The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Brian Brushwood's new book test (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..17..23..29..35..39~40~41 [Next]
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 06:56, Michael Daniels wrote:
As far as I can see, GDW's arguments are all based on the simple proposition that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and that we should respect other people's wishes.

This may sound attractive in theory but, in practice, it is morally bankrupt and self-contradictory since it cannot answer the most fundamental moral question of all - what should we do when your wishes conflict with mine and we cannot agree on a compromise?

Mike


No, it's based on the fact that, if I sell you a knife, for example, I have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with that knife once you rightfully possess it. If I'm Jewish, and I don't like the idea of you using the knife to cut and eat pork, then I shouldn't have made the knife available to others. If I want to control what is done with something, the only legitimate way to do that is to keep it to myself, not to attempt to exert control over others.
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.
Michael Daniels
View Profile
Inner circle
Isle of Man
1428 Posts

Profile of Michael Daniels
That doesn't answer my general moral question - what should we do when your wishes conflict with mine and we cannot agree on a compromise?

Mike
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-10 23:22, FrenchDrop wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-03-10 22:34, gdw wrote:
Let me explain this to you again, even if information is property, that has no bearing on my argument as the information is still willingly, and intentionally given to the recipient.

I'm not sure why you're saying "let me explain this to you again," given that you've apparently moved on to a new topic. Since when are we discussing information that is willingly and intentionally given to the recipient?

I was under the impression we were discussing copyright infringement, copyright law, and why you believe copyright law is immoral and hurts the people who create art.

What have you decided is the new topic? That some creators freely give away their intellectual property or decline to take action against copyright violators? Because I don't disagree with that. But that has no more to do with the issue of copyright infringement than someone freely giving you his car has to do with grand larceny.

I still fail to see how the fact that some artists give away their creations for free supports your contention that copyright law is bad and hurts artists. I suspect if you were capable of explaining how it does, you'd have done so somewhere in your last half-dozen posts, since I've been questioning the connection all along.

Quote:
Did you bother to watch the doc?

No, I haven't set aside an hour and a half of my Sunday evening to watch a documentary and see if I can figure out how it supports your argument. I'd be happy to watch those parts of the documentary that are germane to this discussion, if you can point me to the scenes where Stephen King and/or J.K. Rowling say they're fine with someone altering and selling their novels without asking their permission. (This is another thing I won't hold my breath waiting for. Smile)

Quote:
Seriously, you leave me at a loss for words sometimes.

Really? You seem to have no trouble coming up with lots of words. It's a consistent, coherent support of your position that appears to elude you.

Quote:
You're assuming that everyone who had free access to the song would have bought it.

I'm asking how much more money would Psy have made from "Gangnam Style" if the people who downloaded his song for free had instead paid for it. Is it your belief that no one who took the time to find a free download of the song would have paid .99 cents for it if they couldn't have gotten it for free...or if they better understood that downloading a commercially available song for free is nothing short of theft?

Quote:
Your also completely ignoring what is the entire point, he simply would not have had that level of exposure if he had pursued copy"right."

Here's a huge point you're ignoring: Psy had the right to pursue legal action against people who violated his copyright, but he chose not to. That's very different from having others take the matter out of your hands, violating your copyright with no regard to your wishes. The fact that Psy chose not to pursue his rights does not mean people didn't violate his rights, and it certainly doesn't mean those rights didn't exist or that the law giving him those rights is immoral.

And the fact that declining to take legal action helped the song become a viral sensation does not mean that every artist can profit from doing what Psy did. Oh, and the fact that Psy didn't have his lawyer issue takedown orders for every Gangnam Style video on YouTube also doesn't mean Psy wanted everyone to have a free copy of his song; if he had wanted that, the song wouldn't be available for sale via Amazon, iTunes, etc.

What you have is anecdotal evidence of one artist who, in the instance of one song, chose to ignore copyright violations, gambling that his song would become a huge YouTube hit and lead to other revenue. For him, the gamble worked out to the tune of millions of bucks. But he'd almost certainly have made millions more if everyone who wanted his song badly enough to download it had paid for the right to do so.

At any rate, what happened with "Gangnam Style" does not prove copyright law is bad or that it hurts artists.

And let's get real: Since this began as a discussion of copyright law as it applies to novels, how exactly do you imagine a novelist can profit by the Psy model? If he looks the other way while his work is freely copied and distributed via the Internet, when and how does the money come rolling in for him?

Quote:
And before you being up non performing arts, Shakespeare did not have the benefit of copyright, people would see his plays so they could transcribe them and them put on their own performances.

Seriously? We also used to have all kinds of illnesses in Shakespeare's day that are nonexistent or preventable today. The 16th century wasn't necessarily The Good Ol' Days.

Quote:
Not to mention the examples given in the PressPlay,Pause, or have you still not bothered?

Since the last time you asked, in the same post I'm still replying to? No, not yet. Smile


I WAS referring to people who sell their ideas and work. If I sell you a cd, I have given you the information on the cd, regardless of my views when desires with regards to copyright.
You completely and legitimately possess the information I sold to you.
I have no right to then control what you do with that information. I have no right to control what you do with your physical property and your own body.
IP law claims that I can control what you can do with your own body, your own guitar, your own computer, and the information you possess at that point.

You seem to be stuck on this binary view where you either can charge for your information, or give it away.
It's not that Psy "wanted" everyone to have a free copy of his song, nor that you have to want every copy available for free.
PressPlay,Pause is a perfect example. You can watch the entire film online, in multiple locations. They also have multiple ways to offer funds.
It's not the only movie doing this either. Many films are available, in their entirety, online, but also sell DVDs.
Similarly many books offer both free and pay versions.

Just because someone makes something available for "free" in one place doesn't mean that they can't also make it available at a cost. Whether its the same version or not.
In PressPlay,Pause, I'll see if I can find the time so you can skip ahead to the part that I am referring to, an author discusses exactly what I am talking about.
He made his book available as an ebook for free, and it ended up being his most profitable work.

My point in bringing up people who embrace the reality of information is to show that it DOES work, and it is VERY profitable. It shows you do not need to rely on an antiquated and coercive system to make money from your ideas.

I believe your ideas are your own, until you make them available to others, the same as your physical property like the knife I described above. The knife/idea is yours, until you sell it to someone else. It doesn't matter if you still have a duplicate knife, or retain copies of the idea/information, you have no right to control the copy of the knife/idea/information that you sold to someone else.
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
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 08:12, Michael Daniels wrote:
That doesn't answer my general moral question - what should we do when your wishes conflict with mine and we cannot agree on a compromise?

Mike


Don't sell the knife if you don't like what people might do with it. However you have no right to stop someone else from eventually coming up with, and selling, a similar knife.
I'm simply being consistent in how I treat both physical and do called intelectial "property."

You have no inherent right to control what people do with physical property they possess, and you have no right to control what they do with ideas and information they possess.
If you teach someone a trick, you don't have a right to control how they perform it.
You have no right to control what variations they come up with.
You also have no right to stop that person from sharing that information with someone else.

Now here's what I'm saying about the respecting people's wishes part. If you taught the trick in confidence, then it's a huge dick move for that person to share it with others. We should respect the agreements we've made, and that was essentially a verbal contract you had with the person you showed the trick to. Now a contract is one thing, and it has to be agreed upon by all parties prior to transaction, so you can't retroactively impose a contract, on everyone, including third parties, which is essentially what IP law tries to do.

So, in situations where work is available to the public, under the current system, I am aware that many individuals do not wish their work to be spread around, despite the publicity it can bring them, and, as such, on a personal level, I generally try to respect that. It's a personal decision of mine to be respectful of these artists.
However, I don't expect everyone to share my opinion, nor do I wish to force everyone to "respect" them the same way I do.

So, in the end, if you don't want other people doing things with "your" ideas, then don't make them available, commercially or otherwise. Just be aware that others will likely come up with their "own" similar, if not identical ideas, and you have no right to stop them, nor to deprive others of that information should it become available.
However, if you want "credit" for ideas you have, and you want record preserved of how YOU intended those ideas to be, then the best thing to do is to make them available.
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.
Michael Daniels
View Profile
Inner circle
Isle of Man
1428 Posts

Profile of Michael Daniels
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 09:01, gdw wrote:
Now a contract is one thing, and it has to be agreed upon by all parties prior to transaction, so you can't retroactively impose a contract, on everyone, including third parties, which is essentially what IP law tries to do.


Copyright isn't a retroactively imposed contract. Copyright is automatically assigned to an author whenever something is written down. Everyone who obtains a published product should already know this. And if they don't, then ignorance of the law is no defence.

Mike
MichaelKent
View Profile
Special user
554 Posts

Profile of MichaelKent
I was kind of pumped to start taking place in discussions on the Magic Café again and then I came across this thread. I like a lot of you guys and girls and enjoy taking part in good, productive discussion, but let's rise above the "let's take revenge on this artist/eye for an eye" stuff. I know Brian personally and I like him a lot. He's a good dude. And his book test is KILLER. He showed it to me when he first started working on it a few years ago and it's even better than it was then. I bought a set because it addresses a specific need for my show. That said - I can't say whether or not I have an opinion about him exposing Invisible Deck. I know that I still perform the heck out of invisible deck and have yet to perform it for anyone who knows the method because of a web show. I know that's not justification for exposure. Just stating a fact. Two more facts: 1) It stinks that a thread about Brian's new product has derailed into a discussion about exposure. I wish this thread were full of posts about the good and bad aspects of the actual product. 2) I can almost guarantee that if you knew Brian personally, you'd like him.
FrenchDrop
View Profile
Inner circle
I can name that tune in
1647 Posts

Profile of FrenchDrop
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 08:32, gdw wrote:
I WAS referring to people who sell their ideas and work.

Oh, well. Then you're just wrong. That's not how it works. And we're back to the foundation of your argument being so far from reality that it's unassailable by things like facts and reason.

Quote:
If I sell you a cd, I have given you the information on the cd, regardless of my views when desires with regards to copyright. You completely and legitimately possess the information I sold to you.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Not how it works.

Your knife analogy is flawed; it would be more accurate to say this: If I invent a new knife and patent that design, and I sell you one of these knives, you have the right to use that knife for your own purposes -- but you don't have the right to make and sell copies of the knife I invented. I sold you the physical object; I didn't sell you the rights to my invention.

(The above may be like water off a duck's back to you, depending on whether you believe patent law is also immoral. But maybe more realistic people will read it and get the gist.)

If you sell me a CD, you've sold me the physical media and the right to listen to it. Under doctrines of Fair Use and First Sale, you've sold me the right to play it at a party where others can hear it. You may have sold me the right to sell my original copy to someone else.

What you didn't sell me is the rights to the words and music on the CD. I don't own the ideas on the CD, nor do I own the execution of those ideas. You still own them. If I want to own the right to sell your music or distribute it freely, I've got to negotiate a price with you for the right to do those things. Buying a physical copy of your music doesn't give me even partial ownership of your creative works.

Same goes for books. That's how it works. And that's how it should work. The creators of intangible things like music, novels, etc. should have the same rights to their creations that someone who creates furniture has. The people who inform and entertain us shouldn't have less ownership of their creations than people who make physical objects just because their less tangible creations are easier to steal and their rights easier to trample.

I think that's the moral position. And I've seen absolutely nothing from you that even attempts to support your assertion that the opposite is true, let alone anything that effectively supports it. And, again: I think if you were capable of making such an argument, you'd have done so by now, rather than providing wave after wave of irrelevancies, speculation, fallacies, and false analogies.

Quote:
Just because someone makes something available for "free" in one place doesn't mean that they can't also make it available at a cost.

Where did PSY make downloads of his song available for free? Show me the link. (And don't show me YouTube; that's not the same as a download of the song I can listen to anywhere, with higher sound quality than most YouTube videos.)

Quote:
In PressPlay,Pause, I'll see if I can find the time so you can skip ahead to the part that I am referring to, an author discusses exactly what I am talking about.
He made his book available as an ebook for free, and it ended up being his most profitable work.

I'd be interested in seeing that. It'd also be nice to see you do the work yourself of using that film to support your argument, rather than expecting me to do your work for you, watching an 80-minute movie and seeing if I can find the parts that back you up -- or that you think back you up.

Quote:
It shows you do not need to rely on an antiquated and coercive system to make money from your ideas.

Again, I'm glad we have laws that protect me from people who consider my expecting them to pay me for my work a "coercive system." Smile

Quote:
I believe your ideas are your own, until you make them available to others

The above is half right. You started out correct...but ended in another reality.
"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
Aaron Smith Magic
View Profile
Inner circle
Portland, OR
1398 Posts

Profile of Aaron Smith Magic
Normally, I wouldn't respond to a thread like this, but since French Drop mentioned PSY, I thought it would be interesting for you to read this;

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies......le.shtml
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 09:48, Michael Daniels wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 09:01, gdw wrote:
Now a contract is one thing, and it has to be agreed upon by all parties prior to transaction, so you can't retroactively impose a contract, on everyone, including third parties, which is essentially what IP law tries to do.


Copyright isn't a retroactively imposed contract. Copyright is automatically assigned to an author whenever something is written down. Everyone who obtains a published product should already know this. And if they don't, then ignorance of the law is no defence.

Mike


Sorry, I meant that IP law tried to impose this "contract" in third parties, not so much the retroactive part. I was bringing up the retroactive idea as some who wish to abandon the IP system, but believe in creating an ip protection structure by contract, including the suggestion of putting "conditions" inside a product, like in a book cover, or inside a cd or DVD case, basically saying that, "by purchasing this X, you agree to the following conditions" which would be retroactively imposing a contract.

My point with IP is that it imposes this "contract" on third parties, whether they are aware of, or agree to it.
If you hear a song on the radio, you are now prohibited from duplicating that song with your own voice and property and, say, uploading it to YouTube.

As for ignorance of the law, that is beyond antiquated. It comes from common law, when the idea was that the law was based on reason (not that it really was entirely.). It has no bearing in a time when there are more laws than you could read in four lifetimes.
I'm not debating the facts of the law, I'm debating the morality 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
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 12:21, Aaron Smith Magic wrote:
Normally, I wouldn't respond to a thread like this, but since French Drop mentioned PSY, I thought it would be interesting for you to read this;

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies......le.shtml


Yes, that was why I brought it up.
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
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 10:41, FrenchDrop wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 08:32, gdw wrote:
I WAS referring to people who sell their ideas and work.

Oh, well. Then you're just wrong. That's not how it works. And we're back to the foundation of your argument being so far from reality that it's unassailable by things like facts and reason.

Quote:
If I sell you a cd, I have given you the information on the cd, regardless of my views when desires with regards to copyright. You completely and legitimately possess the information I sold to you.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Not how it works.

Your knife analogy is flawed; it would be more accurate to say this: If I invent a new knife and patent that design, and I sell you one of these knives, you have the right to use that knife for your own purposes -- but you don't have the right to make and sell copies of the knife I invented. I sold you the physical object; I didn't sell you the rights to my invention.

(The above may be like water off a duck's back to you, depending on whether you believe patent law is also immoral. But maybe more realistic people will read it and get the gist.)

If you sell me a CD, you've sold me the physical media and the right to listen to it. Under doctrines of Fair Use and First Sale, you've sold me the right to play it at a party where others can hear it. You may have sold me the right to sell my original copy to someone else.

What you didn't sell me is the rights to the words and music on the CD. I don't own the ideas on the CD, nor do I own the execution of those ideas. You still own them. If I want to own the right to sell your music or distribute it freely, I've got to negotiate a price with you for the right to do those things. Buying a physical copy of your music doesn't give me even partial ownership of your creative works.

Same goes for books. That's how it works. And that's how it should work. The creators of intangible things like music, novels, etc. should have the same rights to their creations that someone who creates furniture has. The people who inform and entertain us shouldn't have less ownership of their creations than people who make physical objects just because their less tangible creations are easier to steal and their rights easier to trample.

I think that's the moral position. And I've seen absolutely nothing from you that even attempts to support your assertion that the opposite is true, let alone anything that effectively supports it. And, again: I think if you were capable of making such an argument, you'd have done so by now, rather than providing wave after wave of irrelevancies, speculation, fallacies, and false analogies.

Quote:
Just because someone makes something available for "free" in one place doesn't mean that they can't also make it available at a cost.

Where did PSY make downloads of his song available for free? Show me the link. (And don't show me YouTube; that's not the same as a download of the song I can listen to anywhere, with higher sound quality than most YouTube videos.)

Quote:
In PressPlay,Pause, I'll see if I can find the time so you can skip ahead to the part that I am referring to, an author discusses exactly what I am talking about.
He made his book available as an ebook for free, and it ended up being his most profitable work.

I'd be interested in seeing that. It'd also be nice to see you do the work yourself of using that film to support your argument, rather than expecting me to do your work for you, watching an 80-minute movie and seeing if I can find the parts that back you up -- or that you think back you up.

Quote:
It shows you do not need to rely on an antiquated and coercive system to make money from your ideas.

Again, I'm glad we have laws that protect me from people who consider my expecting them to pay me for my work a "coercive system." Smile

Quote:
I believe your ideas are your own, until you make them available to others

The above is half right. You started out correct...but ended in another reality.


Oh my god, when you possess a cd, do you, or so you not, possess the information contained on said cd?
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.
FrenchDrop
View Profile
Inner circle
I can name that tune in
1647 Posts

Profile of FrenchDrop
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 12:56, gdw wrote:
Oh my god, when you possess a cd, do you, or so you not, possess the information contained on said cd?

You possess a CD containing a copy of information. You do not own the rights to that information. Purchase of a CD (or book, or DVD, etc.) does not transfer copyright from the creator to you. Nor should it.

I find it hard to believe you really don't grasp this concept. Did you think you could buy the rights to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for 15 bucks? Smile

If you're not just arguing for the sake of being argumentative, then I'd suggest you read up on copyright law so you don't have to ask such basic questions about a subject you're inclined to argue so vehemently.
"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
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
FrenchDrop, you are continually begging the question, basing your argument upon the premise that the concept of an exclusive right to copy is a valid concept inherent to reality, rather than actually proving that assertion to begin with.

THAT is what I am arguing against, the foundational concept that one has an inherent and exclusive "right" to copy. The coercive part is the fact that you require the state to enforce this "right." It's not a "right," it's a privilege.

Copy"rights" and a patents are claims of control over other people's physical property and bodies. You are claiming that you have a right to control what someone else can do with their own computer, their own CDs, and the information they possess (which is the undeniable reality, they POSSESS that information, and whoever put the cd out gave them that information.*)

*If I give you a cd, for money, or not, in your hands, do you, or do you not now posses the information that is sitting in your hand, and did it, or did I not give it to you? THAT is the reality. If you're denying that fact, then I am not the one living in another reality.
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
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 13:08, FrenchDrop wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 12:56, gdw wrote:
Oh my god, when you possess a cd, do you, or so you not, possess the information contained on said cd?

You possess a CD containing a copy of information. You do not own the rights to that information. Purchase of a CD (or book, or DVD, etc.) does not transfer copyright from the creator to you. Nor should it.

I find it hard to believe you really don't grasp this concept. Did you think you could buy the rights to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for 15 bucks? Smile

If you're not just arguing for the sake of being argumentative, then I'd suggest you read up on copyright law so you don't have to ask such basic questions about a subject you're inclined to argue so vehemently.


Again, you are begging the question. I'm not arguing whether or not you "own" the "rights," I'm arguing the existence of that "right" in the first place. You are basing your argument upon your presumed conclusion, rather than providing an argument and proof for your conclusion.
I'm not arguing what the law says, I'm arguing the morality, and legitimacy of it and its foundational premises and assumptions.
I don't need to read up on IP law, I've done plenty of that. Perhaps you need to read up on the history of IP law.
Again, I recommend Stephan Kinsella, who's an IP attorney. It was largely his arguments which made me realize I was simply wrong in my views supporting IP in the first place.

As for PressPlay,Pause, I found the time code for at least the one particular point I was referencing, 21:05
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.
FrenchDrop
View Profile
Inner circle
I can name that tune in
1647 Posts

Profile of FrenchDrop
GDW, what other rights protected by the government do you believe are really just "privileges"?

How about the right of women and blacks to vote? Is that really just a privilege?

How about the right of people not to be held in involuntary servitude? Is that really just a privilege, not a right?

Aside from copyright law, what other portions of the U.S. Constitution do you feel are immoral?

Quote:
Copy"rights" and a patents are claims of control over other people's physical property and bodies.

No. They absolutely are not. They are statements of ownership of a creator's intellectual property. They have nothing to do with anyone's "physical property and bodies." Not in this reality.

Again: Do you think you can buy the rights to Sgt. Pepper for $15?

As I said, you should do some reading -- outside of anti-copyright web sites, especially -- if you really want to argue this issue from a standpoint informed by anything more substantial than wishful thinking and misinformation.
"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
lokikross
View Profile
Special user
An Undying Heart of Chaos; Stabbed with
720 Posts

Profile of lokikross
This thread is on rails.

As a graduate from the School of Informatics, (IU), with a degree in New Media; I have several "opinions" about copyright law, as well as some knowledge.
But it would do no good to share this knowledge here, as many are set in their opinions.

I will say that I have a method published in which law enforcement tried to keep me from publishing the information.
(Only due to the fact they knew about it, through my own nefarious use of it. Years ago.)
I thought about fighting it, and realized it was too much work.
So I released it in another "context".
I have only received one "stern" letter, no action. Because information, (unless National security), as "actionable", is not enforceable by law. (Even motion pictures use class lawsuits, not cops).

I had a mentor in Intelligence/Information work tell me this long parable, which ultimately summed up as:
"Knowledge is Power, if Kept; but once Shared becomes Useless Information".

Or:

There are 3 types of controlled information.

1. Those learned through trials, or by honor-ship.
2. Those not meant to be shared, but too interesting not to.
3. Those that should not be known.

As magicians, we operate in the second definition.
The first would be like an apprenticeship, or education.

And the final would be akin to you finding out how to "break" the laws of Gravity, for one full second.
Now, if you could, you could float 3 feet in the air, for 1 full second. Suspended.
Not very impressive sounding to us magicians, but if it were real, the owner of that information could start a new religion, cult, following, et cetera.

But if they just shared that information...

In 3 months it would look like the "pogo-ball" had made a sudden "comeback".

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4gazz......_400.jpg

The information would not only be useless, it would also force change on the world.
As there are 2 impacts that truly "new" information cause:
1. The world seeks it, and desires to change with it.
2. It is exposed to the world, and the world is forced to change. (ie. pogo-ball example. They would have to destroy buildings to raise ceilings and all of that, rather than being ready for it to manifest.)

I think the copyright issue going on here is about those books being remade, if I am not mistaken...
(Lots of copyright debates lately... Hmm...)

Well, in magic we sell things where we can say what the product does, but not what it is.

(Very bad, big deal, in normal markets. Because I could sell you an "intelligent vacuum that learns your house layout." And you may expect me to send a "Roomba", but instead you get a baby I bought in some other country.)

And while some of you may be laughing. I am not joking.
These things actually happen.

Also we take normal items like Pepsi cans, Magazine covers, boxes to items, designs on brands, and modify them for trickery.
This has happened to the aplomb of magic users everywhere, "organic" ring a bell?
A book is not different.

As far as copyright hurting sales; I have a little product out, look at all these bootlegs!

http://s.taobao.com/search?q=Loki+Kross+......20130115

http://www.smalltao.com/product/18715751......%20Kross

(BTW, "2013 Super revolutionary invincible Guards bunker lingers Fax by Loki Kross" is hilarious. But what is a "Bunker linger"? Smile)

Does this stuff worry me? Nope.

Everyone that wanted to learn it, bought it, or it would seem.
I also used my TVE bonus as a bootleg deterrent, but I am sure they have copies of that, as well. Smile

Am I making a point in all this? No.

I have no real "public" opinion on it.

But you may find the thoughts I shared to be interesting. Or they may turn into a Pogo-ball.

LokI
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-03-11 13:31, FrenchDrop wrote:
GDW, what other rights protected by the government do you believe are really just "privileges"?

How about the right of women and blacks to vote? Is that really just a privilege?

How about the right of people not to be held in involuntary servitude? Is that really just a privilege, not a right?

Aside from copyright law, what other portions of the U.S. Constitution do you feel are immoral?


Voting is a privilege, for anyone, man or woman, regardless of ethnicity.
Anything that is contingent upon another is not a right.

Quote:
Quote:
Copy"rights" and a patents are claims of control over other people's physical property and bodies.

No. They absolutely are not. They are statements of ownership of a creator's intellectual property. They have nothing to do with anyone's "physical property and bodies." Not in this reality.

Again: Do you think you can buy the rights to Sgt. Pepper for $15?

As I said, you should do some reading -- outside of anti-copyright web sites, especially -- if you really want to argue this issue from a standpoint informed by anything more substantial than wishful thinking and misinformation.


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.
Try asking a question which is not dependant upon accepting that conclusion. That does not mean you have to presume the opposite in your question, but you can't build your argument upon the acceptance of the conclusion you are attempting to prove.

As I have said, I HAVE done my reading. I started my research trying to SUPPORT the notion of exclusive rights in ideas and information.
I started with an interest in "protection" for magic ideas and methods.
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.
lokikross
View Profile
Special user
An Undying Heart of Chaos; Stabbed with
720 Posts

Profile of lokikross
I may have just gotten this thread deleted. My apologies.
Jamie Ferguson
View Profile
Inner circle
Alba Gu Brŕth
3642 Posts

Profile of Jamie Ferguson
Has anyone ordered one of his books yet?

Until someone has one all this talk about copyright is irrelevant as we don't know the facts.

If I don't get my free copy (Brian Brushyourwood still hasn't got back to me, how rude!) then I will find another way to procure one.
When the chips are down, the duvet is uncomfortable.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
How about those vanishing coke bottles?
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 » » Penny for your thoughts » » Brian Brushwood's new book test (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..6~7~8~9~10..17..23..29..35..39~40~41 [Next]
X
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 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