Posts by jon_knox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In other news, should I simply establish a permanent copyright thread?
Perhaps 2. One for keeps, the other just for laughs.
-
Rob I still can't see an answer to the question of what you have given up to gain the protection of copyright (in contract terms this is called "consideration"....and must be present in ALL valid contracts). Please just type a succinct response, no links, no referral, no changing the subject.
Re the wheelchairs question. I don't begrudge the disabled (be they physically or intellectually disabled) assistance so they can participate in life in a way that every able-bodied (able-minded?) person can. Should I begrudge assistance for the able-bodied/able-minded who has intentionally & deliberately contributed to the development of their own disability?.....Perhaps, but I'd guess they've got enough crap in their lives and don't need me adding to it.
Now that you have that little gem of information, may I enquire what the relevance is?
-
I did answer the question jon. at the bottom of this here
Perhaps it's just Opera & Firefox but where those links are taking me, I can't see an answer.
protection of law should not be bought and paid for. that sounds like corruption to me.
Do you hear that Patents & Trademarks, you have now been judged as corruption? Shame on both of you.
As if!
-
if everyone else in society is required to act in a responsible manner I don't see why that shouldn't apply to isp's.
So now people that create laws are now exempt from doing so in a reasonable manner.
s92 makes a nonesense of implementation regardless of whether or not you support the aims. It's quite a unifying force.
Watch out NZ, if you don't comply, the bogeyman will eat that free trade deal!!! (chains rattle!)
-
you're going to have to re think that jon. you sound like the mafia.
do you want to apply that thinking to wheelchair access? I don't think so.Change the subject all you want, but you haven't answered the question Rob.
-
we've all become soft. switch off the screen and actually change your world if you don't like it. changing your online icon to black seems kinda token
It does get people talking and thinking about things, despite simply being a token.
So if the protest against s92 included a simultaneous reboot or shutdown of servers and computers by concerned geeks & citizens, you might feel a bit happier Rob?
-
I gave up the right to take the law into my own hands and retaliate against people who infringe my rights as I perceive them, medieval no more.
I reckon you just think you gave up that "right". What I think stops you/anyone doing that is the consequences of that set of actions....in most cases.
But apparently everyone else gave up that right too....even those who decide it's fine to share their outputs. So perhaps you didn't really give it up just for copyright, you gave it up as you choose to abide by the rules of the society you live in.
So did you really give up anything, or is it simply a society thing?
society could turn that all around by reverting to older times when artists were kept and paid for by society, (kings queens and other rich pricks) but we had to go all capitalist and fuck with that winning formula.
I don't entirely disagree, but I am wary of creating incentives that remove the need to produce output of "value to society"....says Jon being mindful that's a can & half of worms.
So I'm back to my thoughts regarding creative works. If you want protection, then pay for the privilege of protection. If you don't want to pay for protection, then use the monopoly of lock & key (meaning don't share with anyone...which seems quite applicable for those Creatives doing it for their own purpose). Else share and be happy that others find value in your creative outputs, build your following and I'm sure more than a living would follow through many opportunities...if you're good. (is this the Dubber approach?)
It seems that if most people were creating just for their own creative purpose, they wouldn't really give a monkey's about the money. They're apparently happy with the process and the recognition. (the right to be identified as the author/creator is not denied...just whether you have any control over where it goes subsequently)
But some Creatives want to share (i.e. want recognition), want protection, but don't want to pay for protection....and really haven't given up anything.
So that's why I see copyright as a bargain.
-
I acknowledge anyone's right to give their stuff away for free, surely you can acknowledge someones right to want to recoup their costs for liberating a valuable collection of music.
I tend to think that copyright is a bargain for the creative and a huge cost for society.
What did give up to gain the benefit of copyright protection Rob?
-
Can we at least agree it's not a one size fits all type deal?
It's apparent that there is a bunch of stuff that there is value in providing incentives to protect, just as there is another bunch of stuff that there should be shared in the right circumstances (eg published outputs from publically funded research) and even must be shared (eg public safety).
Where does this leave parody and satire?
-
Another Tim O' tweet brought to light some thoughts he had a while ago regarding e-books.