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..8..13..18..23..26~27~28~29~30 [Next]
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
And the stipulation via contract that Glen endorses IS the copyright. Compliance with it is an implied contractual condition of sale.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I'm trying to decide which thread is more nuts...this one, or the one with the appeal to the expert statistician.
"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
They're running neck and neck.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-02-06 12:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
On 2012-01-30 18:36, DanHarlan wrote:
GDW--
... in the interest of understanding your position, I say let's forget about the copyright law. Evelyn told me her IDEA. According to you, I now OWN that IDEA and have every right inherent in ownership as if it were physical PROPERTY...

UNLESS she stipulated that I DO NOT have the right to share it with anyone else....
--Dan Harlan


Stipulate via contract, or some other agreement, yes... the same as with physical property.

Emphasis added. Your (GDW) comments in Italics.


I tried to edit my comment, but the server seemed to freeze.

I was adding the following:

"If I phrased this earlier in a way that said the actual "rights" were retained, then I misspoke. There's a difference between promising to do, or not do something, and withholding "rights.""

So, in reference to Mr. Harlan's comments, I was agreeing that you can make a stipulation that the purchaser is agreeing to not copy, but, in spite of Mr. Harlan's wording, it is not "withholding" the right from the purchaser. The right comes inherent with the possession.

Mr. Cassidy, no, I am not confusing rights with abilities. Iau have the ability to kill someone, that doesn't give me the right as it would be infringing on the rights of another. You seen to be confusing rights with privileges. Privileges are granted, not rights. There are many things mislabeled "rights," often under the guise of "legal rights" which are actually privileges, this has, unfortunately, done plenty to obfuscate the issue.
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 2012-02-06 12:23, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm trying to decide which thread is more nuts...this one, or the one with the appeal to the expert statistician.


Which thread is that?
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
Believe me, you don't want to know. But it's in Penny for Your Thoughts...one of the Super Bowl threads.
"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
Quote:
On 2012-02-06 12:49, gdw wrote:
There are many things mislabeled "rights," often under the guise of "legal rights" which are actually privileges, this has, unfortunately, done plenty to obfuscate the issue.


Fine. Call it what you want. When I sell you a book I retain the "privilege" of exclusive copyright. And you are not granted the "privilege" of reproducing or selling it. (Nor do you have any inherent right to.)

Glad that's settled.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Mr. Cassidy, copying is not a privilage, it is a right, and one inherent in possessing/owning a copy of information.
No different than if you tell someone something in confidence, they have a right to do with that information as they please, however they agreed not to.
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
So, if I understand you correctly, one has a right to commit fraud.
"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."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I suspect that there may be a conflation between legal and moral rights in the discussion.

Here's another example, if you don't like the Dan Harlan excerpt. I don't have a right to hit you in the face. But if we enter a boxing ring, then you have waived your right not to be hit in the face. Yes, there is a limitation in time and space on that waiver, but it does seem entirely clear to me that this would be another example of a "right" that can be waived.
"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
No more than saying nothing is giving up your right to speak freely, nor is speaking giving up your right to keep quite.

In fact, entering into a boxing match would be an example of EXERCISING your rights, not waiving them. You are exerting your right to choose what you do, or do not, submit your body to.

This example is similar to the non disclosure example I gave. Agreeing to do, or not do, or submit to something is not giving up your rights. You still fully retain them.

You do not have a "right" to hit me, and I don't "give up" any rights by giving you permission to. The same way I don't have a "right" to have sex with someone, and my wife does not "give up" any rights when she chooses to have sex with me/let me have sex with her.
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 2012-02-06 13:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, one has a right to commit fraud.


I'm sure you know that libertarians generally disagree with force and fraud. Fraud becomes the issue of what you are doing to the person to whom you are misrepresenting yourself.
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
If a boxer hasn't waived his right not to be hit, then another boxer who hits him has violated his rights.
"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
Quote:
On 2012-02-06 14:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a boxer hasn't waived his right not to be hit, then another boxer who hits him has violated his rights.


Yes, but I'm sure you will agree that when the boxer enters the ring, he has implicitly waived his right not to be hit. Similarly, when a person purchases a copyrighted work, he has implicitly waived the "right" to copy and distribute it.
Ray Tupper.
View Profile
Special user
NG16.
750 Posts

Profile of Ray Tupper.
If it was a professional bout and he was getting paid,he's sold/leased his body for the duration of the fight.
You'd be free to do as you please with him as you're the owner of his carcasse.Even murder quite legally with no recourse to his family.Hey you could even waive his fee,as his rights (to payment) ceased when he (de)ceased.
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes!
When do we want it?
C*nt!
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
If you are referring to violating your contracts, then, I would argue you have a "right" to do what you wish with "your" property, but not that of another's. You could argue that any exchanged property was thus not gained legitimately, and you would be "violating" the other parties property then.

So it would be similar to if one borrowed property, and then destroyed it.
Of course you can still argue that the property owner was the one who took the risk of lending out their property, and so it is a risk they accepted. I'd say this makes fraud a slightly different case than force, but still one that can be subjected to consequences, as would be stipulated in a contract.

I honestly do not know if I think fraud should be treated the same as force. That is, I don't know if force is warranted in response.. I have thought about it before, and I'm not certain. I debate whether or not I think it should be handled the same as theft, or economically and with ostracism.
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 2012-02-06 14:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If a boxer hasn't waived his right not to be hit, then another boxer who hits him has violated his rights.


As I said, there's a (big) difference between waiving a right, and giving permission. Are you suggesting you waive your rights when you have sex? It would be the same argument. Also, if your rights WERE waived, then you would not have the right to reinvoke them until the match, or sex, was over. This should make it clear that you are NOT "waiving" any rights. As I said, you are actually EXERCISING you rights.
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.
Ray Tupper.
View Profile
Special user
NG16.
750 Posts

Profile of Ray Tupper.
With no sex,you'd definitely exercising your right.
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes!
When do we want it?
C*nt!
DanHarlan
View Profile
V.I.P.
Ohio
953 Posts

Profile of DanHarlan
GDW--
Oh, right. Right on. I didn't rightly understand your righteously right-angled definition of rights until right now, although it was right there, but now I think I've got it right. Please, go right ahead. After all, that's your right, right?

We were all talking about permissions and restrictions while using the generally accepted term "rights" to indicate those granted or controlled by agreement. Technically, not taking away RIGHTS, but merely agreeing that one won't do something (even if one has a RIGHT to)... which you've agreed we can agree on... as long as we don't call it a "right." Also, we might allow something by agreement that is beyond the scope of your definition of RIGHTS, and we... in our stubborn adherence to common terminology... may have mindlessly called it a "right" when, in fact, it is a permission.

I apologize for assuming you were speaking the same language as me.
--Dan Harlan
Visit My Site @

www.danharlanmagic.com
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Speaking the same language would be the point. Words have meanings. If we are discussing whether it not one can maintain an inherent copy"right" over information in the possession of others, then we should make sure we are clear on what a "right" is.
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..8..13..18..23..26~27~28~29~30 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 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