Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thom Hogans Complete Guide to Nikon D70

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:29:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.

btw
Ken
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:29:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>
> btw
> Ken

I didn't see it, but if the entire book is posted there the poster should be
shot. It's in direct violation of copyright law, and would be the same as
posting all of your photos and writings on the Net for anybody to use.

Now that I've got that out of my system, it is a great book.

Sheldon
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 3:27:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>
> btw
> Ken

That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
steal it.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 22, 2005 3:27:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
> steal it.
>

Although I agree with you, you might be surprised by the number of people who
will BUY it after having a look at it. (similar to looking through a book at
the bookstore).

I wont even begin to claim that a high percentage will do so, but a few will
pay for it simply because its the right thing to do.

I liken it to buying stuff at the local camera store... Most of what I get
there can be had for half (or less) price shopping on line, but if enough
people buy SOME things there, they will still be there when you need 'em.
(like if you need that filter/hood/case/slave/ect TODAY, not over-night, not
in three days but TONIGHT.

In actual fact he may sell MORE because it is on the newsgroups.. The ones
who will steal it wouldnt have bought it no matter what they steal because
they have no built in prohibition about it. The ones that are pleased with
it and have any moral fiber at all, will buy it. There really are people out
there who have a sense of right and wrong.

My first copy of PaintShop Pro (Jasc) was obtained from a warez group.. I
liked it, and at the time Adobe PhotoShop was too expensive, So I used PSP
and when a new version came out (about a week later) I purchased it,(I think
it was about $50 (US) at the time) to get the support and the disk, and to
feel I had done the right thing.

I have done the same with other stuff.. Used it, liked it, bought it. It may
not be totally correct, but it is better than stealing.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Concur with all of the above.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca9e3c2414a3e37989797@news.individual.NET...
> In article <SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
>> steal it.
>>
>
> Although I agree with you, you might be surprised by the number of people
> who
> will BUY it after having a look at it. (similar to looking through a book
> at
> the bookstore).

Probably a good arguement for Thom posting an excerpt on his website, but
can't possibly rationalize putting the whole book on a newsgroup.

Theft, pure and simple.

But then again, you admitted that you stole PSP and only later decided to
buy it.
March 22, 2005 6:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <tXW%d.177052$pc5.116784@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ca9e3c2414a3e37989797@news.individual.NET...
> > In article <SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> >> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
> >> steal it.
> >>
> >
> > Although I agree with you, you might be surprised by the number of people
> > who
> > will BUY it after having a look at it. (similar to looking through a book
> > at
> > the bookstore).
>
> Probably a good arguement for Thom posting an excerpt on his website, but
> can't possibly rationalize putting the whole book on a newsgroup.
>
> Theft, pure and simple.
>
> But then again, you admitted that you stole PSP and only later decided to
> buy it.
>
>
>

Could have downloaded it from their OWN website and used it LONGER for free,
I just used what I had, liked it, bought it. Lets not forget it started out
as SHAREWARE, and still was, when I got it.


On the other hand, I really dont much care what you think. I havent ever
taken anything from anyone that I didnt pay for.

I dont aprove of it, and I dont do it.





--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 7:00:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:GOednZ8Bs6YmEKLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
> "Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
>> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>>
>> btw
>> Ken
>
> I didn't see it, but if the entire book is posted there the poster should
> be shot. It's in direct violation of copyright law, and would be the same
> as posting all of your photos and writings on the Net for anybody to use.
>

Oh, and the penalty for copyright violation is death? Get a grip.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 7:00:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:00:28 GMT, "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com>
wrote:

>"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>news:GOednZ8Bs6YmEKLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
>>> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>>>
>>> btw
>>> Ken
>>
>> I didn't see it, but if the entire book is posted there the poster should
>> be shot. It's in direct violation of copyright law, and would be the same
>> as posting all of your photos and writings on the Net for anybody to use.
>>
>
>Oh, and the penalty for copyright violation is death? Get a grip.

Get a grip??? Get a grip??? Well ok, maybe the guy shouldn't be
shot. Just winged (once in the shoulder, and maybe anoter in the
knee). And P.S., Hogan's book is quite informative. Ken
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 7:54:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:27:30 GMT, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net>
wrote:

>
>"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
>> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>>
>> btw
>> Ken
>
>That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
>steal it.
>
I did not post it...I don't own a D70...I have no use for it...I
simply said "it was there".

Ken
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 8:46:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:29:34 -0500, Ken Palmateer
<kenpalmateer@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:00:28 GMT, "Matt Clara" <critics@large.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>>news:GOednZ8Bs6YmEKLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
>>>> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>>>>
>>>> btw
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>> I didn't see it, but if the entire book is posted there the poster should
>>> be shot. It's in direct violation of copyright law, and would be the same
>>> as posting all of your photos and writings on the Net for anybody to use.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, and the penalty for copyright violation is death? Get a grip.
>
>Get a grip??? Get a grip??? Well ok, maybe the guy shouldn't be
>shot. Just winged (once in the shoulder, and maybe anoter in the
>knee). And P.S., Hogan's book is quite informative. Ken

Thanks for the info. If i ever get a D70, i might get it. BTW..i had
no hand in producing or posting that, but shared that information with
this group. If that proves to be problematic; easy to rectify. No
more "by the way".

I agree, if it was my book - or my photo's, i would be pissed off; and
seek recourse..if possible. In fact...since i shared this with this
group because of my interest here, do with it what you will..
no more.

soooo...what shall we talk about next.

in a sorta fraternal fashion,
Ken
March 22, 2005 8:46:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <h7j041d4gg8tq06b933nfcfuop7s9to7kf@4ax.com>,
kenellis@nycap.rr.com says...
> Thanks for the info. If i ever get a D70, i might get it. BTW..i had
> no hand in producing or posting that, but shared that information with
> this group. If that proves to be problematic; easy to rectify. No
> more "by the way".
>
> I agree, if it was my book - or my photo's, i would be pissed off; and
> seek recourse..if possible. In fact...since i shared this with this
> group because of my interest here, do with it what you will..
> no more.
>
> soooo...what shall we talk about next.
>
> in a sorta fraternal fashion,
> Ken
>


Since Ive already decided that my next camera is going to be a D70, Im sure
I'll buy it.

I might even buy it BEFORE the camera, thats not a bad idea for evening
reading. Might even save some RTFM time (those are NEVER entertaining).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:40:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca9e3c2414a3e37989797@news.individual.NET...
> In article <SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
>> steal it.
>>
>
> Although I agree with you, you might be surprised by the number of people
> who
> will BUY it after having a look at it. (similar to looking through a book
> at
> the bookstore).
>

Unfortunately, and one of the complaints about the book, as good as it is,
is that the book is entirely on CD. If you download it you've got it.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:43:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:o vi041d27p35jkndm8t92h27ft3gg3hriq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:27:30 GMT, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:jd0v31tol9ujbu6ar4gko75kac55n689nk@4ax.com...
>>> Now in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities.
>>>
>>> btw
>>> Ken
>>
>>That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping people
>>steal it.
>>
> I did not post it...I don't own a D70...I have no use for it...I
> simply said "it was there".
>
> Ken

When I started my rant I had no intention of shooting the messenger. Sorry
'bout that.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:55:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
> people steal it.

Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
is not stealing.

Moreover - it is by no means sure that a post in a binary
newsgroup will decrease the number of books bought. On
the contrary I would believe. And for the one selling the book
that is probably what counts - the amount of money made.

For good and for bad we live in the digital era. Everything
available in digital format can be perfectly and simple copied.
That makes information sharing extremely powerful - which is good.
Companies selling digital goods have to (and will) find ways to
make money.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:14:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 22 Mar 2005 20:55:54 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
>news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
>> people steal it.
>
>Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>is not stealing.

It's theft pure and simple when you put it out for public use.


*************************************
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However" replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Stephen Crane
March 23, 2005 12:14:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cr11419l0feqrffnvmpuvljff2ai0gdsfq@4ax.com>,
johnastovall@earthlink.net says...
> On 22 Mar 2005 20:55:54 GMT, Roland Karlsson
> <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
> >news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
> >
> >> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
> >> people steal it.
> >
> >Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
> >case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
> >is not stealing.
>
> It's theft pure and simple when you put it out for public use.
>
>
> *************************************
> A man said to the universe:
> "Sir, I exist!"
> "However" replied the universe,
> "The fact has not created in me
> A sense of obligation."
> Stephen Crane
>


Putting it on the web is PUBLISHING and since it is a copyright issue, the
penalty can be up to 5 years in prison in the US.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:40:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rolan Karlsson writes:

>>> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
> people steal it.


Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
is not stealing.<<

Right. Taking something without paying for it is not stealing because
you're using new technology to spread it around to others.

Bullshit.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:54:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1caa58db6ef3aff098979e@news.individual.NET...
> In article <cr11419l0feqrffnvmpuvljff2ai0gdsfq@4ax.com>,
> johnastovall@earthlink.net says...
>> On 22 Mar 2005 20:55:54 GMT, Roland Karlsson
>> <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
>> >news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>> >
>> >> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
>> >> people steal it.
>> >
>> >Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>> >case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>> >is not stealing.
>>
>> It's theft pure and simple when you put it out for public use.
>>
>>
>> *************************************
>> A man said to the universe:
>> "Sir, I exist!"
>> "However" replied the universe,
>> "The fact has not created in me
>> A sense of obligation."
>> Stephen Crane
>>
>
>
> Putting it on the web is PUBLISHING and since it is a copyright issue, the
> penalty can be up to 5 years in prison in the US.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.


But officer, I was just borrowing the car for a few days. If I like it, I
promise to pay for it.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:54:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:z%30e.202744$qB6.119223@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1caa58db6ef3aff098979e@news.individual.NET...
>> In article <cr11419l0feqrffnvmpuvljff2ai0gdsfq@4ax.com>,
>> johnastovall@earthlink.net says...
>>> On 22 Mar 2005 20:55:54 GMT, Roland Karlsson
>>> <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
>>> >news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>> >
>>> >> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
>>> >> people steal it.
>>> >
>>> >Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>>> >case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>>> >is not stealing.
>>>
>>> It's theft pure and simple when you put it out for public use.
>>>
>>>
>>> *************************************
>>> A man said to the universe:
>>> "Sir, I exist!"
>>> "However" replied the universe,
>>> "The fact has not created in me
>>> A sense of obligation."
>>> Stephen Crane
>>>
>>
>>
>> Putting it on the web is PUBLISHING and since it is a copyright issue,
>> the
>> penalty can be up to 5 years in prison in the US.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Larry Lynch
>> Mystic, Ct.
>
>
> But officer, I was just borrowing the car for a few days. If I like it, I
> promise to pay for it.
>
<LOL>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 11:31:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9621DF199D0EEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
> news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
> > people steal it.
>
> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
> is not stealing.

It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:44:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

>But officer, I was just borrowing the car for a few days. If I like it, I
>promise to pay for it.

In the UK, the charge is "taking a car without the owner's permission".
It's not stealing either, apparently, but I don't know the difference.

--
Ken Tough
March 23, 2005 2:44:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <N5bgiFDTqTQCFwAi@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk says...
> Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
> >But officer, I was just borrowing the car for a few days. If I like it, I
> >promise to pay for it.
>
> In the UK, the charge is "taking a car without the owner's permission".
> It's not stealing either, apparently, but I don't know the difference.
>
>

They have that charge in some US staes also.

It is usually, but not always, used on young people who haven't done it
before, or in family situations where one member of a family takes a car
belonging to another family member.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 23 Mar 2005 01:40:15 -0800, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

>Rolan Karlsson writes:
>
>>>> That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
>> people steal it.
>
>Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>is not stealing.<<
>
>Right. Taking something without paying for it is not stealing because
>you're using new technology to spread it around to others.
>
>Bullshit.

Eh? Usenet is a lot older than even the PDF format used to write the
book, so the 'technology' isn't new by any stretch.

I'm more open minded on this subject than most - If someone want's to
market a PDF book, and then get upset when it's copied, that's their
prerogative. Sympathies from me: zero. He knew the risks and rewards
when he decided to go 'bare', not to have a publisher, an agent, and a
distributer involved in his venture.

Does copying help or hinder the overall sales of an item? Well,
Microsoft wouldn't be at the top of the pack if it wasn't for 20 years
of piracy that enabled them to become the de facto standard. Apple
suffered big-time compared to the IBM PC format because it actively
prevented other manufacturers from 'copying' their hardware. Who
became standard - The IBM design of course.

Thom Hogan's has now got a thread in this NG of 23 and growing which
will last for ever (at least, outlive his copied book's existence in
the cache's of binary usenet servers) in Google's archives. No press
is bad press. Who wins? Thom.

The games software industry has always maintained that piracy is the
main cause for the high costs ($40) for their titles. However,
Nintendo's Gameboy, Color-Gameboy, N64 all used hardware-based
cartridges that reduced the practicalities of piracy to an
all-time-low. Result - BLOODY expensive games. So, they lied.

The only thing that counts for profitability is the number of units
you manage to sell. The ratio of pirated to non-pirated is an annoying
statistic for board-members but isn't really lost profit because they
can't show that every pirated copy would have been a guaranteed sale.
It wouldn't.

I am *certain* that some software companies purposefully 'leak' their
own products to piracy shortly before introducing a new version. This
is gorilla marketing, and it obviously works.

So, is copying theft? In a broad sense, yes, but it's constructive
theft.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 4:13:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:brp241dg6m03hn6p3sd0p2icfhidm030im@4ax.com...
>
> Does copying help or hinder the overall sales of an item?

This has nothing to do with whether you are stealing or not. It is not your
decision to make. How would you like it if a bunch of people came into your
house, copied all your pictures, and distributed them around the internet
saying that they thought it would help your business? Wouldn't you feel that
this is something that should have been left up to you?
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:00:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Tom Scales <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>> >But officer, I was just borrowing the car for a few days. If I like it, I
>> >promise to pay for it.
>>
>> In the UK, the charge is "taking a car without the owner's permission".
>> It's not stealing either, apparently, but I don't know the difference.

>They have that charge in some US staes also.
>
>It is usually, but not always, used on young people who haven't done it
>before, or in family situations where one member of a family takes a car
>belonging to another family member.

The UK one applies to anybody who takes anyone's car (or at least
used to). Then again, cars have both a registered owner and a
"registered keeper". Bit antiquated, maybe.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9621DF199D0EEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in
>> news:SaU%d.173884$pc5.147228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> > That's really sad. All that effort on his part, and you're helping
>> > people steal it.
>>
>> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>> is not stealing.
>
> It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.

I generally support the concept of copyright, if not all the details
of the current legal implementation especially in the USA. However...

Stealing, as usually interpreted, requires that you take something
that they had away from someone. Copying doesn't do that.
Intellectual property is a legal abstraction, and behaves entirely
differently from physical property in many respects.

Trying to completely equate them just encourages the people who want
to abolish the concept of intellectual property entirely.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@chuck.this.out.sh.se> writes:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:31:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9621DF199D0EEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>
>>> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>>> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>>> is not stealing.
>>
>>It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.
>
> No, it is not , and it is easy to demonstrate that it isn't.
>
> Stealing has been prohibited in every known judicial culture at least
> since Hammurabi's laws four thousand years ago. Copying, OTOH, was
> universally completely legal up to the adoption of the Berne
> Convention in 1886, less than one hundred and twenty years ago. And at
> least since the invention of the printing press in the mid-fifteenth
> century, there has been ample technical opportunity for large-scale
> copying.

You're overstating your case, too. It certainly was *not*
"universally completely legal" to copy stuff until 1886. In the
United States, provision for copyright was written into the original
Constitution, which dates to nearly 100 years earlier.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:23:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> writes:

> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:_ZednSSzUbtkM9zfRVn-gg@wavecable.com:
>
>> is prosecuted as theft of intellectual property. The fact that it once
>> was legal to do this is meaningless.
>
> Please show the parts of US or other law that states that
> Copying of Copyrighted goods is considered stealing the goods.
>
> Please also try to tell us what the owner of the original
> loses by the copying; not by copying in general but
> by you doing the actual copying. If you do one copy of
> one program or one song or one film - what does the
> company that have the right lose by exactly that one
> action?
>
> Personally I say that it is totally impossible to compute
> what is lost by one copying action. No one can do it.
> No one can claim that every one that copies would buy instead.
> No one can claim that the extra amount of (illegal) copies in
> the world does not make the goods easier to sell. No one.

I agree completely.

I also believe that it's completely obvious the some form of
intellectual property restricting copying is necessary for the purpose
of encouraging intellectual and artistic endeavor, which I consider to
the be the basis of our whole society. Letting good story-tellers
make a living by writing books, for example, is an important social
good. Copyright is the mechanism by which we do so.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:14:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:m2is3iyuvr.fsf@gw.dd-
> b.net:
>
>> I agree completely.
>>
>> I also believe that it's completely obvious the some form of
>> intellectual property restricting copying is necessary for the purpose
>> of encouraging intellectual and artistic endeavor, which I consider to
>> the be the basis of our whole society. Letting good story-tellers
>> make a living by writing books, for example, is an important social
>> good. Copyright is the mechanism by which we do so.
>
> I agree. But it is seldom that the story tellers hold any
> Copyright. It is some publisher that holds the right.
> And more often than not it is the publisher that takes
> most of the profit.

This is simply not true. My wife and many of my friends make their
livings writing novels, and I have a pretty good idea how the business
side of this works. For that matter, it's obvious just loking in the
books; they clearly state the copyright is held by the author.

> Moreover - it is much simpler (and often cheaper) to buy
> a book instead of copying it. Books is not the problem.
> If you want a cheap book - you buy a paperback.

Won't be when electronic distribution of books is the norm, though.

> It is digital distribution that is the problem. And it is very naive
> to think that Copyright laws shall stop all copying of digital
> goods. It is also very naive that we shall pay the same amount for a
> CD than for a book. The book is self contained and costs much more
> to make than the CD. The CD needs a computer and it is rather
> inconvenient to read a book on your screen.

I find reading books on my palm pilot very convenient. Much nicer
than hardcover, in particular; hardcover books are too big and heavy
to carry around comfortably. And on my Pilot I can have *multiple*
books (very useful for a trip, for example). I've read over a dozen
books that way at this point. Unfortunately not enough books are
available that way that I really want to read (although check out
<www.baen.com/library/&gt;).

I certainly don't expect copyright laws to prevent all copying. I'd
like to see them used to prevent commercial-scale piracy, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Peter <durians.nomail@gmx.net> writes:

> 2005-03-23, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>> I also believe that it's completely obvious the some form of
>> intellectual property restricting copying is necessary for the purpose
>> of encouraging intellectual and artistic endeavor, which I consider to
>> the be the basis of our whole society. Letting good story-tellers
>
> That, IMHO, is not obvious at all (and even now it is the record
> companies/bookpublishers that make the money, not the artists (except a
> few)).

You're generalizing the case of some high-midlevel musicians to be the
universal state of popular artists, and it simply isn't so. The
publishing companies are not making grotesquely unreasonable
return-on-investment figures. The super-star authors are doing
spectacularly well of course, but the first-tier authors do darned
well too. The mid-list, where many of my friend lie, has been hurt by
the collapse of the independent distributor system something like a
decade ago, but many of them are still making a decent living
writing. In particular, mostly they make more than the editors at the
publishing houses do :-).

> Most progress has been done without copyright laws/patent laws
> (going off on a side track here). Only *after* publishers saw they
> could make more money by having a stronghold on distribution
> (copyright law) or IP, these these laws came into effect to freeze
> the status quo...

Depends what you consider progress. *Far* more artworks have been
created since the copyright regime allowed people to more easily make
a living as artists. Perhaps even more important, the works were much
more diverse.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:UZydnXKDt61DBNzfRVn-hg@wavecable.com:

>> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>> is not stealing.
>
> It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.

Look in a dictionary. There is nothing there about copying,
with or without permission. Stealing involves someone losing
what you steal. Copying does not make anyone lose the original,
much less if the copy is a copy of a copy.

The Music industry and others are missing a very important fact
when they count how much they lose by copying of their goods.
No on - not you nor me - nor the right owners of digital goods
have the slightest idea how much is lost or won. All we can do
is speculate.

Quake is one of the most copied games in history - and also one of
the most successful. Microsoft products and also Photoshop (that all
here using it have bought I assume :)  are heavily copied and also
bringing billions of dollars to the makers.

When VHS tapes were introduced - the Film industry raged about the
losses they should make on illegal copying. Still going strong are
they not? Both VHS tape makers AND the Film industry. It sure looks
like this copying strengthens economy overall.

But - this is only speculating. Quake might have brought the makers
several more millions without copying. Or it might just have been
just another game among all other. No one knows.

BTW - there are currently some Russian companies that totally legaly
sells music at 1/10 of the normal cost. They use a Russian law that
states that distributing on Internet is the same as distributing by
radio broadcast. The fees for radio broadcast is much lower than
distributing to single customers. If the Music industry fixes this
anomaly, decreasing the cost for buying music and increasing the
cost for broadcasting music, they might just win and be richer. As
long as they don't - its their problem.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9622BF799910Eklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:UZydnXKDt61DBNzfRVn-hg@wavecable.com:
>
> >> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
> >> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
> >> is not stealing.
> >
> > It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.
>
> Look in a dictionary. There is nothing there about copying,
> with or without permission. Stealing involves someone losing
> what you steal. Copying does not make anyone lose the original,
> much less if the copy is a copy of a copy.

You are appropriating someone else's intellectual property and giving it
away. That is theft. Whether it would improve his sales or not is
irrelevant. It is not your decision to make, either legally or morally.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns9622BF799910Eklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>Quake is one of the most copied games in history - and also one of
>the most successful.

That may be -- but I don't have a copy -- and don't *want* one.

> Microsoft products and also Photoshop (that all
>here using it have bought I assume :) 

I have bought and am using Photoshop Elements -- which I needed
to transform some images from an older digital camera conversion. Now
that I'm using the D70, I no longer need Photoshop Elements, and as a
result, I don't turn on the Windows box at all. (It is saved in case I
need to use that older camera again -- at least unitil the Unix programs
can convert the RAW files from that camera to something workable.

Even though I thoroughly dislike Microsoft OS's, because I had
to have one for that one photo conversion, and for the annual income tax
pain, I bought those as well.

Note that since I never allow a Windows box to touch the outside
net, I could get away with a pirated copy (as long as I stayed clear of
XP, which is trying to minimize the ability to use a pirated copy), but
I choose not to do so.

> are heavily copied and also
>bringing billions of dollars to the makers.
>
>When VHS tapes were introduced - the Film industry raged about the
>losses they should make on illegal copying.

Actually -- no. When Sony's "Beta" format was introduced, the
film industry started raging. VHS came out later -- after the lawsuit
with the Beta format was settled.

> Still going strong are
>they not?

No -- Beta is a dead format.

> Both VHS tape makers AND the Film industry. It sure looks
>like this copying strengthens economy overall.

Whose economy? The recorders come from Japan and various other
countries outside the USA. The film industry is mostly inside the USA.
Of course, since your ISP is in Sweden, that probably does not matter to
you. :-)

>But - this is only speculating. Quake might have brought the makers
>several more millions without copying. Or it might just have been
>just another game among all other. No one knows.

I suspect that Quake would have grown almost as big with copying
made impossible -- and certainly more profit to the company which made
it.

Note that at least Doom was available (for free) in a version to
run on unix -- but you had to buy the PC version to get the database on
which it ran. And it was a multi-player networked game, so people could
play against each other. (Quake may well be similar, but I have not
seen anyone playing it.) The networked multi-player characteristic may
be a major component in the attractiveness of the game.

>BTW - there are currently some Russian companies that totally legaly
>sells music at 1/10 of the normal cost. They use a Russian law that
>states that distributing on Internet is the same as distributing by
>radio broadcast. The fees for radio broadcast is much lower than
>distributing to single customers.

This makes sense to a certain point -- but it is based on the
assumption that radio listeners are (mostly) not equipped to record
quality audio off the air -- and many DJs (for popular music) talk over
the start and/or end of the song -- or at least its music -- thus
spoiling off-the-air recordings even with quality equipment.

> If the Music industry fixes this
>anomaly, decreasing the cost for buying music and increasing the
>cost for broadcasting music, they might just win and be richer. As
>long as they don't - its their problem.

I agree that a provision for paying for the rights to a
recording so you can copy it off a website or other similar source
should be much less expensive than purchasing a pre-made recording. But
note that even this has its economic impact -- namely killing the stores
which sell the recordings, if not the recording companies themselves.

And note, also, that the royalties system is seriously biased in
favor of the "popular" recording artists -- so much so that artists in
other genres may never see a cent of royalties.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:27:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in news:yO-
dnV6ha9jLMtzfRVn-1Q@wavecable.com:

> You are appropriating someone else's intellectual property and giving it
> away.

Giving it away? Who are talking about giving away? Not me.

BTW - in many countries it is perfectly legal to make
a copy for yourself, it. is e.g. perfectly legal where
I live to record from radio. It is distributing that is
illigal.

> That is theft. Whether it would improve his sales or not is
> irrelevant.

No - it is a Copyright crime.

> It is not your decision to make, either legally or morally.

It has nothing to do with moral. It is a matter of using
words and laws according to their definition.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:31:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9621DF199D0EEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...

>> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>> is not stealing.
>
>It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.

No, it is not , and it is easy to demonstrate that it isn't.

Stealing has been prohibited in every known judicial culture at least
since Hammurabi's laws four thousand years ago. Copying, OTOH, was
universally completely legal up to the adoption of the Berne
Convention in 1886, less than one hundred and twenty years ago. And at
least since the invention of the printing press in the mid-fifteenth
century, there has been ample technical opportunity for large-scale
copying.

Thus, for four hundred years, stealing was prohibited, most of the
time in a much more draconian fashion than today, wheras copying was
legal, despite existing technical possibilities for large-scale
copying. If copying had been stealing, certainly copying would be
punishable in all judicial settings that punish stealing.

Yet, it clearly isn't. Thus, they are completely different crimes. A
given individual might want to argue that copying is _the moral
equivalent of_ stealing, but that is more a statement about the
personal beliefs and cultural background of this individual, than
about anything else.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:44:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@chuck.this.out.sh.se> wrote in message
news:80a341ht7884qb5h5a5nr69vaffnlginso@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:31:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9621DF199D0EEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>
> >> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
> >> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
> >> is not stealing.
> >
> >It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.
>
> No, it is not , and it is easy to demonstrate that it isn't.
>
> Stealing has been prohibited in every known judicial culture at least
> since Hammurabi's laws four thousand years ago. Copying

is prosecuted as theft of intellectual property. The fact that it once was
legal to do this is meaningless.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:44:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_ZednSSzUbtkM9zfRVn-gg@wavecable.com:

> is prosecuted as theft of intellectual property. The fact that it once
> was legal to do this is meaningless.

Please show the parts of US or other law that states that
Copying of Copyrighted goods is considered stealing the goods.

Please also try to tell us what the owner of the original
loses by the copying; not by copying in general but
by you doing the actual copying. If you do one copy of
one program or one song or one film - what does the
company that have the right lose by exactly that one
action?

Personally I say that it is totally impossible to compute
what is lost by one copying action. No one can do it.
No one can claim that every one that copies would buy instead.
No one can claim that the extra amount of (illegal) copies in
the world does not make the goods easier to sell. No one.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:49:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9622C4EDEA995klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:_ZednSSzUbtkM9zfRVn-gg@wavecable.com:
>
> > is prosecuted as theft of intellectual property. The fact that it once
> > was legal to do this is meaningless.
>
> Please show the parts of US or other law that states that
> Copying of Copyrighted goods is considered stealing the goods.

HR 2265, signed into law by President Clinton in 1967, is titled 'The No
Electronic Theft Act.' It specifically defines illegal and unauthorized
copying of software and other copyrighted materials as theft, even if the
person doing the copying does not profit from it. This is the law under
which Napster was prosecuted. Under this law any person who downloads Thom
Hogan's book from an unauthorized site can be sent to prison for three
years, among other penalties.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 9:58:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Those who think that copyright infringement is not theft or a criminal
offense would do well to Google "copyright theft."
March 23, 2005 11:07:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

2005-03-23, Roland Karlsson wrote:
>[...]
> Personally I say that it is totally impossible to compute
> what is lost by one copying action. No one can do it.
> No one can claim that every one that copies would buy instead.
> No one can claim that the extra amount of (illegal) copies in
> the world does not make the goods easier to sell. No one.

Yet our "friendly" RIAA, stichting BREIN, Anti-pirat byrån, &c seem to
think they can, seeing that people are sued for insane amounts of money
for copying software and music...

-peter

--
(format t "~&~{~<~%~1:;~a~>~^,~}.~%"
'(een twee drie vier hoedje van papier))
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:12:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> But officer, I was just borrowing the car for a few days. If I like it, I
>>> promise to pay for it.
>>
>> In the UK, the charge is "taking a car without the owner's permission".
>> It's not stealing either, apparently, but I don't know the difference.
>
> They have that charge in some US staes also.
>
> It is usually, but not always, used on young people who haven't done it
> before, or in family situations where one member of a family takes a car
> belonging to another family member.

Theft legally requires the intent to deprive the owner of what you're
stealing. If you don't intend any such thing, there is no theft, so
another law is required.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
March 24, 2005 12:13:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

2005-03-23, Jan Böhme wrote:
>
> Stealing has been prohibited in every known judicial culture at least
> since Hammurabi's laws four thousand years ago. Copying, OTOH, was
> universally completely legal up to the adoption of the Berne
> Convention in 1886, less than one hundred and twenty years ago. And at
> least since the invention of the printing press in the mid-fifteenth
> century, there has been ample technical opportunity for large-scale
> copying.

And even the printing press was copied by Gutenberg from Laurens Jansz
Koster :-)

-peter

--
(format t "~&~{~<~%~1:;~a~>~^,~}.~%"
'(een twee drie vier hoedje van papier))
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:16:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> I agree. But it is seldom that the story tellers hold any
> Copyright. It is some publisher that holds the right.

That's not the case; most authors retain their copyrights. In the
case of "storytellers" (novelists) it is nearly universal.

In the fight over publishing rights, writers won; musicians lost.

Photographers do pretty well with copyright, too, the efforts of Getty
notwithstanding. Unfortunately, the problem we have with photography
is that too many people are willing to give their work away.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
March 24, 2005 12:18:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

2005-03-23, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> I also believe that it's completely obvious the some form of
> intellectual property restricting copying is necessary for the purpose
> of encouraging intellectual and artistic endeavor, which I consider to
> the be the basis of our whole society. Letting good story-tellers

That, IMHO, is not obvious at all (and even now it is the record
companies/bookpublishers that make the money, not the artists (except a
few)). Most progress has been done without copyright laws/patent laws
(going off on a side track here). Only *after* publishers saw they could
make more money by having a stronghold on distribution (copyright law) or
IP, these these laws came into effect to freeze the status quo...

-peter

--
(format t "~&~{~<~%~1:;~a~>~^,~}.~%"
'(een twee drie vier hoedje van papier))
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 12:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Peter" <durians.nomail@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:4241dd25$0$148$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> 2005-03-23, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> > I also believe that it's completely obvious the some form of
> > intellectual property restricting copying is necessary for the purpose
> > of encouraging intellectual and artistic endeavor, which I consider to
> > the be the basis of our whole society. Letting good story-tellers
>
> That, IMHO, is not obvious at all (and even now it is the record
> companies/bookpublishers that make the money, not the artists (except a
> few)). Most progress has been done without copyright laws/patent laws
> (going off on a side track here). Only *after* publishers saw they could
> make more money by having a stronghold on distribution (copyright law) or
> IP, these these laws came into effect to freeze the status quo...

Now you are just making stuff up.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 1:41:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:01:27 -0800, "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@chuck.this.out.sh.se> wrote in message
>news:80a341ht7884qb5h5a5nr69vaffnlginso@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:31:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Xns9621DF199D0EEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> >> Copying is not stealing. Copying is copying - and in this
>> >> case this copying is against the Copyright law. But ... it
>> >> is not stealing.
>> >
>> >It is stealing, no matter how you try to rationalize that it is not.
>>
>> No, it is not , and it is easy to demonstrate that it isn't.
>>
>> Stealing has been prohibited in every known judicial culture at least
>> since Hammurabi's laws four thousand years ago. Copying
>
>is prosecuted as theft of intellectual property.

No, it isnt. It's prosecuted as infringement on intellectual property
rights.

> The fact that it once was legal to do this is meaningless.

This is not meaningless at al,l if one wants to demonstrate that it
isn't the same thing as the ever-prohibited crime of theft.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 1:52:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 23 Mar 2005 15:45:36 -0500, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

> I agree that a provision for paying for the rights to a
>recording so you can copy it off a website or other similar source
>should be much less expensive than purchasing a pre-made recording. But
>note that even this has its economic impact -- namely killing the stores
>which sell the recordings, if not the recording companies themselves.

Of course. Just as the "Spinning Jenny" killed the entire cottage
industry of home spinning.

Technical development has economic impact almost by definition.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 1:56:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:12:16 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Theft legally requires the intent to deprive the owner of what you're
>stealing. If you don't intend any such thing, there is no theft, so
>another law is required.

Right. The reasoning can be extended further to illicit copying.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
!