Anyway, whenever I face the ridiculous bloat and waste of resources typical of today's software, I wish there was a 640K limit in every developer's computer.
No, actually, it wasn't. What I said was that copying without permission "isn't wrong, because sharing information is a fundamental human right.
Are you trying to take back your words without getting noticed? See if you can remember writing this: "If I tell you about a number that represents the new Indiana Jones movie, I'm "informing" you". That sentence doesn't imply equating entertainment to information, in your mind?
And yet there is a fundamental human right to share information
And yet there is no fundamental human right to get entertainment for free.
Hmm, nope. It says nothing about any license or agreement there
It says what you can or cannot do according to the law. There's no need for you to explicitly "agree" to abide by the law, you know. Basic things like these are "agreed to" by default.
That said, for all I care, you're welcome to put yourself in a position where you can get your ass sued for infringement, then go to the courtroom and defend yourself using the same arguments you're using here.
Maybe when you get laughed at, you'll start to realize that your arguments are bullcrap.
Does it? I've certainly never seen one except on software. In fact, I'm looking at a pile of music CDs right now, and none of the cases mention any kind of license.
Look near the CD border. You're welcome.
Agreed. But that still doesn't address the common case where someone obtains a copy without agreeing to any any restrictive terms -- say, by downloading a torrent -- and then proceeds to share it.
Akin to saying that, since a car thief never agreed to any "restrictive terms" when he stole a car, he is entitled to sharing it. In other words, bullshit.
I don't think so: your point is (was?) that entertainment is information. My point is that it's not.
Entertainment can be encoded as information; therefore, if you want to stop people from sharing entertainment, you must restrict their fundamental human right to share information.
No. There simply is no "fundamental human right" to get entertainment without paying for it.
If you had read it, you would've realized that those definitions are exactly what I've been using through this entire thread, such as when I wrote "Any sequence of bits sent over a TCP socket is information". Data is information, whether it represents entertainment or anything else.
Data is information, sure. Entertainment is not, even when it's made of data.
Bread and pasta are made of wheat. Does it mean they are wheat?
It's funny how, immediately after quoting a part of my post about radio, TV, books, and DVDs, you decided to write a response about software instead. I guess that's your way of conceding the argument.
No, that's my way of saying your argument is bollocks. Whether you buy software, a music CD or a video DVD, it comes with a license saying that you can't give away copies. It doesn't need to be signed.
Again, you quoted a part of my post about one thing (morality and fraud) but your response is about something completely different (the legality of copyright infringement).
"Completely different"? LOL... Try and reach an agreement with yourself, will you? You were talking about "dishonesty". It's a legal concept, not only a moral one. Anyway, buying a product on certain terms, and then breaking the deal is not OK, even from a moral standpoint.
Nonsense. When was the last time you had to sign an agreement when you turned on the radio or TV, or bought a book or DVD? What makes you think this "mutual agreement" actually exists anywhere outside of your imagination?
ROTFL. Just because you didn't sign the EULA that came with your software, it doesn't mean it's not there.
And, for that matter, what if you get the copy from a pirate rather than a store?
Oh, in that case when they bust your butt for copyright infringement, you can use it as a line of defense in the courtroom: "I'm innocent your honor! I got my copy from a pirate, not from a store!".
If you spend a counterfeit note, you're defrauding whoever you give it to: they value that note because they believe it was printed by the treasury, when in fact it wasn't, and you use that deception to get something of value.
If you share a copyrighted work, you're defrauding whoever you took it from: they sold you that copy on the mutual agreement that you would have used it for yourself and not given it away, when in fact you are doing the opposite. You are the one in breach, and no amount of analogies is going to change that.
But that doesn't make any sense: the author isn't deprived of the right to use his own work. He still has his own copy, and he can still do anything with it that he was ever able to do before I made my own copy.
No, he can't. When something is available for free, no author can still sell it as "he was ever able to do before". Therefore, the author is deprived of the right to use HIS OWN work as he pleases.
If you're resting your point on the word "exclusive", well, you'll have to explain why the ability to use a work should rightfully be "exclusive" in the first place.
Because if the author wants his right to be exclusive, his will MUST be respected and it is morally and legally WRONG not to comply.
I mean, if I buy the first Ferrari in town, I have something no one else in town does. Now if my neighbor buys his own Ferrari, I've lost that "exclusive"
Bullshit. You never had any "exclusive" to begin with, because you didn't buy any exclusive right from the Ferrari's makers.
Any sequence of bits sent over a TCP socket is information, whether it represents a Hollywood movie or an educational text file. If I tell you about a number that represents the new Indiana Jones movie, I'm "informing" you just as if I'd told you about a number that represents the speed of light or the phone number for the White House switchboard.
No, you aren't. You're confusing the means with the end.
The fact that both information and entertainment can be encoded and transmitted over TCP does not make them the same thing. The purpose of information is different to the purpose of entertainment, therefore information != entertainment.
What I am seeing is a concerted effort by the media conglomerates to flood the market with also-rans and copycats vastly quicker than they have done so in the past.
Not really a concerted effort -- It's the effect of a wild downwards chicken-and-egg spiral that's been going on in the industry for the last few years:
Less record sales due to piracy --> less money to invest in talent scouting/upbringing --> reliance on cheap "also-rans and copycats" to lower the break-even-point --> audience less willing to pay due to lower quality --> piracy --> less record sales due to piracy...
Asking for a copy of a movie is morally equivalent to asking someone to tell you about it in excruciating detail. They're relating facts. It's a fact that Star Wars has light sabers and takes place in a galaxy far, far away; it's a fact that Darth Vader wears a black helmet; it's a fact a certain string of bits makes a JPEG image of that helmet; and it's a fact that a much bigger string of bits makes an AVI file containing the whole movie.
It's also a fact that a small piece of paper made in a certain way is a banknote. Are you implying there's nothing wrong in printing your own money? Because, you know, that would be interesting.
Copying isn't stealing because no one is deprived of the thing being copied.
The "theft vs. infringement" or "stealing vs. violating" debate is pure semantics in this particular thread, i.e. something I'm not personally interested in.
No one is deprived of the thing being copied, sure. But an author is deprived of his exclusive right to use his own work as he pleases. That's all that matters, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Just imagine a beowulf cluster of those...
I slrn for those days.
"Pirates of Silicon Valley" is a very faithful account on Apple and Microsoft's early history. They really got all the details right in that one.
Of course, the fact that the plot isn't fictional certainly helped.
Anyway, whenever I face the ridiculous bloat and waste of resources typical of today's software, I wish there was a 640K limit in every developer's computer.
That could only be allowed by a server bug.
Are you trying to take back your words without getting noticed? See if you can remember writing this: "If I tell you about a number that represents the new Indiana Jones movie, I'm "informing" you". That sentence doesn't imply equating entertainment to information, in your mind?
And yet there is no fundamental human right to get entertainment for free.
It says what you can or cannot do according to the law. There's no need for you to explicitly "agree" to abide by the law, you know. Basic things like these are "agreed to" by default.
That said, for all I care, you're welcome to put yourself in a position where you can get your ass sued for infringement, then go to the courtroom and defend yourself using the same arguments you're using here.
Maybe when you get laughed at, you'll start to realize that your arguments are bullcrap.
Look near the CD border. You're welcome.
Akin to saying that, since a car thief never agreed to any "restrictive terms" when he stole a car, he is entitled to sharing it. In other words, bullshit.
I don't think so: your point is (was?) that entertainment is information. My point is that it's not.
No. There simply is no "fundamental human right" to get entertainment without paying for it.
Data is information, sure. Entertainment is not, even when it's made of data.
Bread and pasta are made of wheat. Does it mean they are wheat?
No, that's my way of saying your argument is bollocks. Whether you buy software, a music CD or a video DVD, it comes with a license saying that you can't give away copies. It doesn't need to be signed.
"Completely different"? LOL... Try and reach an agreement with yourself, will you? You were talking about "dishonesty". It's a legal concept, not only a moral one. Anyway, buying a product on certain terms, and then breaking the deal is not OK, even from a moral standpoint.
Of course it's not harm. It's a good thing, as every businessman knows.
But you lose potential customers, which easily translates to financial harm. Business 101.
The word "entertainment" doesn't even appear on that page. Sorry, you're only helping yourself look bad.
ROTFL. Just because you didn't sign the EULA that came with your software, it doesn't mean it's not there.
Oh, in that case when they bust your butt for copyright infringement, you can use it as a line of defense in the courtroom: "I'm innocent your honor! I got my copy from a pirate, not from a store!".
Yep, and "entertainment" is not one of them.
This is only proof that you are in bad faith. Further discussion with you would be pointless.
As well, sharing a person's work without paying is likely to cause them actual financial harm.
If you share a copyrighted work, you're defrauding whoever you took it from: they sold you that copy on the mutual agreement that you would have used it for yourself and not given it away, when in fact you are doing the opposite. You are the one in breach, and no amount of analogies is going to change that.
No, he can't. When something is available for free, no author can still sell it as "he was ever able to do before". Therefore, the author is deprived of the right to use HIS OWN work as he pleases.
Because if the author wants his right to be exclusive, his will MUST be respected and it is morally and legally WRONG not to comply.
Bullshit. You never had any "exclusive" to begin with, because you didn't buy any exclusive right from the Ferrari's makers.
No, you aren't. You're confusing the means with the end.
The fact that both information and entertainment can be encoded and transmitted over TCP does not make them the same thing. The purpose of information is different to the purpose of entertainment, therefore information != entertainment.
Not really a concerted effort -- It's the effect of a wild downwards chicken-and-egg spiral that's been going on in the industry for the last few years:
Less record sales due to piracy --> less money to invest in talent scouting/upbringing --> reliance on cheap "also-rans and copycats" to lower the break-even-point --> audience less willing to pay due to lower quality --> piracy --> less record sales due to piracy...
It's also a fact that a small piece of paper made in a certain way is a banknote. Are you implying there's nothing wrong in printing your own money? Because, you know, that would be interesting.
Entertainment != Information.
To quote a funny and enlightening sig I've read here on
The "theft vs. infringement" or "stealing vs. violating" debate is pure semantics in this particular thread, i.e. something I'm not personally interested in.
No one is deprived of the thing being copied, sure. But an author is deprived of his exclusive right to use his own work as he pleases. That's all that matters, really.