do not have a "right" to customers in the first place though.

A for being refused a fee for a performance, that's a bit of a different scenario, as it would be a violation of a direct contract. My customer, in such a case, have agreed to be my customers, and to pay me.
The potential revenue you are referring to would be from people who have made no such agreement to be your customers in the first place. You have no "right" to these customers in the first place.

Also, I would have "given" them my show, so I would be "out" that performance, and time. In the case of you selling a book to a person, and that person giving a copy to a third party, you would have already bee compensated for that which you are "out," that being hat first copy of the book. After that, you would still have all the other copies of your book that you had before, no more, or less than after the person gives someone else a copy.

Again, I'm not saying they are RIGHT in giving away a copy, just that you have no more, an no less than before.

A better comparison would be if I had done a show, and they filmed it, and then showed that recording to someone else.
I bring this up because I mentioned being out the time I put into the performance. As well I would be out the time put into putting my act together, learning my craft, etc.
With a book, you are in a similar position, having put the time preparing your material, writing the book, etc. However, when it comes to the actual show, and getting payed, I am payed for that performance, and that time. I certainly try to take into account the time and work I put into it before, but my one client is not responsible for compensating me for everything that led up to that one show, nor are they liable for me getting any future shows.
If they show a recording of my show to a friend, I was never guaranteed a paying audience from that third party to begin with. I was not "owed" a show, and compensation, before they showed the recording, nor am I "owed" it after. Also, I am not, necessarily, being deprived of a potential future show. If their friend likes what they see, they may be more inclined to hire me for another show. Then again, maybe they hated it, and will not hire me. Or maybe they didn't care for magic, and were never going to consider hiring me to begin with, and then when they saw the recording, they were exactly were they were before hand, having no new desire to hire me, and no accentuated distaste for my show.
Similarly, when someone buys your book, they are paying you for that one physical item, they can't be responsible for compensating you for all you put into it, nor are the responsible, or accountable for any future sales. Also, as with someone who otherwise may not have seen a performance of mine, they may be introducing your material to someone new, who may become a fan, or maybe they will hate it, or maybe they won't care one way or another.

If I am concerned about people recording my shows and showing others, I can make agreements with them as part of the negotiation of my performance that there be no recording. We can stipulate in a contract what they agree to pay me should they break this agreement, if that is what I so desire.
I see no reason why you couldn't do exactly that with the sales of your books. You should have every right to, IMHO.
However, if a third party sees a recording of my show, after someone agreed to not record it, but did anyways, I have no prior agreement with that person, and I have no right to claim anything of them. I see it the same way with a book you may sell to a person and have an agreement with them, but then a third party comes to posses a copy of it. Said third party can't be bound by a contract between two other people. As I said though, the person who DID make an agreement, and who broke it, certainly should be.
One last point on these third parties, I'm not saying they are completely "innocent," particularly if they knew that the person providing the materials was doing so in violation of an agreement, but they are certainly not the responsible part, with regards to the violation of your contract. They certainly can be viewed as responsible for their actions being unsavoury.

One last time, to repeat, and clarify, I am, in NO way saying that you have not been wronged, in the same respect that I would not say that a person cheated on by their boyfriend/girlfriend also had not been wronged.
They very much have.
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
Gdw wrote:

Quote:
A for being refused a fee for a performance, that's a bit of a different scenario, as it would be a violation of a direct contract. My customer, in such a case, have agreed to be my customers, and to pay me.


It really is very much the same thing. I offer an eBook for sale and someone buys it. An essential element of any contract, which this is, is good faith. When one enters into such a contract it is implicit that both sides agree to be bound by applicable laws. The law of copyright governs eBooks. A purchaser is bound by it.

Further, the right of authors and inventors to profit from their works is clearly set forth in the US Constitution, which gives the government the authority to enact laws governing intellectual property.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act strictly forbids the "sharing" of copyrighted eBooks. It is not necessary for a seller of eBooks to expressly request that a customer agree to obey the law. That is implicit in the contract of sale.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Bob, you are resorting to circular reasoning. I was speaking from a viewpoint where such laws would NOT exist, arguing for, or against, their basis from the ground up. To resort to it being in the law as a basis for justifying it's existence is, as I said, circular.
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 2012-01-20 17:17, gdw wrote:
Bob, you are resorting to circular reasoning. I was speaking from a viewpoint where such laws would NOT exist, arguing for, or against, their basis from the ground up. To resort to it being in the law as a basis for justifying it's existence is, as I said, circular.


My reasoning is based on the law. Yours is based on fantasy. It is the law that clearly sets forth the rights of owners of intellectual property.

Actually, it is your reasoning that is almost always circular - You are simply advocating that such laws and, apparently ANY laws enacted by government, are not "natural laws" and are, thus, not valid exercises of governmental power. And that is basically how you respond to any argument that runs contrary to your anarchist views.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5834 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2012-01-20 16:19, gdw wrote:
This topic would seem to be about a file sharing site (and in this case, file sharing is EXACTLY what it was) being shut down, and it's owners arrested.
The site in question was megaupload.com
All of which has what to do with your attempted example of a person making a copy for their own personal use of a digital file they lawfully own????
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27150 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
FBI ... ???
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......408.html

Impressive how our FBI acts in other countries.
I was unaware our (US) Justice department has jurisdiction to act in other countries to enforce US Law.
What does that mean for other counties where their laws are not to our liking or our custom?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Breaking News * Feds Arrest Website Owner (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..10..14..18..22..26..28~29~30 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.42 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