Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
One way or another people are saying they are not prepared to go back to the old model and not prepared to tie themselves in red tape, when a simpler way is to just ignore the impacted industries.
no ones back at a previous model yet. ie an enforceable controlled distribution. its not so much people don't want to go back as they don't have to go back, yet.
here's a for instance for you. for this performance I shall be playing (channeling) the role of jayden (brother of hayden and shayden) a petrol head from 'down south'
"I don't want to go back to paying for petrol, and until I run out of fake number plates and the guts to drive off with out paying I'll stick to my current model of petrol distribution. oh and also if I get caught, but that's not going to happen until they enforce their present system, like the evil overlords that they are. I hate the petrol industry, full of corruption, they've made enough money ripping off customers with their inflated prices. "
of course hayden's english would be 'different' and probably punctuated with lots of swearing but you get the drift.
now hayden will most likely get stopped at some point as they increase the pressure to control the situation, like maybe monitoring petrol station usage, trying to catch the young scallywags doing the petrol liberating etc. if he's lucky he'll get a system that's catch and release, ie hey we caught you doing this, stop it, or next time we'll take your car, or remove your right to enter petrol stations, see how far you get then.What hayden wants doesn't necessarily make it the way its going to be, how ever much he's battling for societies right to free petrol (bless him).
-
sorry, increased incidence of dyslexia
"then what you do isn't wrong in your mind."
-
Society is saying they don't want to be burdened by the costs of an artificial enforcement model,
That's an interesting reading of the situation jon.
I think society or part of it is saying "I don't understand why it isn't free, and you can't stop me so why should I stop".similar to the argument drunk driving.
if you can't see the down side (ie until you actually see the hurt you cause someone, or get caught and it hurts you) then what do you isn't wrong in your mind.
a society that increasingly loses respect for other sectors of its own is probably an indication of a bigger issue than nicking a few songs off a mates band.I think I've already paid ;o)
which is a fine example of the problem, you think you have paid but you don't understand that you haven't cos you haven't comprehended the worth of the work.
-
that humour's coming along well don, I like it!
-
It's that they don't think copyright rights actually extend as far as you do in the first place.
I don't necessarily think they do or don't, i'm just contemplating the reasons the extend as far as they do and consequently at present don't extend any further.
my other motivation was to keep the conversation going and not end with jon discussing the merits of penguins over albatrosses or something, not that I'm messin' with your free speech jon :)
I'm up for some hard concepts if you like lyndon, I wasn't that impressed with the wiki link for natural law though. all seems a bit "do unto others",
-
I'm trying to find out what it is you're after with this line of questioning.
haha, makes it sound like an interrogation.
establishing what property is.Rob Stowell asked a good question re this natural law argument and I didn't see it answered, and reading through though laws as written in the book of wikipedia it seems they really don't define anything to do with the natural right of property. more like a guideline on how to behave nicely.
if that's the case the nice (natural law) way to behave regarding copyright is to observe and respect it. apparently that's not going to happen without enforcement so the whole natural law argument seems to fall over.
Paint me a picture Rob,
is this a commissioned work, as in you want full controlling rights to it??? it'll cost you extra for that.
-
Al-Maturidi gives the example of stealing which is known to be evil by reason alone due to man's working hard for his property.
so is the definition of property something that you work hard for and is stealing the abuse of said hard worked for property?
-
but fail to see it's relevance regarding getting anywhere on this.
that's irony right there jon, (coming from the guy who has waxed lyrical about all manner of non copyright relevant things :))
The relevance is it was used as an argument against IP but not substantiated. ie not a natural right, but no one explained what a natural right was and why ip wasn't one.
it was potentially a big winning point for anti copyright people except it was never actually explained so it was in effect meaningless. -
Is there some sort of natural model that applies
did anyone give an explanation for this "natural" aspect that keeps getting referred to? Ip apparently not natural in the slightest.
-
Does that make me weird.
umm, only if you want it to.