|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7~8~9~10~11..17..22..27..32..37..39~40~41 [Next] | ||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||
Don Dasher Special user 535 Posts |
Someone here is exhibiting signs of mental illness.
And for once it's not me! DD |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 15:35, gdw wrote: My point exactly. I haven't just reiterated "claims" (translation: facts) about what copyright law says; I've also explained why it's my opinion that copyright law is good. Why I think it should exist. I've asked you why you think copyright law is immoral and hurts creators, but you don't want to have that conversation; you want to have an abstract conversation about whether intellectual property rights even exist. But you don't present that position in abstract terms; you present it in concrete terms, as if what you think about IP rights is objective reality rather than opinion. This despite a marked lack of relevant examples -- or even hypotheticals -- to illustrate why you believe what you believe. (As I said, your knife analogy doesn't apply to IP rights unless you make it about who owns the design of the knife, the idea behind its physical form -- not the knife itself.) So we make another lap around the oval, both of us yelling out our driver's side windows "You're missing the point!" and -- most tellingly -- "As I said before...!" At some point, somebody's got to take an exit ramp, and I think I see one up ahead in my lane....
"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
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Meanwhile, for anyone still interested in the law:
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...." -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution Thank goodness for the Copyright Clause!
"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
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 14:43, BatsMagic wrote: I just want to live in a world where a creative person can make a living without worrying about who's enjoying or profiting from his work without compensating him for it -- and without worrying about who's out there convincing people intellectual property is a myth in order to justify having things they want but don't need and don't want to pay for (i.e., piracy). (Many anti-copyright people will insist they're not pirates and don't believe in piracy, but they invariably end up making the same arguments as people who claim "piracy is not theft.")
"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
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 15:09, gdw wrote: So, copyright and buying under that premise is not a contract? OK. I thought once you give out information for anything, then its up to the other person to do whatever they want with it according to your rules? Ladeeda... I went a looking and I founda this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1310886 http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/e......051.full http://journals.cambridge.org/action/dis......=2484572 Hmm... but just to give a crumb http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......282.html good day! (Aside: BB must be happy this thread went off the rails!)
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
DanHarlan V.I.P. 998 Posts |
Don't let GDW fool you. He understands that there is a distinct difference between physical and intellectual property. Heck, even children know the difference... "That's MY ball, give it back!" or "Hey, that was MY idea and you're too stupid to come up with your own! Copycat!" Infinite reproducability and all that.
What he's saying is it would be okay (in his opinion) if a creator would tell you (up front) that (by agreement) he doesn't want you to give away his work, or re-sell it, or claim it as your own. GDW has a problem with this "agreement" being in a pre-existing form which claims that creators have certain rights. Rights, privileges, limitations, restrictions... call it whatever you want. Current copyright law attempts to standardize most creators' desire to be recognized and compensated for their work. Flawed as it may be, it is also quite generous allowing for fair use and derivitive works. It's also possible for a creator to disregard the protections afforded by this flawed law (agreement) and simply choose not to enforce it. Other artists attempt to extend the reach of this copy-agreement by adding specific requests of their very own which may or may not be enforcable. Ultimately, you can go 'round 'n 'round all day trying to defend giving away ideas which you did not create, but I have a question: "If you aren't willing to pay the asking price for an original expression in a fixed form, then why do you want it for free?" All you are saying is "it costs too much." You are justifying theft, or claiming that expressions have no value, or that you (somehow) should determine the value of an expression. So, Copycat... what gives you that right? --Dan Harlan |
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 17:49, DanHarlan wrote: I'd like to think he does...but I've got brick-wall imprints in my forehead that cause me some doubt. Quote:
Flawed as it may be, it is also quite generous allowing for fair use and derivitive works. True. I didn't want to muddy the waters with this information while I still held out some hope for the discussion with GDW, but...I actually think copyright law should be stronger than it is. Quote:
All you are saying is "it costs too much." And everything costs too much if you can easily steal it and have no qualms about stealing it. One way to banish those qualms is to convince yourself no single person has the right to own what you're stealing...not even its creator. "Information wants to be free...no one owns a song...copyright only protects big, faceless corporations and rich people...copyright only hurts artists...copyright is obsolete in the information age...." Etcetera. All worn-out mantras of the digital thief.
"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
|
|||||||||
Stucky Inner circle I'm Batman! 1355 Posts |
Quote:
Heard any good jokes lately Stucky? Nothing that won't get deleted. How about this: What's red and bad for your teeth? A brick! Quote:
I just want to live in a world where a creative person can make a living without worrying about who's enjoying or profiting from his work without compensating him for it. So what you are saying is you want to bomb China then?
Official Thread Killer
|
|||||||||
FrenchDrop Inner circle I can name that tune in 1647 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 18:54, Stucky wrote: Let's not take anything off the table!
"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
|
|||||||||
Zombie Magic Inner circle I went out for a beer and now have 8733 Posts |
Quote:
That's very funny. |
|||||||||
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 0.07 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 < |