The Queen was born/raised in Germany? She has a German passport? She's a German citizen?
Ya know, basically everyone in Europe has a mix of all sortsa other European roots. And remember all those Europeans that moved to America? Yep, Americans are mostly Europeans too (the one's that couldn't get jobs here I think it was;-)) (and yes, asians, africans etc etc).
What you may be thinking of is that they had a German surname up until the second world war, where they thought it best to change it. But their German roots go back further than that.
Is a little weird... "How dare you translate something, without paying us, for the privilege of us being able to understand it!"
They should just boycott it by not reading the version that's translated for them to understand. Or MS could just bitchslap them back by "mis"translating the yes/no text on the "really format harddrive that's now 90% full?" dialog box.
Just cuz MS is greedy, doesn't make other peoples greed any less um... greedy...
"Let me put it this way, if I buy a book, it's my book. I'm not the author, but I own that copy of the book"
Yes, the BOOK, just like you would own a DISC that a program is saved on. However, lets say you've bought a book, a story that somebody has written. You buying the book, thus now owning that book, does not mean that the story is yours. Just the book that it is written in.
"Say you write a program and make it available for a charge, downloadable. I pay you the agreed amount and download it to my hard drive. However, before installing it, I now find that I have no need for the program. Can I delete it wothout your permission?"
Of cause. Just like if somebody made a cup, and you bought it from them, you are free to go and smash it right up. I believe that when you purchase something, you should get certain rights with it. Format shifting, creating backups etc, you should be entitled to, because you have bought the right to use it, and publishers saying "you can only use it directly off this one disc on this one particular device, which you cannot convert [etc]" is grossly unfair to the point where I would say it is wrong to attach those kinds of limitations (especially at the prices they charge).
But we're not talking about the rights you should have if you purchase something. We're talking about where one party is says "I take" without the other person saying "I give", which is theft.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me". The 'trade' may be grossly unfair, they may be totally ripping you off, but they're not taking your money without permission.
Other than that, I think your "No sense of honor or personal integrity" sentence pretty much sums up people on both ends of this argument - the MP/RIAA side who believe in absolute 100% control with no rights for the consumer, and those at the other end who believe that artists don't own their works just because only a "time limited monopoly" is all that is covered under legislature.
Now you're just making stuff up. I never said I own my parents, that I should be able to sell them, or anything of the sort. But let me put it this way, if somebody takes a photo of my parents, they may then own the photo, but the people in the photograph are still -my- parents. The photographer can't say "this is a photo of my parents" just because that person took the picture.
Anyway, "ownership" is relative, it's opinion. You may legally own something (such as a car), but at the same time, if everyone in the world agrees that you own something, but there is no law stating it, it can still be said that you own it.
If somebody creates a piece of work, then to me, and many many other people, including the person who I first replied to in this thread, legislated or not, through a moral understanding, recognition, and appreciation, agree that that person ownes their work, and that someone else merely saving that work onto another disc, does not grant the that person ownership, or any other right of claim over it.
You argue that somebody doesn't own their creation once somebody else has saved it to another medium, but only the original which they saved (or drew, or whatever) themself, just means that you lack that moral.
Your copies won't be copies of my parents, they will be people made from copies of my parents DNA. In this example, the DNA is what's being copied, and the people are the medium carrying it. Just like I wouldn't claim ownership of the disc someone saved my work onto, but would still claim ownership of the work, I also wouldn't claim the people are my parents, but would claim they carry my parents DNA.
"Well, since you said to forget about what rights the law give you, the bit that says that copies belong to you is wrong"
Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents? Is another child that they both had not "my" brother/sister? Is that because there is a law that grants me ownership of them?
Something that I create, is by definition, "my" creation, whether law, army, or personal moral code says or not. It is my creation, my program, my song, my whatever, by definition, of what the words mean. Even if you own (with permission, without, whatever) a copy, the program that you own a copy of is still my creation.
Seriously this is slashdot, made of up some genuinly interested people, and a bunch of bitter never-gonna-get-laid boring suck-the-life-out-of-everything spiritless erm... well you get what i'm saying:-)
I would say "best just to ignore them" but hell, they even get to me from time to time.
Okay, I'll try and get this point thru one more time: I'm not talking about what the law says! I'm not talking about what rights laws grant you. I'm talking about the word "theft", and I have shown exactly why I'm not talking about the law (read: if you take something from someone without permission in international waters, it is still theft, even though there are no laws saying it is).
So, let's try this again, but forgetting about what rights the law gives you, we're just talking about basic english. I've reworded to emphasise that they have saved my program to a media themself (as per your "Your words were that the other person made the copy"), and that it's not a copy that I've made, that they are taking.
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they save it on themselves, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft"
So which bit of this isn't true? Add underline tags to the section that is not true. I'm not asking you to repeat what the law says, what the law grants, exclusivity or anything like that. I want you to tell me exactly which part of the above paragraph you are saying is wrong. If they save my program, onto their own disc, it is my program, on their disc. If they walk out with it, they are taking their own disc, and my own program on it. You can claim that it's their copy, but you can't claim that it's not my program.
"So if something is difficult it's ok to do, but if it becomes too easy, it's wrong?"
Don't be stupid. There are no laws against, and there is nothing in the religions that specifically teach against, sending the whole planet earth hurtling out of orbit. We don't need to take time out specifically teaching people that it's wrong to do it, because it's hardly something that can easily be done.
Something isn't "right" just because it's not easily done, but we don't need to teach that it's "wrong" if it's not possible to be done anyway.
Who, YouTube?!! You are kidding right? You know how many people watch clips on youtube every day - without any problem? If anybody's got a problem with it, it's you, not them. I don't think Google would have paid $1.65B for a site that couldn't even display its content.
"There is no computational way of generating the 3D info out of thin air, short of having a computer powerful enough to "understand" the image and extrapolate from secondary cues"
I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what you say it means.
"Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas?"
No, because it's only more recently that it's become so much easier to copy an idea than it is to actually implement it. Digitally copying music or a computer program for example requires very little effort. Go back before music recordings were easy, and having a copy of the score meant very little if you needed 50 musicians with hours of practice time to play it. That was enough of a disinsentive by itself.
Anyway, instead of just repeating yourself saying "infringment != theft", can you point out exactly where in the last paragraph of my last post you're saying the difference is, which bit is wrong, where you believe it breaks down. I'll repeat it:
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
Are you saying that saving my program, that I created, onto another disc makes it no longer my program, that it was no longer me that wrote it? Or are you saying that moving it from the location of the original isn't taking it?
Have you considered that maybe different laws exist because the law (rather than the word "theft") states that it only covers theft of physical belongings?
It's not that far fetched. There are all sorts of cues you can use to tell depth and then you can extrapolate an "off by 5 degrees" image; slightly stretch some pixels and shrink others for one eye, and the other way round for the other eye, will make one eye seem to see more of one side, and the other see more of the other.
And these use a single picture to work from. If you have a moving picture, you have even more information to work with. There may be small artifacts of cause, but these could easily blend out when applying to a moving picture.
Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.
A slashdot bullshit meter would in fact be, bullshit.
"But to say that copying is theft is simply not true. The existence of copyright law proves it"
Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was? That if I was to head out to internation waters, board somebody's boat, and take a load of their stuff while they were sleeping, that would not be stealing, because there is no law to say that it is?
Of cause it's stealing, because the words "theft" and "stealing" are -not- defined as "that which is covered by particular law xxx". If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
"As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it?"
The medium they copied it onto might be theirs, but they didn't write the program, I did, and I still did, no matter how many times it's been copied, it's still my work, my creation.
"What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?"
It's a grossly misleading example. He didn't copy the material, he copied the *design*, which is something that somebody else spent time to create. He didn't design the furniture himself, he took a shortcut there and used the time somebody else had put into designing furniture for his own. So, the taking photos was the act of making a copy of the design, and then leaving the shop (as we know the photos weren't left there) is the act 'taking'.
"If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer?"
No, because they haven't *taken* it, they've left it where it is.
Oi, he could be german or something, in which case a friendly pointing out the differences between languages would be much better than an insult, huh? The insult just makes you look ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
The Queen was born/raised in Germany? She has a German passport? She's a German citizen?
;-)) (and yes, asians, africans etc etc).
Ya know, basically everyone in Europe has a mix of all sortsa other European roots. And remember all those Europeans that moved to America? Yep, Americans are mostly Europeans too (the one's that couldn't get jobs here I think it was
What you may be thinking of is that they had a German surname up until the second world war, where they thought it best to change it. But their German roots go back further than that.
(IIRC)
Is a little weird... "How dare you translate something, without paying us, for the privilege of us being able to understand it!"
They should just boycott it by not reading the version that's translated for them to understand. Or MS could just bitchslap them back by "mis"translating the yes/no text on the "really format harddrive that's now 90% full?" dialog box.
Just cuz MS is greedy, doesn't make other peoples greed any less um... greedy...
Oh no he di'unt!!!
"Let me put it this way, if I buy a book, it's my book. I'm not the author, but I own that copy of the book"
Yes, the BOOK, just like you would own a DISC that a program is saved on. However, lets say you've bought a book, a story that somebody has written. You buying the book, thus now owning that book, does not mean that the story is yours. Just the book that it is written in.
"Say you write a program and make it available for a charge, downloadable. I pay you the agreed amount and download it to my hard drive. However, before installing it, I now find that I have no need for the program. Can I delete it wothout your permission?"
Of cause. Just like if somebody made a cup, and you bought it from them, you are free to go and smash it right up. I believe that when you purchase something, you should get certain rights with it. Format shifting, creating backups etc, you should be entitled to, because you have bought the right to use it, and publishers saying "you can only use it directly off this one disc on this one particular device, which you cannot convert [etc]" is grossly unfair to the point where I would say it is wrong to attach those kinds of limitations (especially at the prices they charge).
But we're not talking about the rights you should have if you purchase something. We're talking about where one party is says "I take" without the other person saying "I give", which is theft.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me". The 'trade' may be grossly unfair, they may be totally ripping you off, but they're not taking your money without permission.
Other than that, I think your "No sense of honor or personal integrity" sentence pretty much sums up people on both ends of this argument - the MP/RIAA side who believe in absolute 100% control with no rights for the consumer, and those at the other end who believe that artists don't own their works just because only a "time limited monopoly" is all that is covered under legislature.
Are we not men?
Now you're just making stuff up. I never said I own my parents, that I should be able to sell them, or anything of the sort. But let me put it this way, if somebody takes a photo of my parents, they may then own the photo, but the people in the photograph are still -my- parents. The photographer can't say "this is a photo of my parents" just because that person took the picture.
Anyway, "ownership" is relative, it's opinion. You may legally own something (such as a car), but at the same time, if everyone in the world agrees that you own something, but there is no law stating it, it can still be said that you own it.
If somebody creates a piece of work, then to me, and many many other people, including the person who I first replied to in this thread, legislated or not, through a moral understanding, recognition, and appreciation, agree that that person ownes their work, and that someone else merely saving that work onto another disc, does not grant the that person ownership, or any other right of claim over it.
You argue that somebody doesn't own their creation once somebody else has saved it to another medium, but only the original which they saved (or drew, or whatever) themself, just means that you lack that moral.
Your copies won't be copies of my parents, they will be people made from copies of my parents DNA. In this example, the DNA is what's being copied, and the people are the medium carrying it. Just like I wouldn't claim ownership of the disc someone saved my work onto, but would still claim ownership of the work, I also wouldn't claim the people are my parents, but would claim they carry my parents DNA.
cool, am gonna write me that one down :-p
"Well, since you said to forget about what rights the law give you, the bit that says that copies belong to you is wrong"
Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents? Is another child that they both had not "my" brother/sister? Is that because there is a law that grants me ownership of them?
Something that I create, is by definition, "my" creation, whether law, army, or personal moral code says or not. It is my creation, my program, my song, my whatever, by definition, of what the words mean. Even if you own (with permission, without, whatever) a copy, the program that you own a copy of is still my creation.
Touché!
Or do I mean, "touchy"?
Cue the standard response...
:-)
"Why make an almost asinine comment like this?"
You must be new here!
Seriously this is slashdot, made of up some genuinly interested people, and a bunch of bitter never-gonna-get-laid boring suck-the-life-out-of-everything spiritless erm... well you get what i'm saying
I would say "best just to ignore them" but hell, they even get to me from time to time.
Okay, I'll try and get this point thru one more time: I'm not talking about what the law says! I'm not talking about what rights laws grant you. I'm talking about the word "theft", and I have shown exactly why I'm not talking about the law (read: if you take something from someone without permission in international waters, it is still theft, even though there are no laws saying it is).
So, let's try this again, but forgetting about what rights the law gives you, we're just talking about basic english. I've reworded to emphasise that they have saved my program to a media themself (as per your "Your words were that the other person made the copy"), and that it's not a copy that I've made, that they are taking.
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they save it on themselves, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft"
So which bit of this isn't true? Add underline tags to the section that is not true. I'm not asking you to repeat what the law says, what the law grants, exclusivity or anything like that. I want you to tell me exactly which part of the above paragraph you are saying is wrong. If they save my program, onto their own disc, it is my program, on their disc. If they walk out with it, they are taking their own disc, and my own program on it. You can claim that it's their copy, but you can't claim that it's not my program.
"So if something is difficult it's ok to do, but if it becomes too easy, it's wrong?"
Don't be stupid. There are no laws against, and there is nothing in the religions that specifically teach against, sending the whole planet earth hurtling out of orbit. We don't need to take time out specifically teaching people that it's wrong to do it, because it's hardly something that can easily be done.
Something isn't "right" just because it's not easily done, but we don't need to teach that it's "wrong" if it's not possible to be done anyway.
Who, YouTube?!! You are kidding right? You know how many people watch clips on youtube every day - without any problem? If anybody's got a problem with it, it's you, not them. I don't think Google would have paid $1.65B for a site that couldn't even display its content.
"There is no computational way of generating the 3D info out of thin air, short of having a computer powerful enough to "understand" the image and extrapolate from secondary cues"
You mean like the examples pointed out here?
Like I said, many slashdotters call bullshit [...] simply because they cannot see how it would be possible.
"How can you say we don't understand it when no one (including yourself) has even read it"
Firstly, I had read it, by following another link, before I posted, so you're wrong there.
Secondly... WTF?!! Is that meant to be sarcasm? Of CAUSE I can say ppl don't understand it if they haven't read it.
I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what you say it means.
"Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas?"
No, because it's only more recently that it's become so much easier to copy an idea than it is to actually implement it. Digitally copying music or a computer program for example requires very little effort. Go back before music recordings were easy, and having a copy of the score meant very little if you needed 50 musicians with hours of practice time to play it. That was enough of a disinsentive by itself.
Anyway, instead of just repeating yourself saying "infringment != theft", can you point out exactly where in the last paragraph of my last post you're saying the difference is, which bit is wrong, where you believe it breaks down. I'll repeat it:
If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
Are you saying that saving my program, that I created, onto another disc makes it no longer my program, that it was no longer me that wrote it? Or are you saying that moving it from the location of the original isn't taking it?
Have you considered that maybe different laws exist because the law (rather than the word "theft") states that it only covers theft of physical belongings?
Go look up the word "similar". You'll notice it's similar, but not identical, to the word "identical".
Once you understand what the word "similar" means, and how it is different to the word "identical", re-read the sentence you call BS on.
It's not that far fetched. There are all sorts of cues you can use to tell depth and then you can extrapolate an "off by 5 degrees" image; slightly stretch some pixels and shrink others for one eye, and the other way round for the other eye, will make one eye seem to see more of one side, and the other see more of the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEQELp0uqA (jump to around 2:30 to see example)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA (more examples)
And these use a single picture to work from. If you have a moving picture, you have even more information to work with. There may be small artifacts of cause, but these could easily blend out when applying to a moving picture.
Except for the fact that many slashdotters call bullshit because they do not understand the article, they do not believe that somebody has accomplished something simple because they cannot see how it would be possible, or misinterpret what is claimed to have been accomplished.
A slashdot bullshit meter would in fact be, bullshit.
"But to say that copying is theft is simply not true. The existence of copyright law proves it"
Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was? That if I was to head out to internation waters, board somebody's boat, and take a load of their stuff while they were sleeping, that would not be stealing, because there is no law to say that it is?
Of cause it's stealing, because the words "theft" and "stealing" are -not- defined as "that which is covered by particular law xxx". If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".
"As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it?"
The medium they copied it onto might be theirs, but they didn't write the program, I did, and I still did, no matter how many times it's been copied, it's still my work, my creation.
"What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?"
It's a grossly misleading example. He didn't copy the material, he copied the *design*, which is something that somebody else spent time to create. He didn't design the furniture himself, he took a shortcut there and used the time somebody else had put into designing furniture for his own. So, the taking photos was the act of making a copy of the design, and then leaving the shop (as we know the photos weren't left there) is the act 'taking'.
"If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer?"
No, because they haven't *taken* it, they've left it where it is.
"so chances are I'm wrong :)"
:-p
Is that what they teach you in business school?
I like to think of it as punishing them for them doing something that's wrong :-)
Oi, he could be german or something, in which case a friendly pointing out the differences between languages would be much better than an insult, huh? The insult just makes you look ignorant.
"When you commit copyright infringment, you're not taking anything; you're making a copy"
And then leaving that copy with the original? Or taking it?