Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/15/2010 10:16:16 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

For example, last Tuesday I went to a computer shop and bought a box - a physical product - with anti-malware.


Yup. You bought software that they thought up and sold over and over and over and over and over.

And if YOU copy it and sell it, you're breaking the law.

In your world, people would write a book and be able to sell--one copy. Or record an album and sell one copy.

quote:

Why? If them creators wanted to own it, they should not themselves haves sold it, but kept it a secret.


This is ridiculous. As you pointed out about patents--

quote:

You get production exclusivity for a number of years and you sell not your patent, but a physical product that you produced.


--which is exactly what you get with copyright.

Go to the store and buy the physical product.

Now---if you want to start making and selling someone else's patent yourself, you'll have to pay for the rights.

Exactly as happens with music copyright.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No different than property rights. I plant the tree, I own the apples.

Not if it grows in my garden. Information is not a property, unless it is kept secret and known to only a single individual.


Why would my apple tree that I planted be growing in your garden?

Now if I plant it and you move it to your garden, expect to find yourself liable.

But again, you're mischaracterizing. We aren't talking about information, but about intellectual property--creations, not facts.

quote:

So a restaurant that uses porcelain to promote their business gain ought to pay the Chinese for inventing it each time someone orders a steak?

You're being ridiculous again. If the Chinese had only just invented it, and they had a patent, you would either buy your porcelain from them--in which case you've satisfied your obligation, just as if you bought a CD--or you'd pay licensing fees to them to make your own--as in the case of venue fees.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 8/15/2010 10:24:21 PM >

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/15/2010 10:23:00 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Using FR

OK, I had to look up eidetic, but if there is shame in that too bad. It took me over forty years to build a modest set of speakers that reproduce the music very accurately. When people come over sometimes they want to hear music that I don't like and I'll offer to burn them a CD. But that's not good enough, they want to hear it on MY speakers. When you start talking about memory, you could go deaf and still hear it if it is in your memory. My hearing has gotten lessened by time. Even with my kickass speakers I use the EQ to bring out the highs, and of course the VERY lows. But when I remember a song in my mind all that is bypassed. Remember I did not listen to music for about three years, but that was before I joined CM. I wanted the music in my mind to stop, and it took about that long. But the issue of E=mc^2 is not valid really because it was never patented nor copyrighted. It's kinda the same with the transistor, which is the major device which is used in all electronic equipment. Without it we would not have the internet or anything, at least not in the usable form it exists today. Your monitor has millions of them at least. It was invented at Bell labs in 1957 (IIRC) and given freely to the world. Olshevski obviously couldn't sell his ovonic devices in the 1970s because they could not outperform the crystalline type devices we use(d). His amorphous technology was later used in solar panels and such. I don't know if he gets money from this. In fact I don't even know if Dr. Olshevski is among the living.

Nowadays, transistors are cut/made on layers of silicon with opposing dopants and they cost a very small fraction of a penny. What if we had to pay a fee for their use ? There are at least a million of them in the monitor at which you are looking right now. At a penny apiece, the absolute cheapest monitor would be a grand. Actually more.

The question comes down to what is reasonable. At a penny each for their transistors, Bell labs would literally own the world. I just said monitor, your PC or mac has billions of transistors. Even an ipod has a few million. They are only pennies but they add up. There is no way we could have gotten here that way, but then is that good or bad ?

T

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/15/2010 10:26:15 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

At a penny each for their transistors, Bell labs would literally own the world.


At first they did own the rights, until the patent expired.

If they didn't, what would be the incentive to invest in inventing them only to have the reward stolen?

quote:

But the issue of E=mc^2 is not valid really because it was never patented nor copyrighted.


Presumably the paper(s) on it was, however. Prior to copyright expiration, you would not have been able to sell it yourself.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 8/15/2010 10:28:17 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/15/2010 10:50:02 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yup. You bought software that they thought up and sold over and over and over and over and over.

No, I bought a box with a cd-rom in it, an installation manual and some carton and an envelope that had the cd-rom in it. I did not buy the information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And if YOU copy it and sell it, you're breaking the law.

If I copied the box and they had patented it, I would be breaking the law, as they would have production exclusivity for that box. (Though I think that law should be done away with.)

Information can be sold only one single time for after that it is no longer a secret. If you have a wart on your but, that knowledge is only your own as long as nobody else knows about it. When you tell me that you have a wart on your but that information is no longer your property; all of a sudden it has become my property also, to do with as I please, like tell it to your mother in law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
In your world, people would write a book and be able to sell--one copy. Or record an album and sell one copy.

Of course not. They can sell as many physical copies as they can produce - but the information in it they can sell only once. What they are selling is not the information, but the physical information carrier.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
--which is exactly what you get with copyright.

Go to the store and buy the physical product.

Quite: you buy the physical product, the information carrier and anything material associated with it. You do not buy the information itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Now---if you want to start making and selling someone else's patent yourself, you'll have to pay for the rights.

(I think that patent law should be abolished.) But whatever, I repeat that one can only buy physical products, such as information carriers. Information itself is not a material product and can be sold only once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Exactly as happens with music copyright.

Look, if I buy a bar of chocolate and eat it, the producer of that bar of chocolate does not sell that same bar of chocolate again to someone else. Similarly, if I buy other physical objects, such as a book by author X or a CD-rom with a song by musician Y or with a move from company Z, that physical copy of the book or CD-rom is also not sold to anyone else.
The swindle perpetrated by the entertainment industry is that they sell the same chocolate bar more than once - without having the customers eat the chocolate; AND without having a sales agreement.


< Message edited by Rule -- 8/15/2010 10:53:15 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/15/2010 11:20:44 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Why would my apple tree that I planted be growing in your garden?

Perhaps you were drunk when you planted it in the wrong garden?
Perhaps a storm tossed a branch into my garden and it took root?
Perhaps you showed it to the world and I thought "Hey, let me get some wood and I will construct my own identical apple tree from that wood". (My wood, not your wood.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
But again, you're mischaracterizing. We aren't talking about information, but about intellectual property--creations, not facts.

No. You are wrong. I quite understand that you want everyone to pay for knowing about that hypothetical wart on your but, but just as - if it truly existed - you can sell that wart only once, unless you grow another bunch of them - so information can be sold or told only once, for as soon as one does so, it is not any longer their exclusive property. As soon as the first monkey to do so stuck out his tongue at another monkey, he lost his exclusive rights to that gesture. Or are you paying that monkey every time you stick out your tongue? Are you paying for the letter p or for the information content of the word 'pay' whenever you use that letter or word? No, because that information is no longer the secret of the persons who invented that information. They lost the exclusive ownership of that information as soon as they divulged it to the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You're being ridiculous again.

I love the argumentum ad absurdum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
If the Chinese had only just invented it, and they had a patent, you would either buy your porcelain from them--in which case you've satisfied your obligation, just as if you bought a CD--or you'd pay licensing fees to them to make your own--as in the case of venue fees.

See, you pay them only once for the physical item, you do not pay them for every customer in your restaurant that eats from that plate of porcelain. I dunno what venue fees are, but if the Chinese charge for every customer that eats from one single plate in a restaurant, they are crooks.



< Message edited by Rule -- 8/15/2010 11:33:24 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 2:02:52 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		I just got dizzy thinking about where you two have taken this, but I had a good nap and some insomnia so here it goes.

Rule, in your world how does it go ? That an artist produces an album and then just sells a shitload of them to a middleman ? This could work. The middleman hears it, thinks it's good and will sell so he buys a hundred thousand copies. Then sells them at a profit. Such a system could work, years ago.

But here cometh another issue. And this is really tricky. In the 1970s say you bought an album and it skipped. The music store would usually replace it, but sometimes it was because your turntable wasn't setup right, like maybe the antiskate wasn't set right or something. It was a different world. Back then people were buying $400 cassette decks to record their music. I was one of them, I've had three head decks, and also had a couple of reel to reels. I nice HK with three heads and dolby HX can record a CD almost perfectly for most listeners. Before that capability was available to the public it wasn't an issue.

Which brings us to aniother fact, the record industry made a hell of alot of money because of the destructability of the medium. If what they assert now is true, they owe me alot of friggin music. People would scratch an album and just buy another one, thus having "license" to play the music twice, when obviously it can only be played once at a time. But a blank CD is cheap, it becomes $18.99 when they put the material on it. I have been cheated. The way I see it is that if things were fair, I should be able to take any fucked up CD, LP, cassette or eight track to a music store and get a new copy for perhaps two bucks.

I am going to come out of my financial funk, and I have this lawyer who says my principles are sound. If I get back into the thick I will put my entire directory into the shared directory and await the summons. I have arguments that hold water, and then some. I'll walk into the courtroom with all kinds of scratched CDs and LPs, 45s, and who knows what else. Replace the content at a reasonable copying cost, then look at what I "stole" on P2P and get the accountants. Figure it out, by their own words they prove my case. If I owe them then they owe me. Add it up.

But the problem like everything else is that the suits want all the money they can get. This has not changed in my lifetime nor is it likely to in the near future. Y'all have good points, but it's not addressing the real point.

And you know what ? If I owned a bar and these people came to me, first of all if it was a jukebox I would tell them to go see the jukebox people about this. But if I were just playing music I would turn it off, forever. I would find local bands and use them. The best nights for bars are when local bands play live, if they're any good that is. I went to the local hole in the wall a few years ago and found a live blugrass band. While I am not really into bluegrass, they were pretty good. It was a great night, no fucking assholes playing the jukebox anymore. I would just have that every night. I bet I would make more money that way.

When I go to friends' houses they sometimes ask what I want to hear, I tell them "I got a stereo, I came to talk with you and party or whatever". Very few of them can come up with something I don't already have. In the past it was different, like someone bought an album, but those days were different and people were not being coerced to pay eight hundred friggin bucks a month to play music. It was just, different.

When the medium wore out and there were obstacles to effectively recording the content this was never and issue. But now it is because things have changed. I haven't played two CDs in the past year, in fact one of them I ripped. A harddrive doesn't get scratched, or worn out in the grooves (especially in the inner tracks). The heads do not take away some of the strength (volume) like on tapes. It never wears out. It can be cloned and copied ad infinitum.

The digital age has changed things a bit, to say the least. There are similar issues with software and movies and so forth. What is the solution then ? One guy buys all the copies and sells them ? That is not practical any longer. It used to take a $700 tape recorder but now all you need is a $200 PC, then you can give it to two friends, and they can give it to two friends. I remember a commercial like that in the old days.

Now they have responded somewhat, in that some of what you download requires a license to play, you have probably see Windows Media Player do it. I still got WMP9, and it is not so bad, but some downloaded files will not play on it. Some will on VLC though. Does that make VLC Media Player a criminal tool ?

I can take this to the year three fucking thousand if you want, but is this what we want ? My buddy plays piano, and is not a pro in any sense (believe me). He went to to a restaurant with a piano and decided to play. He played probably 45 minutes and got $186 in the jar, you know the big wine snifter on it. Then the owner said the meal and the drinks were on the house and that was probably worth a hundred bucks. These people gave their money willingly. My rough calculation is that amounts to $381 an hour. What's wrong with that ?

But they gave it willingly, he didn't even ask nor expect anything.

So hopefully you can see why I am on both sides of this fence. It doesn't make sense. If people were straight up and honest, they would be paying on their way out of a concert, not on their way in.

Are you recieving me ?

T

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 6:28:45 AM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yup. You bought software that they thought up and sold over and over and over and over and over.

No, I bought a box with a cd-rom in it, an installation manual and some carton and an envelope that had the cd-rom in it. I did not buy the information.




That is not correct. you did buy the information. many programs are now downloaded direct. Virus protection comes to mind.

Everyone who down loads it is buying information. If you were to copy that and give it to a friend you would be breaking the law.

A few years ago a group representing software interests was running some radio commercials here.

It is very common for a business to but one copy of software and load it onto a number of different computers.

They were letting people know there was a reward for turning those company's in.

I may have missed the mention of it, but am I the only who remembers Napster?

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 9:11:16 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Yup. You bought software that they thought up and sold over and over and over and over and over.

No, I bought a box with a cd-rom in it, an installation manual and some carton and an envelope that had the cd-rom in it. I did not buy the information.

That is not correct. you did buy the information. many programs are now downloaded direct. Virus protection comes to mind.

Everyone who down loads it is buying information. If you were to copy that and give it to a friend you would be breaking the law.

A few years ago a group representing software interests was running some radio commercials here.

It is very common for a business to but one copy of software and load it onto a number of different computers.

They were letting people know there was a reward for turning those company's in.

I may have missed the mention of it, but am I the only who remembers Napster?

That is an unethical scam. They are lying. They try to convince you that the information has value, just as a con man who sells the Eifel tower tries to convince the sucker who is his target that the contract he signs has value and represents ownership of the Eifel Tower. It does not.

If the information that I downloaded from the internet has value, then I would be a multi-millionaire. Guess what: I do not feel like a multi-millionaire and I am not beleagered by multitudes of attractive blondes who want to marry a millionaire. Unless I earn some money sometime during the next year I may not be able to pay my very low rent. If anyone asserts that what I have downloaded from the internet has value, then I challenge them to prove their assertion by buying from me a copy of all that information for the price they say it is worth. (Then I will not have any problem with my rent anymore, and can even move into a millionaire villa.) I do think that they will suddenly decide that the information has no value at all and that they prefer to spend their money in other ways.

It is ludicrous to assert that everyone who has the information that I downloaded - and everyone can get a free copy from me, for in my opinion it has no value other than the time and electricity I spent to download it - is a millionaire. If all six or seven billion people had such a copy would they all be millionaires, or be able to buy one loaf of bread more? Of course not.

No, I was not buying information. I was buying a material thing: the box and its material contents.

When I am downloading, I am not buying information. When I am downloading, I am copying information. I do not have a sales agreement for that information. Anyone who says: you have that information and therefore you must pay me, is a crook, unless he can show a sales contract signed by me.

Just as you are copying information when you read this my post: you read it and you copy the information in my post into your consciousness and memory. When are you going to pay me for that copy you made when you read my post? If I said to you: You read it, so you must pay me? What is your answer then? If you have any sense at all, you would say "Don't be daft, idiot!" and you would give me the finger.

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/16/2010 9:13:00 AM >

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 9:31:42 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I agree.  The past few pages are making me dizzy.

I do think IP is too complicated and too long- too legalistic.    That copyright goes on too long and ends up to stifle innovation.   I know MM will argue with me on it.  

(but)

There is a curious balance- and we have not reached it yet.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 9:38:33 AM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		It has value to them.

It is called intellectual property.

If you wrote a book and had a deal for 1.00 per copy, would you be satisfied with being paid 1.00 no matter how many books were sold?

Keep in mind with the Kindle and others, it is possible to down load a book.

By your definition all you have down loaded is information. You have not bought a "book", therefore the book should be free?

People are crazy!

< Message edited by Jeffff -- 8/16/2010 9:43:30 AM >

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 10:08:30 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Rule, in your world how does it go ? That an artist produces an album and then just sells a shitload of them to a middleman ? This could work. The middleman hears it, thinks it's good and will sell so he buys a hundred thousand copies. Then sells them at a profit. Such a system could work, years ago.

The artist is not selling the information that he created. He instead is selling a physical product: the information carrier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
But here cometh another issue. And this is really tricky. In the 1970s say you bought an album and it skipped. The music store would usually replace it, but sometimes it was because your turntable wasn't setup right, like maybe the antiskate wasn't set right or something. It was a different world. Back then people were buying $400 cassette decks to record their music. I was one of them, I've had three head decks, and also had a couple of reel to reels. I nice HK with three heads and dolby HX can record a CD almost perfectly for most listeners. Before that capability was available to the public it wasn't an issue.

It is only an issue to those who lie that they are selling information. You did not buy music. You bought the information carrier that had that information on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Which brings us to another fact, the record industry made a hell of alot of money because of the destructability of the medium. If what they assert now is true, they owe me alot of friggin music. People would scratch an album and just buy another one, thus having "license" to play the music twice, when obviously it can only be played once at a time.

But what they assert is not true. They were not selling you the music. They were selling you only the destructable material object of the information carrier. If you buy a bar of chocolate, you cannot go back to the shop and say "Someone took a bite out of it! I wanna new one!" They would tell you "Go away, idiot!" Similarly if you bought a car and wrecked it, you would be considered to be crazy if you went back to the shop and demanded a new car or a refund.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
But a blank CD is cheap, it becomes $18.99 when they put the material on it. I have been cheated. The way I see it is that if things were fair, I should be able to take any fucked up CD, LP, cassette or eight track to a music store and get a new copy for perhaps two bucks.

You paid that high price not because there was music on that CD, but because you were willing to pay that price for that information carrier. The music itself is worth nothing. If I show you a blank CD and one with music on it, can you tell the difference? On the other hand anyone can see and feel the difference between a Volkswagen and a Rolls Royce, because they are material things. Information is not a material thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I am going to come out of my financial funk, and I have this lawyer who says my principles are sound. If I get back into the thick I will put my entire directory into the shared directory and await the summons. I have arguments that hold water, and then some. I'll walk into the courtroom with all kinds of scratched CDs and LPs, 45s, and who knows what else. Replace the content at a reasonable copying cost, then look at what I "stole" on P2P and get the accountants. Figure it out, by their own words they prove my case. If I owe them then they owe me. Add it up.

Yes, but they were lying when they told you that they sold you music. They sold you chocolate bars instead. And they are lying when they assert that the information that you downloaded has value. It has not, for it is not a physical thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And you know what ? If I owned a bar and these people came to me, first of all if it was a jukebox I would tell them to go see the jukebox people about this. But if I were just playing music I would turn it off, forever. I would find local bands and use them. The best nights for bars are when local bands play live, if they're any good that is. I went to the local hole in the wall a few years ago and found a live blugrass band. While I am not really into bluegrass, they were pretty good. It was a great night, no fucking assholes playing the jukebox anymore. I would just have that every night. I bet I would make more money that way.

Quite. It is what everyone should do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
When I go to friends' houses they sometimes ask what I want to hear, I tell them "I got a stereo, I came to talk with you and party or whatever".

Quite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
When the medium wore out and there were obstacles to effectively recording the content this was never and issue. But now it is because things have changed. I haven't played two CDs in the past year, in fact one of them I ripped. A harddrive doesn't get scratched, or worn out in the grooves (especially in the inner tracks). The heads do not take away some of the strength (volume) like on tapes. It never wears out. It can be cloned and copied ad infinitum.

Indeed. Information has no value. It is the law of conservancy of mass that gives gold its value: if gold in violation of that law could be produced out of nothing, it would have no value. There is no such universal conservation law for information: it can be copied infinitely many times and therefore has no value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
The digital age has changed things a bit, to say the least. There are similar issues with software and movies and so forth. What is the solution then ? One guy buys all the copies and sells them ? That is not practical any longer. It used to take a $700 tape recorder but now all you need is a $200 PC, then you can give it to two friends, and they can give it to two friends. I remember a commercial like that in the old days.

The solution is that the artist buys stock in a producer of information carriers and has them put his creation onto their information carriers at no extra cost to the buyer. For a couple of days sales of those information carriers may soar and the company that produces the carrier may for a few days outcompete other information carrier producing companies / until somebody copies it onto those other information carriers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Now they have responded somewhat, in that some of what you download requires a license to play

You mean an activation key? So do not download it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
So hopefully you can see why I am on both sides of this fence. It doesn't make sense. If people were straight up and honest, they would be paying on their way out of a concert, not on their way in.

Indeed, it does not make sense and that is because they lie that you are buying information, whereas what they in fact are selling is the carrier or the seat in a cinema or a standing place in an establishment. One can buy and eat a chocolate bar, but the idea of a chocolate bar has no value, for one cannot eat an idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Are you receiving me ?

Yes.

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/16/2010 10:11:21 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 10:30:05 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Plato and you are really never going to be friends.


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 10:31:47 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

It has value to them.

It is called intellectual property.

If you wrote a book and had a deal for 1.00 per copy, would you be satisfied with being paid 1.00 no matter how many books were sold?

Keep in mind with the Kindle and others, it is possible to down load a book.

By your definition all you have down loaded is information. You have not bought a "book", therefore the book should be free?

People are crazy!




Good afternoon STUD.

I would do ANYTHING for a dollar.  ANYTHING!     I want it. I need it.  Gimme it.  Oh Jefff I love how you do me.  Jeffff- yess.  YESSS 


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 11:43:29 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"Indeed, it does not make sense and that is because they lie that you are buying information,"

You make some good points but you do not see the impractibility of the world according to Rule. For example what OS do tou use ? Read the license agreement, it says exactly what you said. You do NOT own the OS on your computer. What you actually paid for was the license to use it. It's right there in black and white and I am not disagreeing on that point.

However it took a bunch of computer geeks a bunch of time to write that OS. What impelled them to do so ? They have to eat too y'know. Bill Gates, whatever you think of him did not do much really. He just figured out how to make people pay for it. He is not worth billions, he just has billions. But what of the people who did the actual work ?

Bill Gates is the type of person I refer to as a suit. He keeps getting paid, but could fire those software writers at any time putting them in the unemployment line, while he continues to collect. Normally anything you invent while in the employ of another belongs to them. Musicians have a different form of contract which is a bit more conducive to creativity.

But does that make it right. Again I ask, should I keep getting paid for something I did twenty years ago ?

T

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 11:54:44 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Should I keep getting apples from trees I planted 20 years ago?

Should you be allowed to take my books and albums and sell them for your own profit?

If at issue is the length of copyright/patent, granted those are arbitrary lines and can be argued in either direction.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 11:57:09 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		Man- you sound like Monsanto.


IE the apple tree.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 12:00:03 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Nope. Just live in the country.

Fruit is not hard to come by! lol

Whatever you don't grow, your neighbors have in their stands.


(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 12:24:28 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		PA or Rule, try this.

Open a face book account, and My space and Twitter.

Announce that you have an excellent copy of the movie Avatar. Tell them that you will email the file to any one who wants a copy.

Why not?, it is only information right? You are not actually sending a product.

Let me know how that works for you.

Enjoy defending your selves against the litigation with the same arguments you have used here.

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 12:27:58 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I cant think of any movie even worth copying.

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers - 8/16/2010 12:41:49 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
You make some good points but you do not see the impractability of the world according to Rule. For example what OS do tou use ? Read the license agreement, it says exactly what you said. You do NOT own the OS on your computer. What you actually paid for was the license to use it. It's right there in black and white and I am not disagreeing on that point.

However it took a bunch of computer geeks a bunch of time to write that OS. What impelled them to do so ? They have to eat too y'know. Bill Gates, whatever you think of him did not do much really. He just figured out how to make people pay for it. He is not worth billions, he just has billions. But what of the people who did the actual work ?

Bill Gates is the type of person I refer to as a suit. He keeps getting paid, but could fire those software writers at any time putting them in the unemployment line, while he continues to collect.

No, you do have the information on your computer and in your memory. It is yours. It is your memory. It is information on a memory carrier that you paid for and maintain. But not exclusively if other people have the same information.

Bill Gates does not own his information. He does not sell his information. That is what he wants you to believe, but in fact he sells boxes only, not information. The programmers get paid not because of the information they create, but because that information makes the buying of those boxes more attractive to the customers.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109