From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Intellectual robbery (was Re: news problems) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:07:16 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 89 Message-ID: <3ADF0D34.62126394@algonet.se> References: <3ADA6046.1497BA65@home.com> <3ADAABB7.34016889@algonet.se> <3adab6ef$1@news.newszilla.com> <3ADABA6E.9DC55370@algonet.se> <3adb050e.1141787@localhot> <3ADB658A.F7BBF7BD@algonet.se> <6uy9sy2rjt.fsf_-_2@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADDCDCE.F4306997@algonet.se> <6ulmox3mqk.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: sdu141-238.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 987696486 6673 195.163.238.141 (19 Apr 2001 16:08:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Apr 2001 16:08:06 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:66086 Hi Neil, Neil Franklin wrote: > Raw NNTP was not intended as user interface. That is supposed to be > the job of the newsreader :-). Yup. > But decent telnets have scroll bars. So you can use them. Ah! I just discovered that I had a too low (25 lines) buffer size set. Set it at 1000 instead (that should take care of almost all posts). > > > - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery > > > > I could not agree more. Information can not be owned. > > And shall not by law be declared to be so. Absolutely not. And unethical laws *should* be disregarded; civil disobedience. If enough people disregard such laws, they will *have to* be repealed. Better yet, of course, that they never are enacted, but as long as the people supposed to be our representatives are bought wholesale by Big Business, this is going to happen again and again. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. > Background of that .sig: Protest, that the government should not use > its law enforcement powers (= threat of and using of violence) to > subdue people into pretending it can be owned and so is not available > to themselves (= taken away from them, take away under threat of > violence = robbery) despite them having copies of it, due to its > spread-by-copy nature. It is intended to be a catchy phrase to > counteract the "copying is piracy (= robbery)" propaganda lie that IP > lawyers and their clients like to spread. Yes. BTW, the very term "piracy" is Orwellian NewSpeak, and should be avoided at all costs. Copying information is not legally or morally equivalent to attacking ships at sea, looting, raping and murdering. Its usage is simply propaganda. BTW2, the term "copy protection" is a misnomer too; copies need not be protected, and in any case these "intentional bugs" do no such thing. A better term is "copy obstruction" or perhaps "unjust profit protection". > Theory behind it: Matter due to its atomar nature can only be shaped > by lots of work and with special tools and knowledge, so material > objects are naturally scarse, so we protect those paying the > aquisition cost (time or money) by property law. Most people would > prefer abundancy, ideally a la Star Treck replicators, but we do not > (yet) have the technology for this. Intellect due to its bitty nature > can be copied effortlessly and is so naturally abundant. IP laws try > to create artificial scarcity, exactly the oposite to what most of us > want. Yes. I say it is not in society's best interest to allow laws that make a few people and corporations very rich at great expense of the rest of society (loss of freedom, litigation, loss of creativity and opportunity, obstruction of progress, and ultimately a corporate police state). The very concept of "IP" is quite simply a very Bad Thing. > This is bad law. Authorship can be financed by other means, just like > science is, where results are public. Precisely. Imagine what state science would be in if all scientists considered their results and theories their property. We're lucky Einstein didn't copyright or patent his equations (of course *he* would never have done any such thing, even had it been possible). Another way to finance literature, music, art or software is the "street performer's protocol". See http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/ . > Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer > - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Intellectual robbery (was Re: news problems) Date: 19 Apr 2001 21:21:45 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 100 Message-ID: <6uwv8gbsqe.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3ADA6046.1497BA65@home.com> <3ADAABB7.34016889@algonet.se> <3adab6ef$1@news.newszilla.com> <3ADABA6E.9DC55370@algonet.se> <3adb050e.1141787@localhot> <3ADB658A.F7BBF7BD@algonet.se> <6uy9sy2rjt.fsf_-_2@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADDCDCE.F4306997@algonet.se> <6ulmox3mqk.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADF0D34.62126394@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 987708106 420 10.0.3.2 (19 Apr 2001 19:21:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Apr 2001 19:21:46 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:66094 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > But decent telnets have scroll bars. So you can use them. > > Ah! I just discovered that I had a too low (25 lines) buffer size set. > Set it at 1000 instead (that should take care of almost all posts). That is something I set years ago. Actually it is at 670 (10 times the 67 lines I have visible on screen. 67 being 66 lines of data plus 1 status line. 66 line being of course of standard (US) printer page (11" with 6 lines per 1"). > > > > - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery > > > > > > I could not agree more. Information can not be owned. > > > > And shall not by law be declared to be so. > > Absolutely not. > > And unethical laws *should* be disregarded; civil disobedience. And are being disregarded, massively. 60 million Napster users... > If enough people disregard such laws, they will *have to* be repealed. Or at least not enforced, due to overloaded courts. Or at least only "enforced" very sporadically and so not relevant as deterrant. > Better yet, of course, that they never are enacted, but as long as the > people supposed to be our representatives are bought wholesale by Big > Business, this is going to happen again and again. The general problem of people plotting in back rooms where you do not see it until the law is voted on by pre-lobied parlament. And journalists today are more interested in who the president screws than what harmfull laws are being introduced. > The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And even that does not work in todays situation. > > spread-by-copy nature. It is intended to be a catchy phrase to > > counteract the "copying is piracy (= robbery)" propaganda lie that IP > > lawyers and their clients like to spread. > > Yes. BTW, the very term "piracy" is Orwellian NewSpeak, and should be > avoided at all costs. Copying information is not legally or morally > equivalent to attacking ships at sea, looting, raping and murdering. Its > usage is simply propaganda. Which is why counter-propaganda is so important. Particularly when you can follow up the inevitable "eh?" of an propaganda victim with arguments pro yourself and contra them. > BTW2, the term "copy protection" is a misnomer too; copies need not be > protected, and in any case these "intentional bugs" do no such thing. A > better term is "copy obstruction" or perhaps "unjust profit protection". I call it copy prevention (which it is for the majority). > > This is bad law. Authorship can be financed by other means, just like > > science is, where results are public. > > Precisely. Imagine what state science would be in if all scientists > considered their results and theories their property. But scientists knew this, so they never pushed for such laws. Of course the journal publishers use the existing book laws. But even the scientists dislike that and are looking for workarounds (usually web based. Of course WWW was invented at CERN for particle physics publishing). > Another way to finance literature, music, art or software is the > "street performer's protocol". > > See http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/ . Was already in my links collection. They basically see the problem and that copyright can not be the future solution. As for their proposed payment escrow idea. I have doubts that it will have much impact, given a) the faillure of e-cash in general and b) the faillure of the Stephen King serial novel project. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Intellectual robbery (was Re: news problems) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:53:18 +0200 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 97 Message-ID: <3AE0697E.5204A301@algonet.se> References: <3ADA6046.1497BA65@home.com> <3ADAABB7.34016889@algonet.se> <3adab6ef$1@news.newszilla.com> <3ADABA6E.9DC55370@algonet.se> <3adb050e.1141787@localhot> <3ADB658A.F7BBF7BD@algonet.se> <6uy9sy2rjt.fsf_-_2@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADDCDCE.F4306997@algonet.se> <6ulmox3mqk.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADF0D34.62126394@algonet.se> <6uwv8gbsqe.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du202-27.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 987785648 13292 195.100.27.202 (20 Apr 2001 16:54:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2001 16:54:08 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.kpnqwest.at!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:66097 Hi Neil, Neil Franklin wrote: > And are being disregarded, massively. 60 million Napster users... Yes, the best thing about Napster is that ordinary users have become somewhat aware of these things. Even if it were to be closed down now the genie is out of the bottle; it will only be replaced by more lawyer-resistant technologies, like e.g. FreeNet. > Or at least not enforced, due to overloaded courts. Or at least only > "enforced" very sporadically and so not relevant as deterrant. Yes, and such laws tend to be repealed sooner or later. > The general problem of people plotting in back rooms where you do not > see it until the law is voted on by pre-lobbied parlament. Quite. Another is congressional aides, who *after some bill has been voted thru*, change the wording into something even more desirable to certain people. And not to forget "riders" on bills totally unrelated, intended to be sneaked thru. > And journalists today are more interested in who the president screws > than what harmful laws are being introduced. Indeed. > > The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. > > And even that does not work in todays situation. Sadly, no. Our parents and grandparents weren't vigilant enough, so active resistance is needed. > Which is why counter-propaganda is so important. Particularly when you > can follow up the inevitable "eh?" of an propaganda victim with > arguments pro yourself and contra them. Absolutely. > I call it copy prevention (which it is for the majority). Yep. Until it is cracked, that is. Usually does not take long. > But scientists knew this, so they never pushed for such laws. Of > course the journal publishers use the existing book laws. But even the > scientists dislike that and are looking for workarounds (usually web > based. Of course WWW was invented at CERN for particle physics > publishing). Yes. Actually many scientists have a philosophy not very unlike the hacker ethic. > Was already in my links collection. (Mostly I put it there for the benefit of others reading) > They basically see the problem and that copyright can not be the > future solution. > > As for their proposed payment escrow idea. I have doubts that it will > have much impact, given a) the failure of e-cash in general I think it should not be dismissed so quickly, either payment escrow or e-cash. Give it some time. > and b) the faillure of the Stephen King serial novel project. Failure? IIRC he made more on that than on his previous books. And he didn't use the Street performer Protocol (SPP) really. What King did was only very remotely related. He sold chapters and measured his success in what percentage paid up, and once it had dropped below a certain percentage he stopped. That's not SPP. In SPP, it should be totally irrelevant if 99% of your readers haven't paid a cent, as long as you get your set sum on time. I think we need SPP or something similar, because everything cannot be financed by taxes, and who is to decide what artists, authors, musicians, actors and programmers deserve support? Some governmental agency, who has completely different taste than I have? > Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer > - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Intellectual robbery (was Re: news problems) Date: 20 Apr 2001 22:30:22 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 69 Message-ID: <6ulmovnwkh.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3ADA6046.1497BA65@home.com> <3ADAABB7.34016889@algonet.se> <3adab6e f$1@news.newszilla.com> <3ADABA6E.9DC55370@algonet.se> <3adb050e.1141787@localho t> <3ADB658A.F7BBF7BD@algonet.se> <6uy9sy2rjt.fsf_-_2@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADDC DCE.F4306997@algonet.se> <6ulmox3mqk.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3ADF0D34.62126394@ algonet.se> <6uwv8gbsqe.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3AE0697E.5204A301@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 987798622 778 10.0.3.2 (20 Apr 2001 20:30:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2001 20:30:22 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:66125 Gunnar Ljungstrand writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > > And are being disregarded, massively. 60 million Napster users... > > the genie is out of the bottle; That it is. > > I call it copy prevention (which it is for the majority). > > Yep. Until it is cracked, that is. Usually does not take long. Yes. And one cracker is enough to seed the copying scene. The software firms learned this lesson in the early 1980s and gave up on copy "prevention" schemes and changed to having an ongoing support relationship with the user. The entire ASP and .net stuff is the logical consequence. > > But scientists knew this, so they never pushed for such laws. Of > > course the journal publishers use the existing book laws. But even the > > scientists dislike that and are looking for workarounds (usually web > > based. Of course WWW was invented at CERN for particle physics > > publishing). > > Yes. Actually many scientists have a philosophy not very unlike the > hacker ethic. I would have said that exactly in reverse, hackers not unlike scientists. Just a bit less formal, mor individualistic. > > and b) the faillure of the Stephen King serial novel project. > > Failure? IIRC he made more on that than on his previous books. Interesting. I had only heard he judged it a faillure. Making more is a faillure ... hmmmm .... > And he didn't use the Street performer Protocol (SPP) really. What King > did was only very remotely related. He sold chapters and measured his > success in what percentage paid up, and once it had dropped below a > certain percentage he stopped. That's not SPP. > > In SPP, it should be totally irrelevant if 99% of your readers haven't > paid a cent, as long as you get your set sum on time. OK. So it the sum is realistic, it can work. > I think we need SPP or something similar, because everything cannot be > financed by taxes, and who is to decide what artists, authors, > musicians, actors and programmers deserve support? Some governmental > agency, who has completely different taste than I have? Definitely not. Alternative would be various private funding agencies, created possibly by some rich persons will, like Nobel did. Of cource SPP will let far more projects be run, with less bureaucracy. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery