What is the legality and morality of a private community shared cloud based video library ? Anyone interested ? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 08:29 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Well not a lot of people credit Homer when they talk about movie like "TROY" ??? [dude has been dead like thousand and thousands of years] That's probably the greatest story in human existence (not the movie but the full story) and it's pieced together by hundreds of different scholars and sources.

What about Charles Dickens ? Christmas Carol has been done over 25 times in last 50 years (even by Disney twice)

You think that's bad ?

If they had copyrighted it and kept up the right to copy, then yes. If they did not, then no. You are allowed to spend time and money creating something and then allow people to just take it from you if you wish. No one is preventing that. smile.gif

Quote:
Copyright is a legal government granted monopoly. Plain and simple. But when you take it to the extreme and exploit it (like happens today) it really pisses people off and makes them fight it. I'd probably argue that the more extreme it gets, the more people will revolt against it until it's so widespread and popular there is a revolution of sorts.

Nah, people are too worried about missing their next TV episode to have a revolution. TV is the modern version of the Roman Circus, complete with death and violence.
Quote:
It's not right when companies track an IP and then petition a judge to court order the ISP to disclose the identity of each IP address under the false pretense that the copyright holder intends to enforce their copyright in court, but then really has no intention of doing that at all, and really just wants to extort people by sending them a threat and demand letter - and they make more money of people paying and sending in checks than they would if they took the individuals to court and gave them a fair chance to plead a case.

I'm calling BS on that.

I agree, if they say they are going to go to court, they should not make an out of court offer. If the people they sue propose one, then they can negotiate one, of course. But if they state their intent is court then they should have to abide by that. Tracking the people down, though, is not wrong. At least no more wrong than Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" series - which I consider to be not wrong at all. smile.gif
cybrsage is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 08:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Your desire to take what others own, without paying, is an indictment on our society.

Oh, for goodness sake! rolleyes.gif

The founding fathers of this country thought that authors and inventors should have exclusive rights only for "limited times", and only "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".

It is hardly "an indictment on our society" to agree with what the founding fathers wrote in the U.S. Constitution.
jim2100 is offline  
post #93 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 08:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 273
I always get baited into these conversations before I recall that many users are clearly more concerned with the technicality of the law than the intent (or sensibility) of the law
Dark_Slayer is online now  
post #94 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 08:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,357
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I always get baited into these conversations before I recall that many users are clearly more concerned with the technicality of the law than the intent (or sensibility) of the law

I'm with you in that. There's a point of common sense and then a point that makes no sense (either side of common sense)

The problem with law and lawyers is laws and words can be exploited and twisted for financial gain. A lawyers job is basically to do this and get money for it.

That just adds a whole extra element to the conversation and makes having the conversation less desirable.

Basically the answer I got was the one I already knew ... It's basically illegal but not at all immoral to share your video library with friends through a cloud based storage system.

And clearly it's illegal to publically share

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #95 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:09 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Oh, for goodness sake! rolleyes.gif

The founding fathers of this country thought that authors and inventors should have exclusive rights only for "limited times", and only "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".

It is hardly "an indictment on our society" to agree with what the founding fathers wrote in the U.S. Constitution.

You want to take something of value from someone who owns it. AFAIK, the founding fathers did not say you should take things that do not belong to you without giving fair compensation.
cybrsage is offline  
post #96 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:13 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Basically the answer I got was the one I already knew ... It's basically illegal but not at all immoral to share your video library with friends through a cloud based storage system.

And clearly it's illegal to publically share

Well, immoral is a toss up. Some say that breaking the law is immoral, regardless of the law (this is clearly a minority of people). A lot more people say that breaking a law is only moral when that law violates a law of their diety. Breaking a law because you do not like the law - not sure how many people think that is a moral act. I suspect most people break laws they dislike, but also that most of them think it is wrong to do so (aka, immoral) but simply do not care that it is immoral.
cybrsage is offline  
post #97 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

You want to take something of value from someone who owns it. AFAIK, the founding fathers did not say you should take things that do not belong to you without giving fair compensation.

That "AFAIK" is apparently the problem. You are obviously remarkably ignorant of the Constitutional basis for copyright.
jim2100 is offline  
post #98 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,357
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Well, immoral is a toss up. Some say that breaking the law is immoral, regardless of the law (this is clearly a minority of people). A lot more people say that breaking a law is only moral when that law violates a law of their diety. Breaking a law because you do not like the law - not sure how many people think that is a moral act. I suspect most people break laws they dislike, but also that most of them think it is wrong to do so (aka, immoral) but simply do not care that it is immoral.

Ok let me ask you a specific question.

We've known each other for a while right ? What if we were talking about a new movie that just came out and I was telling you how awesome it was and how you must see it. You telling me you haven't seen it yet. I put my copy into my Dropbox account and send you the download link privately. I genuinely want you to watch my copy because we are friends and I think you will like it. Plus I want to talk about how awesome it was with you.

Legal ?

Moral ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #99 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:24 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

That "AFAIK" is apparently the problem. You are obviously remarkably ignorant of the Constitutional basis for copyright.

Not at all, quote the part that says "it is fine and proper to take something of value from someone without due compensation". Enlighten me, since you pretend to know so much.
cybrsage is offline  
post #100 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Ok let me ask you a specific question.

We've known each other for a while right ? What if we were talking about a new movie that just came out and I was telling you how awesome it was and how you must see it. You telling me you haven't seen it yet. I put my copy into my Dropbox account and send you the download link privately. I genuinely want you to watch my copy because we are friends and I think you will like it. Plus I want to talk about how awesome it was with you.

Legal ?

Moral ?


This looks like one of those old word problems from math class where they throw in a bunch of extra information to try and trip you up.
Quote:
We've known each other for a while right ? What if we were talking about a new movie that just came out and I was telling you how awesome it was and how you must see it. You telling me you haven't seen it yet. I put my copy into my Dropbox account and send you the download link privately. I genuinely want you to watch my copy because we are friends and I think you will like it. Plus I want to talk about how awesome it was with you.

Legal ?

Moral ?

That's the actual question you're trying to ask.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #101 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Not at all, quote the part that says "it is fine and proper to take something of value from someone without due compensation". Enlighten me, since you pretend to know so much.

"Taking" implies they no longer have it. What you're describing is outright theft, not copyright violation.
jim2100 likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #102 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:29 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Ok let me ask you a specific question.

We've known each other for a while right ? What if we were talking about a new movie that just came out and I was telling you how awesome it was and how you must see it. You telling me you haven't seen it yet. I put my copy into my Dropbox account and send you the download link privately. I genuinely want you to watch my copy because we are friends and I think you will like it. Plus I want to talk about how awesome it was with you.

Legal ?

Moral ?

Legal, no. If I understand what you have written so far, you agree.

Moral, no. While there are many shades to the definition of moral, they all are basically about right and wrong. Is it wrong to break a law because you dislike it or think it should not apply to you? This is really the question, is it wrong to break a law if you dislike it or think it should not apply to you? For me, the best way to tell is to see if it would be right for anyone to be able to break any law they dislike or think should not apply to them. If it is wrong for others to do it, it is wrong for me as well.

As a note, this is all separate from whether or not I actually break the laws myself. One can break a law and realize it is wrong to do so...but not care that it is wrong.
cybrsage is offline  
post #103 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:33 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

"Taking" implies they no longer have it. What you're describing is outright theft, not copyright violation.

No, you are taking their image, their produced work, etc., and using it. Taking does not require someone else to no longer have what you took. Take a loot at the meaning of the word, you have to go the entire way down to meaning twenty-five to find the one you say is the most common usage:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take?s=t

You can take someone's idea, after all.


EDIT: Has been fun discussing and seeing the views of others. Time for bed, night all! smile.gif
cybrsage is offline  
post #104 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 09:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,357
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 762
I'm not sure what I believe anymore. That's why I am asking.

I know I don't agree that if I pay $25 for a Bluray even though I already owned the DVD because I wanted the superior picture snd sound quality because I'm a theater enthusiast and I then copy it to my hard drive so I can enjoy it better without needing to get off my ass and load a disc and also help protect against scratching or damage my property I purchased that it's illegal.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #105 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 10:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

No, you are taking their image, their produced work, etc., and using it. Taking does not require someone else to no longer have what you took. Take a loot at the meaning of the word, you have to go the entire way down to meaning twenty-five to find the one you say is the most common usage:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/take?s=t

You can take someone's idea, after all.


EDIT: Has been fun discussing and seeing the views of others. Time for bed, night all! smile.gif

1. to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action: to take a cigarette out of a box; to take a pen and begin to write.

25. to carry off without permission: to take something that belongs to another.

Huh? To take a cigarette out of a box... is the cigarette in the box anymore? No. I think #1 covers my definition quite well.
jim2100 likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #106 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 10:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Not at all, quote the part that says "it is fine and proper to take something of value from someone without due compensation". Enlighten me, since you pretend to know so much.

You are apparently under the misapprehension that copying information is "taking something" from someone. It is understandable that you are confused, since special interests have worked long and hard to perpetuate the myth that intellectual property is no different than material property. But the fact is that intellectual property is fundamentally different from material property.

Obviously with material property, if one person has possession of a material item, no one else has possession of that material item. In contrast, information and ideas may be in the possession of arbitrarily many people simultaneously. It is impossible to deprive someone of possession of information or ideas without taking from them a material representation of that information or idea. As long as you do not take material property from someone, you have not deprived them of possession of property. However, it is widely recognized that it could be of benefit to society to provide a mechanism whereby exclusive rights to information or ideas may be assigned by law to individuals (or corporations) for a limited time.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. Among other things, it states that
Quote:
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...

That clause is the basis for copyright and patent law in the United States. It has three important phrases:

(1) To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts

(2) securing...exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

(3) for limited Times

The first one hints at why the federal government should be empowered to prevent people from freely using certain information or ideas. Obviously the federal government should have a good reason to use law and force (and spend taxpayer money) to prevent citizens from freely using information or ideas. That reason is "to promote progress of science and useful arts". In other words, the harm of forcibly preventing the free use of information or ideas is meant to be more than offset by the net benefit to society of scientific progress or progress in useful arts provided by the second part.

Second, in order to accomplish the first goal, the federal government has the power to pass laws that will secure exclusive rights to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. Note that there is no claim that the authors and inventors have a fundamental right to exclusive control of their writings and discoveries. The only rights discussed are those secured by law by the Congress.

Third, those exclusive rights are to be secured only for limited times. Congress does not have the power to pass laws to secure exclusive rights to writings and discoveries in perpetuity. The term of the exclusive rights must be limited.

Finally, if the framers were alive in modern times, I think they might explain their intent with that clause like this:

It is a net benefit to all American citizens to have new inventions disclosed and put to use, and for new works of art to be widely publicized and appreciated. We believe that this societal benefit can be increased by incentivizing inventors and content creators with a grant of exclusive right to copy or utilize certain content or ideas for material gain or to benefit their reputation. However, we believe the majority of future inventors and content creators will be adequately incentivized by a grant of exclusive rights for only a limited time. Therefore, we can ensure the greatest net benefit to society by incentivizing the creation of new ideas and content at the minimum cost possible. That cost, restricting citizens from freely using ideas and information, is minimized by granting exclusive rights for the minimum time that is necessary to adequately incentivize the majority of future inventors and content creators. In the majority of cases, a few years up to a few decades of exclusive rights should be adequate incentive for the vast majority of future inventors and content creators -- there are many who would continue to invent or create even with no exclusive rights at all.
robnix and ajhieb like this.
jim2100 is offline  
post #107 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 10:35 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

1. to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action: to take a cigarette out of a box; to take a pen and begin to write.

25. to carry off without permission: to take something that belongs to another.

Huh? To take a cigarette out of a box... is the cigarette in the box anymore? No. I think #1 covers my definition quite well.

No, you are adding things that are not there. To get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action. The rest are its use in a sentence and not part of the actual definition - one cannot use a word in its own definition you know. Your definition still requires you to drop way down to meaning 25 before it is in use.

EDIT: Had to get up due to a major network outage... frown.gif
cybrsage is offline  
post #108 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 10:48 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

You are apparently under the misapprehension that copying information is "taking something" from someone. It is understandable that you are confused, since special interests have worked long and hard to perpetrate the myth that intellectual property is no different than material property. But the fact is that intellectual property is fundamentally different from material property.

You are taking the value of what they invented without having to actually go through the trouble and cost of doing the actual invention. I can see why you would want to do this, the easy road is what most people want to take, rather than the road that required hard work.
Quote:
Obviously with material property, if one person has possession of a material item, no one else has possession of that material item. In contrast, information and ideas may be in the possession of arbitrarily many people simultaneously. It is impossible to deprive someone of possession of information or ideas without taking from them a material representation of that information or idea. As long as you do not take material property from someone, you have not deprived them of possession of property. However, it is widely recognized that it could be of benefit to society to provide a mechanism whereby exclusive rights to information or ideas may be assigned by law to individuals (or corporations) for a limited time.

Ideas have value, and when you take the idea, you take the value that goes with them.

Quote:
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. Among other things, it states that
That clause is the basis for copyright and patent law in the United States. It has three important phrases:

(1) To promote the Progress of Science and useful arts

(2) securing...exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

(3) for limited Times

The first one hints at why the federal government should be empowered to prevent people from freely using certain information or ideas. Obviously the federal government should have a good reason to use law and force (and spend taxpayer money) to prevent citizens from freely using information or ideas. That reason is "to promote progress of science and useful arts". In other words, the harm of forcibly preventing the free use of information or ideas is meant to be more than offset by the net benefit to society of scientific progress or progress in useful arts provided by the second part.

Second, in order to accomplish the first goal, the federal government has the power to pass laws that will secure exclusive rights to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. Note that there is no claim that the authors and inventors have a fundamental right to exclusive control of their writings and discoveries. The only rights discussed are those secured by law by the Congress.

Third, those exclusive rights are to be secured only for limited times. Congress does not have the power to pass laws to secure exclusive rights to writings and discoveries in perpetuity. The term of the exclusive rights must be limited.

You forgot a big one, but I understand why you forgot it, since it causes you trouble:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The law does NOT grant in perpetuity. It requires them to reapply at regular intervals and each time it will be decided if they get to keep control of it. Yes, actually, the Constitution DOES give the authors and inventors a fundamental right to exclusive control of their writings and discoveries. It is called the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution does not say authors and inventors are forbidden exclusive control, it means they have the right to it. It is simply how the Constitution works.

Quote:
Finally, if the framers were alive in modern times, I think they might explain their intent with that clause like this:

It is a net benefit to all American citizens to have new inventions disclosed and put to use, and for new works of art to be widely publicized and appreciated. We believe that this societal benefit can be increased by incentivizing inventors and content creators with a grant of exclusive right to copy or utilize certain content or ideas for material gain or to benefit their reputation. However, we believe the majority of future inventors and content creators will be adequately incentivized by a grant of exclusive rights for only a limited time. Therefore, we can ensure the greatest net benefit to society by incentivizing the creation of new ideas and content at the minimum cost possible. That cost, restricting citizens from freely using ideas and information, is minimized by granting exclusive rights for the minimum time that is necessary to adequately incentivize the majority of future inventors and content creators. In the majority of cases, a few years up to a few decades of exclusive rights should be adequate incentive for the vast majority of future inventors and content creators -- there are many who would continue to invent or create even with no exclusive rights at all.

That is effectively what it currently says, only far less wordy. The current laws allow just this exact thing. As long as the item in question still holds value to the owner, the owner is allowed to keep it, provided doing so does not cause undo harm to society (which is why drugs have a strict limit). Not allowing people to do whatever they want with Mickey Mouse causes society no harm at all.

Personally, I think the founders would be horrified at the use of the Interstate Commerce clause to force people to engage in interstate commerce so they can be controlled by it and have no problem with people not being allowed to take Mickey Mouse away from Disney.
cybrsage is offline  
post #109 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 10:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

No, you are adding things that are not there. To get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action. The rest are its use in a sentence and not part of the actual definition - one cannot use a word in its own definition you know. Your definition still requires you to drop way down to meaning 25 before it is in use.

I said it was implied. It is implied in the fist definition. If it wasn't it wouldn't be in the example.

Look, I know you're superdee-duper pedantic, and want to argue over the nuanced meaning of every word. (that's why you were responsible for getting the original Echo thread closed becasue you refused to acknowledge the use of the word "killed" in any sort of colloquial meaning and deemed yourself the sole arbiter of the word's definition) but I'm not going down that road.

I said it is implied, and it is. It doesn't matter if reference.com lists it is the first or the one hundred and first. It's still a valid definition, and you need to accept that. If it isn't what you mean, then just say so. Don't tell me I'm wrong and then point to a a page that proves that I'm right.

And for the record, it appears your arguing for the necessity of copyright law in general, which I don't think anyone here is arguing against. (if I missed one, then my apologies) but it looks to me like those unhappy with copyright law are so because of the broadness and longevity of it, which none of your points seem to address.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #110 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 10:55 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

I said it was implied. It is implied in the fist definition. If it wasn't it wouldn't be in the example.

Nope, if it was part of the meaning it would be in the meaning. Adding something that is not there does not magically make it there, sorry.
Quote:
Look, I know you're superdee-duper pedantic, and want to argue over the nuanced meaning of every word. (that's why you were responsible for getting the original Echo thread closed becasue you refused to acknowledge the use of the word "killed" in any sort of colloquial meaning and deemed yourself the sole arbiter of the word's definition) but I'm not going down that road.

It takes more than one to argue, blaming me for the actions of others is stupid. By "me" being the sole arbiter, you mean a dictionary...which IS where you find the meaning of words. I am saddened by a school system that does not teach the purpose of a dictionary.
Quote:
I said it is implied, and it is.

Nope, it is not. If it is part of the meaning it would be part of the meaning. Pretending it is there when it is not is silly.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if reference.com lists it is the first or the one hundred and first. It's still a valid definition, and you need to accept that. If it isn't what you mean, then just say so. Don't tell me I'm wrong and then point to a a page that proves that I'm right.

I was showing you that you are pretending it is the ONLY usage of the word. You are quite incorrect in that. You can take something without the other person losing that very something. It is well known you can take someone's idea. Pretending it is not possible to take an idea does not magically make it not possible.

Quote:
And for the record, it appears your arguing for the necessity of copyright law in general, which I don't think anyone here is arguing against. (if I missed one, then my apologies) but it looks to me like those unhappy with copyright law are so because of the broadness and longevity of it, which none of your points seem to address.

The law works as it should. As long as the item has value, and the owner of said item wishes to retain it, the owner can retain it. They have to reapply routinely due to the limited nature of copyrights. Once an item no longer has value, companies stop spending money to maintain control over their item. At that point it enters public domain and others are allowed to find new ways to gain value from it.

What I see is that people want to take things of value away from the companies that created them.
cybrsage is offline  
post #111 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 11:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Nope, if it was part of the meaning it would be in the meaning. Adding something that is not there does not magically make it there, sorry.
Look up "implied" on reference.com. I think you'll find that it says (way way down on definition #25) that implied things aren't stated directly. If they were stated directly, they wouldn't be implied.
Quote:
It takes more than one to argue, blaming me for the actions of others is stupid. By "me" being the sole arbiter, you mean a dictionary...which IS where you find the meaning of words. I am saddened by a school system that does not teach the purpose of a dictionary.
Perhaps you should also look up "colloquial" and "slang" in that dictionary,
Quote:
Nope, it is not. If it is part of the meaning it would be part of the meaning. Pretending it is there when it is not is silly.
See: implied
Quote:
I was showing you that you are pretending it is the ONLY usage of the word. You are quite incorrect in that.
I never said, nor impleid such a thing. In fact It was pretty clear that I was suggesting that there were multiple definitions and that your use of a fairly ambiguous word could cause confusion becasue of the multiple definitions.
Quote:
You can take something without the other person losing that very something. It is well known you can take someone's idea. Pretending it is not possible to take an idea does not magically make it not possible.
I never said that isn't possible. I said your use of the word "take" has certain implications. Thanks for pointing to reference.com and confirming what I said.
Quote:
The law works as it should. As long as the item has value, and the owner of said item wishes to retain it, the owner can retain it. They have to reapply routinely due to the limited nature of copyrights. Once an item no longer has value, companies stop spending money to maintain control over their item. At that point it enters public domain and others are allowed to find new ways to gain value from it.

What I see is that people want to take things of value away from the companies that created them.

You mean you think the law works as it should. That is very much an opinion, not a fact.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #112 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 11:33 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

Look up "implied" on reference.com. I think you'll find that it says (way way down on definition #25) that implied things aren't stated directly. If they were stated directly, they wouldn't be implied.

Yes, you did use the word implied correctly, you just used it in a situation where it did not apply. You are adding things to a definition that are not there and pretending they are by claiming they are implied. Definitions do not work that way, sorry.
Quote:
Perhaps you should also look up "colloquial" and "slang" in that dictionary,

When talking legal matters, the actual meaning of words is important.
Quote:
I never said, nor impleid such a thing. In fact It was pretty clear that I was suggesting that there were multiple definitions and that your use of a fairly ambiguous word could cause confusion becasue of the multiple definitions.
I never said that isn't possible. I said your use of the word "take" has certain implications. Thanks for pointing to reference.com and confirming what I said.

You used a version of the word that does not apply in this situation and then tried to make it apply. It simply does not. In the case of non-physical items, when you take the item the original owner does not lose the item. You still took it, though. Again, we all know an idea can be taken. This is a prime example of the items under discussion. When you take an idea, the person who originally had it does not suddenly get a case of amnesia...they still have the idea. You took it, though, plain and simple.
Quote:
You mean you think the law works as it should. That is very much an opinion, not a fact.

That is really how it works; I can post the laws if you wish.


As an aside, you are getting quite boring with all your "the meaning of words is not really what a dictionary shows, we have to assume they meant to add other things but did not bother do to so" lines...
cybrsage is offline  
post #113 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 11:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,185
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 175
"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." --Thomas Jefferson
jim2100 likes this.
EricN is offline  
post #114 of 207 Old 12-07-2013, 11:45 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Jefferson quotes, I love them:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff411888.html#j4AKwcQrjj0B6YhB.99


"Books constitute capital. A library book lasts as long as a house, for hundreds of years. It is not, then, an article of mere consumption but fairly of capital, and often in the case of professional men, setting out in life, it is their only capital." --Thomas Jefferson
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson_7.html#Mv5YeGmItZxF3hsm.99



Of course, James Madison (the guy who was actually the prime author of the Constitution) considered thoughts to be property:

"A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them." --James Madison
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html#HrYrOHFGWAUQ7gYi.99
cybrsage is offline  
post #115 of 207 Old 12-08-2013, 12:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Yes, you did use the word implied correctly, you just used it in a situation where it did not apply. You are adding things to a definition that are not there and pretending they are by claiming they are implied. Definitions do not work that way, sorry.
I did no such thing. I suggested that your use of an ambiguous word could lead to confusion. "Take" has many meanings (as you so adeptly illustrated for everyone) one of which was one that I suggested could cause confusion since another common meaning is the one I suggested. If your use was meant to imply another meaning, you could have just said so, but instead you decided to go all dictionary.com and say the word didn't mean what I suggested (which it actually does)
Quote:
When talking legal matters, the actual meaning of words is important.
Context: The Echo thread (which is the comment you were responding to) wasn't a legal debate. Someone suggeted that Microsoft was "killing" WMC and you took issue with the use of the word "killing" only recognizing definitions that you approved of, and reusing to acknowledge any colloquial use of the word. that wasn't a legal discussion.
Quote:
You used a version of the word that does not apply in this situation and then tried to make it apply. It simply does not.
No, I simply pointed out that the use of your ambiguous wording could lead to a different conclusion than what you were saying. I'm the one that said it didn't apply in the first place. *I* said that physically removing something is outright theft, and not what this discussion is about. It was the very first post you replied to.

Quote:
That is really how it works; I can post the laws if you wish.
I'm aware of how the laws work. You didn't say the laws were working as intended. That would have been a clear statement of fact. How the laws should work is an opinion.
Quote:
As an aside, you are getting quite boring with all your "the meaning of words is not really what a dictionary shows, we have to assume they meant to add other things but did not bother do to so" lines...
And your "the definition is the one that I point to on whatever reference page I choose, and if you use any other definition, you're wrong" routine is pretty tiresome too. Just like mfusik's hardware hyperbole, and sammy2's "I know you asked this question, but since I don't know the answer, I'm going to answer some other vaguely related question that is probably of little use to you" routine. Lots of people do lots of things that others find tiresome. Probably best that you learn to deal with it.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #116 of 207 Old 12-08-2013, 12:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,185
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

When you create something, spending a lot of time and money to create it, let me know that you are just giving it away for free.

If McDonalds spends six months and a million dollars doing a site survey for where to place a new franchise, Burger King just follows them and doesn't owe them a dime.
If I collate and publish the largest list of prime numbers ever made, I can't stop anyone from redistributing it.
Magnus Carlsen is now the world champion, yet his challengers are free to use his entire life's work, his ideas, his tactics, against him, for free.
Your manicured lawn and expensive landscaping raise the value for not just your own house but also those nearby. When your neighbors sell, they don't own you a portion of the profits.

Ownership doesn't derive from the investment of time or money, nor does it derive from the act of creating something of value. It's common for them to correlate, but that is not causality.
jim2100 likes this.
EricN is offline  
post #117 of 207 Old 12-08-2013, 12:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,185
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Of course, James Madison (the guy who was actually the prime author of the Constitution) considered thoughts to be property:

"A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them." --James Madison
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html#HrYrOHFGWAUQ7gYi.99

Oh, come on...show the whole quote!
"Property", This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

Madison was specifically saying that ideas & opinions are NOT like land, merchandise, or money. He's saying you CAN'T claim dominion over them to the exclusion of other individuals.

He goes on to say that freedoms of thought, speech, religion, etc must be as inviolable as 'regular' property rights. He never claims ideas can be owned like a physical object.



If you need more proof you are mistaken about the founding fathers, read the Constitution. It allows Congress to grant authors and inventors exclusive use of their ideas for a limited time. If your belief were correct, if the drafters believed authors already had exclusive ownership of their ideas, then the government would have no need to grant it to them. Furthermore, the government would have no authority to take away that ownership after a 'limited time'. If you own something, the government can't take it for public use without due process and just compensation. If your exclusive use of an idea can simply expire, if you can be separated from it by mere statute, then it's obviously not something you own...at least according to the founding fathers.
jim2100 likes this.
EricN is offline  
post #118 of 207 Old 12-08-2013, 01:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

No, you are taking reproducing their image, their produced work, etc., and using it. Taking Reproducing does not require someone else to no longer have what you took.
Since it's very important that we use proper terminology for legal discussions I thought I'd go ahead and FTFY. Copyright law at it's heart is about the reproduction of works, not "taking" of them. Copyright law was about tangible creations (until the digital age, where things got a little muddy, though there is still a tangible version of every abstract work) and when you talk about taking a tangible object, the implication is that it is being removed from its original place. Can you point me to a definition of reference.com (or any other source you like) for the verb "take" that applies to tangible objects where an object is taken that doesn't involve removing it from it's original owner? (you know... one that actually applies to copyright law.)
Quote:
You can take someone's idea, after all.
Yeah, but ideas would fall under patent law, not copyright law.

Just want to make sure we get this pesky language business reconciled with the dictionary before we move on.

Because from where dumb ol' me who dudn't undertand nuthin sits, it looks like you were trying to intentionally paint copyright law as the same thing as outright theft, with those words you chose.
jim2100 likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #119 of 207 Old 12-08-2013, 01:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post


Wait, you are saying it is of benefit to Disney to create things that people simply copy without any repercussion? That is a strange thing to say. I disagree completely. I don't think there is ANY benefit to Disney to allow people to copy their works without paying Disney for it. How much money, time, and effort will Disney put into creating new things if anyone can just copy them without paying? The fastest way to destroy the creation of new things by businesses is to remove the incentive to create new things. Allowing people to copy their works without paying for them is a sure fire way to remove the incentive to create new things.


What I notice clearly, in this thread, is that people who invent nothing at all think they should not have to pay those who do invent things for the right to use the things they invent. I bet all of you would change your tune if you spend half your yearly salary on an invention just to watch everyone use it for free and you gain nothing from it. Can anyone here honestly tell me they would be fine with that?

Don't know how I missed this little gem earlier. Nice false dichotomy.

It's possible for Disney to produce things that are protected by copyright, while eventually allowing them to go into the public domain. The key word there obviously is "eventually." No need for copyrights to last generations after the original creator is pushing up daisies.
jim2100 likes this.

If I had a signature, this is where it would be.
ajhieb is online now  
post #120 of 207 Old 12-08-2013, 06:21 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post

Context: The Echo thread (which is the comment you were responding to) wasn't a legal debate. Someone suggeted that Microsoft was "killing" WMC and you took issue with the use of the word "killing" only recognizing definitions that you approved of, and reusing to acknowledge any colloquial use of the word. that wasn't a legal discussion.

Even outside of legal matters, words have meanings. You are still blaming me for your own flaws. This is a common human trait, but now that you are aware of it, please stop doing it. Take responsibility for your own actions, it is not my fault you add things to definitions and then get upset when called out on it, and not my fault you reply to my posts. I realize you believe my mind is so powerful that I can use it to control yours from a distance and force you to do things, but sadly this is not true. frown.gif
Quote:
No, I simply pointed out that the use of your ambiguous wording could lead to a different conclusion than what you were saying.

Why ignore context in the same post where you use it?
Quote:
You didn't say the laws were working as intended. That would have been a clear statement of fact. How the laws should work is an opinion.

Post 110, which you quoted, clearly shows me saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage 
The law works as it should.
Quote:
Lots of people do lots of things that others find tiresome. Probably best that you learn to deal with it.

You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I said boring. Your lack of reading comprehension is most likely part of the reason why you so often get upset when called out on your errors.
cybrsage is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off