Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Morpheus Mac

and another thing

if you're so into free software-why don't you spend the next two or three years writing a better program than FCP or protools and then release it free for the world to use. it would prove your arguement once and for all.

or is it only other people's long toiled work that should be free.
 
I'll stick my own two cents in here, just because I am really bad about not keeping my mouth shut when I have nothing constructive to say. Here, from my point of view, is the basic problem.

People are taught from nursery school on up that stealing is when person A has an item, and person B takes it. Person A then no longer HAS the item. Person B has stolen the item, depriving person A of it's use, value, etc.

This is not the case with software, music, movies, etc. Person A still has the "item". Person B also has the item. No material loss has been incurred by person A.

So, until such time that people can have it impressed upon them that there IS real, tangible loss involved with copying these materials, this will continue.

Oh, as an aside.. when you have bands like Metallica talk about how it's wrong to break the law, while they're totally baked, with glazed eyes and slurred words... all you do is bring derision and contempt from anyone who can spell the word irony.
 
Oh boy you are really pissig me off 3rdpath. IF you did read what i had written perhaps you actually would be able to counter some of my points but time and again uou have resorted to the childish tactics of a facist. ill insult you as i did in my last post simply because im angry and thats what you seem to respond to anyway. pages and pages of posts from intelligient people all telling you why you are worng hasnt made you either change your mind or develop your own counter to these people's ideas. you simply run around like a brain-washed automaton saying "your stealing" "your stealing" "i dont like your website!" what a loser. yes i will resort to name calling but im mixing in a few well put points as well. as far as me using religion and politics to make a point? i was simply using historical precedents to show you what company you are in when you make the sort of flipant statements you are making. i am not an artist. i play with photoshop and choose to share my creations with others. i have no pretentions about being an artist so please dont try to get under my skin by putting down my website. besides your ignorant views and refusal to counter a single argument made against you gets under my skin enough. if you want to bring something constructive to the forum then please actually read the posts and tell us why we are right or wrong. dont just keep falling back to the "its stealing so your wrong." as statement such as that simply reveals your on insecurities of your position, inadequate mental facility, and general childishness. as far as your ridiculous statement that nothing i have to stay has anything to do with the planet we inhabit... jeez if you did read wwhat i wrote you certainly must have a low comprehension. i provided you with a very powerful example of an industry that operates by providing product for free distribution while still compensating encourages and funding the creators of the product. this is why im not an artist, im in this field that has actually gotten its act together. besides im much better with molecular biology than i am with the photoshopfilter. so this also answers your proposal that i make a better fcp. im not a software designer. this isnt my field of expertise but like i said i have already spent many years of my life in a similar endeavour and will likely work the rest of my life making molecular biology's equivalent of a fcp. notice how i actually discussed and countered all your points (though insubstancial as they were). thats how its done kid. im not saying i know everything, im simply saying that you havent shown us that you know anything. so before you mouth off again please do what i have requested time and again, taken some time, read my posts think about and comprehend what you read and dont post again until you have something to say in the form of "you are right because..." or "you are wrong because.." instead of making flipant comments like "hey make fcp" or "thats just wrong" or "i thought that was laughable" or "that isnt up to my buiiness school's standards" why dont you actually point out why something is wrong and exactly how it is wrong. people were discussing this topic so constructively and intelligiently until you came along. if you arent smart enough to bring anything to the conversation then please dont chime in with your inane little comments. im tired of reading them and im tired of repeatedly telling you why you are wrong while trying to teach you how you should contructive a useful argument. im not a talented teacher, whenever i do teach a class or present a lecture i generally choose very gifted students, im not used to teaching america's mediocre masses. if you cant learn to participate in an academic conversation then just sit back try to absorbe what you can and if you dont agree with some of us then take special note of why other's are saying we are wrong, but dont chime in with your own inadequate comments.

btw i dont wnat to insult anyone else here or discourage others to participate. everyone else seems to be holding their own just fine. and although i have mentioned some serious flaws in Timothy's points id have to say i definitely expect him to come back as soon as he cane and flesh out his arguments appropriately. (at least i certainly hope he will.)

[ed note: yes, let's not degenerate into name calling... take it to email if you must flame each other...

arn
]
 
3rdpath == you sir, are a sanctomonious windbag. I seriously doubt that you have NEVER broken copyright law. Did you know that if my friends come over to my house, it is ILLEGAL under US law for me to turn on a CD unless they each own a legal copy of the CD that I choose to play?


You might not like the idea of people getting audio CDs for free... well, hey, I don't like going out and paying $150USD for a copy of Office v.X and then seeing it for free on Hotline or Limewire... But it's not worth censoring the internet, is it??!
 
Originally posted by irmongoose
well here in japan... making copies of ur own CDs and stuff for personal use is OK.
Click to expand...

I know there are differences between American and Japanese copyright law. One of the most important ones is that in Japan, failure to prosecute people who infringe on your copyrights doesn't diminish your right to sue other people later. In the US it might. The person you sue could show the court that you had not sued other people in the past for doing similar things, and the judge might rule against you for that reason. I've never liked that feature of the US law.

In theory, though, making copies of things for "personal use" is okay in the US too. It falls under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. But the major media companies in the US have been working very hard over the last ten years to narrow the definition of "fair use," and ideally (for them) to eliminate it altogether, which basically means they could charge royalties every time you hum a song in the shower.
 
Re: Jeez, calm down.

Originally posted by mischief
No one is proposing a true communist/anarchist system here. As nice as that would be there is too much entrenched greed to allow it to happen.
Click to expand...

Since this thread is already OT, I'll just take it in one more direction ;). I think that laziness, not greed, is why "pure" communism will never work. Here's my reasoning on this. Person A is an average worker, and Person B is a lazy slug who never pulls his own weight. Person A starts getting pissed that Person B is enjoying the rewards of everyone else's labor, but is contributing nothing. So Person A decides to take action. He can either say, "to hell with this," join Person B and become a mooch who doesn't work or he can refuse to give Person B the fruits of his labor(for example, if A is a diary farmer he won't give B any more milk) until Person B starts working. Either way "pure" communism no longer exists.

Everyone wants to do the most work w/the least amount of effort (you can either call that lazy or efficient). Are get rich quick schemes for the greedy or the lazy? For every Bill Gates or Donald Trump I bet there are a thousand people who'd rather "work" the welfare system than get a job.

Lethal
 
Can cool heads prevail?

Ambitious...let's slow down and see if we can't understand each other's position a bit better.

You've posted an article that attempts to argue that Intellectual Property should not exist (I am paraphrasing). The author is mainly arguing in the realm of software. If I need to, I'll be happy to go through his points 1-by-1; but it will take some time. Before we go there, however, let's define our positions better. I'd rather converse with you, since you're here, than with the author, who is not here.

You seem to agree with the author that the work that I do that is easily copied is fundamentally different than the work someone else does which is not easily copied, correct? In other words, if I spend 3 years writing a book, and my neighbor spends three years inventing a new mousetrap, fundamentally, he should be able to charge for his work, and I should be expected to give my work away for free. Is that your position?
 
do i need a ticket for this?

i mean, all this entertainment for free? i guess this is your contribution to the art world mr lemon. i haven't laughed this much in a long time.

[edited

Take it to email, if you must...

arn
]



and mischief, no hard feelings-you're a good sport. we'll talk again.
 
Originally posted by Gelfin


I know there are differences between American and Japanese copyright law. One of the most important ones is that in Japan, failure to prosecute people who infringe on your copyrights doesn't diminish your right to sue other people later. In the US it might. The person you sue could show the court that you had not sued other people in the past for doing similar things, and the judge might rule against you for that reason. I've never liked that feature of the US law.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken... you are thinking of Trademarks

arn
 
Hey there Tim welcome back. Sorry 3rd and i got into such mud slinging. i think J763 put it best so ill leave it at that and try to respond to the more reasonable crowd. like you Tim.

I would have to say i completely agree with the statement you made. the informantion itself created should be free, and if the creator wishes to enter the market they need to do so realistically and charge for what should be charged for and expect not charge for what should not be charged for. if i want a cd of music, a book, a dvd, etc. then i should pay the going rate for tese things. these are material objects. and even though the information on these can be obtained freely the material manifestation should be paid for. This represents some (not the whole) revenue for the creator. A creator needs to be mindful of their medium and go about funding and icome accordingly. I do not see why creators of music, software, etc do not seem to think this rule does not apply to them. Anyone be for attempting to sell an item or service decides how the market will respond to various ways they attempt to bring their service or item to market and they target their efforts accordingly. Creators of intellectual property do not seem t have been able to switch their mindset. Where once they had an item that was very much tied to the physical medium it was distributed on and therefore nearly unseparable from the material it is now freed from the medium and therefore should not be marketed in the same manner in which the material is marketed. This probably sounds pretty obscure and long winded but as i have said repeatedly other areas have been working and making a living marketing nonmaterial items and in most of these cases the item is allowed to be distributed freely as long as it is not tied to a physical medium, all credit is given where it is do, and the item is not used for monetrary gain without money being given to the creator. Its really quite simple when one reviews how other areas have embraced the free echange of nonmaterial items. It is difficult for a market to take such a fundamental change in how it conducts its buisiness. I don not know of (this hardly means they do not exist) examples of an industry that has made such a switch. But if the music industry wants to have a realistic and moral system for marketing their product then they must make such a change.

I do not see that i have said much that you should disagree with. i agree creators should be paid for what they have created. i agree thats cds, books, dvds, and services such as movie theaters should expect people to pay for these items. these are items still tied to the physical world. but the actual item itself the immaterial item which can be reproduced without cost should be distributed freely. i listen to mp3s i still pay for cds, i download software i still pay for the cds with the software, i download movies and still pay to see movies in the theater. this will not change. people value the material far more than the immaterial and will want their favorite immaterial items in hard physical form.

i thought of a argument against what i have brought up so i will share. physical labor is immaterial and still has a real value. of course physical labor can not be reproduced without costs, so i suppose this does not apply. the freeness of the reproduction and not the immaterialness i suppose then is the true reason for items being free.

i honestly dont see why you disagree with what i have said other than a couple things: 1) you dont believe a system as i describe is possible and 2) you have some tie to the current system and feel that rationalizing it would harm you.

all i can say in response to these things is that these are positions of feeling not thought. since systems as i have describe exist and flourish in the capitalist world number one doesnt seem to apply. number two might be better argument. the change itself will be difficult and many people tied to certain aspects of the current system might find themselves in a very different position in the new system. but here we re talking about transitory personal risk that a fact that makes the system i describe immoral or unattainable. as with any social change it must be gradual to alleviate tensions brought on by item 2.

im sure you have more points other than the 2 i have listed and likely you will claim 1 and 2 are not points you subscribe to (i dont know) so please share id love to hear them. i must say i really like the attitude you have taken in the last post it sounds far more constructive. so lets continue in this far more constructive manner.
 
more questions...

Thanks for the answers, Ambitious. A follow up question before I dive into the specifics. If I am the inventor of the mousetrap, how much should I be able to charge for the mousetrap? Do I only charge for the exact material cost of the mousetrap? Or, can I increase the cost to cover such things as the packaging, marketing, and finally, to compensate me for the "idea" of the mousetrap and the time it took to create it?

Also, you stated "systems as i have describe exist and flourish in the capitalist world." Can you list some examples, just so that I know of which you speak?
 
Normally I would says my oppion on this topic of the law, but it is pritty fuzzy. Execpt for napster and the melenium 2000 act in the U.S the law does not say mcuh execpt don't steal stuff. But, I express my concern againwhen it is coming? I have checked up on there site, and nothing. So steal musci, steal songs, people are doing it anyway. The gov't doesn't care. Go and download Private Beta's and software up to your hearths content cause no one's doing anything about it.
 
Lemme just jump in here.

Timmothy:

The mousetrap. I build a better mousetrap. Under existing statutes I can:

A). File for a patent, thus protecting both the specific design data (intangeable) and the rights to it's production in a specific market. This act realisticly only protects my work while the Patent is being reviewed, in which time the Patent is confidential between me and the Government I register with. As soon as this Patent is approved it becomes publicly viewable and if I do not have the cash to legally defend the barrage of Corporate attempts to acquire this Patent I'm screwed.

B). File a copyright. This protects the Data but not the key theories of the creation. In essence a copyright only protects the intellectual rights to any written material on the diagrams and the literal imagery of the design. Any yahoo can, at this point build a mousetrap with the same innovative technique as long as HIS design differs significantly enough to convince a court that the technique is incidental and coincidental.

C). Get a lawyer and sell the design outright to a corporation at a potentially, though unlikely enormous proffit.

D). Sell my mousetraps to local Exterminators, creating income and distribute the design via a website under the stipulation that it is MY intellectual property and by downloading the design you are agreeing to share any monetary compensation for use of the design. In exchange, you get to refine the design and I will pay you a modest sum of any proffits I make from your improvements. this is the open source principal. I may have left a few things out, but this is my understanding.

Does that help?
 
Actually, at the moment I'm a draftsman.

It's a little embarrassing. The reason I know all this stuff is I've been researching business Law for 10 years. I started with being curious about opening a night club but I'm currently refining an international Telecom idea. Over those 10 years I've written 5 or so business profiles that required more capital risk than I was willing to expose myself to when ballanced against potential returns and risk of failure. This latest plan, though is innovative and devious. It will require BIG money to start but the returns will be exponential.

I was raised in an intellectual family by a systems analyst (BS in Psych) and an Architectural designer. Both were 1st generation Geeks in Palo Alto during the punchcard days. My early childhood was spent in a small town in Canada, where I learned my values. I have always sought Truth (read Accurate Data) over Dogma (read Fixed Model) and I have NO tolerance for encouraging Ignorance and Fear for personal gain.

If YOU want to know all this stuff buy the Nolo Press legal series of Business "How To" books and make extensive use of Sherlock. If you want to understand it all: Never assume that ANY Data is the absolute truth. Never assume it is beyond comprehension or requires any special talent to understand. Never assume that an Idea is beyond your means and NEVER let ANYONE impose their Dogma on your research.
 
Latest plan...

This latest plan, though is innovative and devious. It will require BIG money to start but the returns will be exponential.
Click to expand...

Mischief...I'm always looking for new business Ideas. Please post your "latest plan" here, or email it to me.

Thanks.
 
It's good to be a smart person...
Oh the this with becoming a lawyer is that the profession is spitting out 2 for every person on the earth by 2007.
So soon we have are own 2 for each of us.

Okay, so when is it coming?
I need morpheus... The sooner the better.
The sooner the more *cough* legal downloads, I can make.
 
i tried to stop this several days ago with some blatant unoriginal namecalling but it obviously didn't work. ok, tim, 3rdwave, whatever..i'm a thief, a greedy hypocrite. i also love fifteen year old girls, blaring my subwoofer at inhuman levels and smoking crack before my job as an elementary school busdriver. but most of all i get my jollies downloading photoshop for free. if this allows you to define yourself in opposition to me, great. you are moral and pure as newfallen snow. i am the axis of evil. now, can we talk about morpheus...what are people's experiences with it on the pc. is it more mp3's than apps? what is the search mechanism like? GUI? has anyone heard when it will be released for mac? any rumors? that is the topic right?
 
Confused...

Via email, Mischief wrote to me:

The Idea is about $10 million worth of total startup. The returns over 10-20 years are incalculable. The structure can be run by 20 employees or less.

The core can be discussed in person or I can send you the company name, my name and the name of the Idea and you can send me back a generic Draconian confidentiality agreement with that data filled in along with your own. The business doesn't legally exist yet so researching it would be fruitless. Once we have established the formalities I'll explain the core concepts.
Click to expand...

Mischief...I'm a bit confused regarding your position. Earlier, you seemed to be advocating open and free access to ideas and information; at least you seem to be supporting Ambitious Lemon's position.

If so, what is the role of a "confidentiality agreement" as you have requested above? And, if they are "draconian" as you have indicated, why then did you request one?

Just post the information; isn't that the position you are presenting? Please clarify.
 
Freedom of information and freedom to nick a business are 2 different things.

Nice try guy. Some data-based products and Data at large are appropriate to freely distribute as indicated above. Under NO circumstances did I describe simply GIVING the data away. Ideas that directly manifest gain and are distinctly diminished in value (such as the business plans of a company designed to open or create a market) by free distribution are NOT appropriate for this kind of distribution. However: specific parts of that plan may be. Free Distribution is best used for products that are enhanced by open distribution and even these usually include liscencing and proffit sharing.

If the business was, say a Nightclub in a given localle I wouldn't restrict things as talking about it on an open Forum would constitute advertising. As the business in question IS designed to both open AND create an as yet un-tapped market on a grand scale open distribution is neither appropriate or bennificial.

If you think this constitutes hypocrisy you have missed the point. The point is that the Internet and open distributed standards like MP3 and P2P have changed the way intellectual property AS A PRODUCT (which a business plan ISN'T) is used, generated and distributed. The fact that the Law and the contributing businesses have not caught on is simply enertia. Whether it seems moral or not P2P exists and exists as a free and open distribution method.

Banking is a good example of an industry that has adapted and will continue to adapt. When Electronic credit was introduced and Gold was removed from currency as a standard comparable conditions existed. Did Banks resist and try to kill the change? Yes. Did they eventually adapt? Sort of: They integrated (and still are integrating) Electronic credit and Banking, giving us new toys like overdraft protection, which is built in limited Credit used to temporarily cover insufficient funds. They are currently pushing as an industry to phase out cash and tie your overdraft, Credit, direct deposit and account together as 1 thing. This is why I proposed opensource Banking. A free and open method of storing and controlling my funds removes the ability of Banks to limit how I use my money.

That's what I mean by freedom of information. I believe that I should control my own Data. If I want to share it thats MY business. If I don't I won't. P2P is a valuable tool that has yet to find the context it was created to fill. It IS currenty mis-used. If you are going to make money with a product PAY FOR IT. However If I own Photoshop and I'm not currently using it I feel I should be able to let someone use it as long as I don't charge for the use and they don't start a business with it.
 
with all due respect mischief

i do believe you are being hypocritical. according to your previous post regarding the better mousetrap:

C). Get a lawyer and sell the design outright to a corporation at a potentially, though unlikely enormous proffit.

at this point, your design whether it be an idea or a business plan is indeed a product. this procedure occurs daily in the form of venture funding. there is a monetary exchange for a percentage of stock-all based upon the mere "idea" of a company.

and this has been my point from the beginning: ideas are valuable. the people who create these ideas can share them with or without any contingencies they wish. if your don't care for the contingencies then create your own version of the product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back