Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vattic]

I'd imagine the main difference between timed/automatic cameras and this instance is that these are deliberate acts where as he just had his camera stolen and used. If a monkey stole a knife off him would he own responsibility for the harm done by the monkey?

If we allowed free copying from day 1, sure we'd still get movies and games. But forget any detailed stuff, it'd only be indie quality at best. We might still get Lord of the Rings, but with papier mache swords and make up like early Romero zombie movies.

Why would we only get indie quality? I've heard this kind of thing a lot, but I wasn't aware fan films stopped people paying to go and see high budget productions.

[ZetaX]

Illegal primes is a thing.

They are a thing in the sense that there exist prime numbers that encode copyrighted data. But like for any other integer, that's it. There is no special reason to assume such a prime would occur in a different way unless constructed. Thus the "prime" does not add much, makes it just a bit less likely: 1 in ~10^11 numbers the size of a gigabyte is prime, and 1 in ~10^7 for a megabyte; thus with all the stuff around we almost definitely have some "naturally" occuring megabyte-sized prime numbers in some software.

To claim that a number is exempt from copyright or gets any other special status for being prime sounds quite random to me.


On the topic: I also think that Wikipedia is just making stuff up. While I am all for less patent laws (copyright is not even comparably problematic, but some adaptions to the 21st century are necessary), this case will at best set a bad precedent. It sounds like the digital analogue of this:
- random guy finds meteorite fragment, puts it on display
- thief steals it, claims it was never random guy's property as it just fell from the heavens and he doesn't own the heavens
- people joining in, claiming that thief is right because random guy gave up all his ownership by putting it on display.

[Reelya]

I'd imagine the main difference between timed/automatic cameras and this instance is that these are deliberate acts where as he just had his camera stolen and used. If a monkey stole a knife off him would he own responsibility for the harm done by the monkey?

If we allowed free copying from day 1, sure we'd still get movies and games. But forget any detailed stuff, it'd only be indie quality at best. We might still get Lord of the Rings, but with papier mache swords and make up like early Romero zombie movies.

Why would we only get indie quality? I've heard this kind of thing a lot, but I wasn't aware fan films stopped people paying to go and see high budget productions.

That really doesn't logically flow, what you just said.

A "fan film" isn't the same as a bootleg DVD of a commercial movie, which is what the movie studios would be competing with if no copyright law existed at all.

High-budget stuff can only exist because they can make their money back. If they were unable to make the "high budget" back in profits, then you could ONLY get indie-quality stuff because that's all they could afford to make.

Without any copyright laws at all they couldn't be sure of making any money at all off DVDs, because you have pirates from Day#1 selling cheap knock-off copies, and you couldn't even be assured of the box-office take because anyone could just set up a bootleg cinema and show whatever they want without royalties. Basically, the entire budget of commercial films depends on them being about to make money back, and without a framework legal protection, that wouldn't work at all.

[Graknorke]

It sounds like the digital analogue of this:
- random guy finds meteorite fragment, puts it on display
- thief steals it, claims it was never random guy's property as it just fell from the heavens and he doesn't own the heavens
- people joining in, claiming that thief is right because random guy gave up all his ownership by putting it on display.

Incomparable, the photographer still has the picture. He has not lost anything.

[ZetaX]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

[Cheeetar]

On the topic: I also think that Wikipedia is just making stuff up. While I am all for less patent laws (copyright is not even comparably problematic, but some adaptions to the 21st century are necessary), this case will at best set a bad precedent. It sounds like the digital analogue of this:
- random guy finds meteorite fragment, puts it on display
- thief steals it, claims it was never random guy's property as it just fell from the heavens and he doesn't own the heavens
- people joining in, claiming that thief is right because random guy gave up all his ownership by putting it on display.

Pirating a movie is exactly like stealing a policeman's hat and shitting in it.
Faulty analogies do nothing to aid conversations, generally speaking.

[ZetaX]

I chose that analogy carefully to contain all the essential parts. You are free to explain why you think it is faulty, like Graknorke, but your response as it is is worthless.

And by the way, as current laws still are mostly based on non-digital stuff, using such comparisons is close to what some judges do.

[Vattic]

I'd imagine the main difference between timed/automatic cameras and this instance is that these are deliberate acts where as he just had his camera stolen and used. If a monkey stole a knife off him would he own responsibility for the harm done by the monkey?

If we allowed free copying from day 1, sure we'd still get movies and games. But forget any detailed stuff, it'd only be indie quality at best. We might still get Lord of the Rings, but with papier mache swords and make up like early Romero zombie movies.

Why would we only get indie quality? I've heard this kind of thing a lot, but I wasn't aware fan films stopped people paying to go and see high budget productions.

That really doesn't logically flow, what you just said.

A "fan film" isn't the same as a bootleg DVD of a commercial movie, which is what the movie studios would be competing with if no copyright law existed at all.

High-budget stuff can only exist because they can make their money back. If they were unable to make the "high budget" back in profits, then you could ONLY get indie-quality stuff because that's all they could afford to make.

Without any copyright laws at all they couldn't be sure of making any money at all off DVDs, because you have pirates from Day#1 selling cheap knock-off copies, and you couldn't even be assured of the box-office take because anyone could just set up a bootleg cinema and show whatever they want without royalties. Basically, the entire budget of commercial films depends on them being about to make money back, and without a framework legal protection, that wouldn't work at all.

Sorry I failed to comprehend your post. For some reason I thought you were talking about rights to produce films based on ideas. Example: The Lord of the Rings being a story that should have fallen out of copyright already and be public domain; I've often heard it said we'd not have got the Peter Jackson films if it wasn't for the studio being the only one allowed to make films based on it.

Worth mentioning that if copyright ended then other things would have to change in order for high budget media to get created. Look at how theatre and other art is often funded by government and charity. Also a kickstarter-like model might work. I don't see why the current system is the only possible system.

[Graknorke]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

[ZetaX]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Yes it is.
An information's worth is the use you get from knowing something. The worth of information is often highly increased if only a few know it. Thus by spreading it or not being able to control its ownership, you lost almost all of your informations value. Thus by taking a copy, you actively decreases the informational content by decreasing its uniqueness, rendering it worth less, thus effectively stealing some value from the owner.

[BlindKitty]

I'd imagine the main difference between timed/automatic cameras and this instance is that these are deliberate acts where as he just had his camera stolen and used. If a monkey stole a knife off him would he own responsibility for the harm done by the monkey?

This. So much this.

[hops]

It could be said that the photographer lost a fraction of the opportunity to make money off said photo, though.

[ZetaX]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is okż

[Graknorke]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Yes it is.
An information's worth is the use you get from knowing something. The worth of information is often highly increased if only a few know it. Thus by spreading it or not being able to control its ownership, you lost almost all of your informations value. Thus by taking a copy, you actively decreases the informational content by decreasing its uniqueness, rendering it worth less, thus effectively stealing some value from the owner.

Making something worth less is not the same as taking it from someone.
By your reasoning it would be as much of a crime if the thief had found a bunch of rocks on his own, since it's still making each rock worth less, "stealing some value" from the first guy.

Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is okż

Again, not the same thing. In this case we agreed that I would pay you the money, which then is part of the exchange that we make.
What would be comparable would be if I were to go the guy behind me in the queue and tell him that it's the left door, then you get upset because I told him when the information of "use the left door" is your property and I have no right to tell him.

[alexandertnt]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

They have lost their ability to control something they have invested time and money into, and a large chunk of their ability to make any money back from it.
That has value, and the photographer no longer has that in your situation.

Worth mentioning that if copyright ended then other things would have to change in order for high budget media to get created. Look at how theatre and other art is often funded by government and charity. Also a kickstarter-like model might work. I don't see why the current system is the only possible system.

Where would this money come from? I am certainly not a fan of government spending money that could otherwise be spent on things like medicine on much more trivial things like video games and movies.
Not sure how charity would be any different to how it works now. Same with kickstarter, which incidently has not exactly been reliable in producing anything of quality (or sometimes even just anything...).