Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

[Alexander Terekhov]

http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-sharing-war

"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

Pizza in our time

23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software

Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.

According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

Stallman seems to think that Governments have piles of dosh to give away
to rock stars. Arts are usually the first to get the chop in government
restructuring as "more important things" such as education, health and
science usually get the dough.

However Stallman claims that governments could collect taxes and
distribute resources to authors or artists according to the cube root of
their popularity so "fairly successful" artists would be adequately
supported.

While this sounds all nice and utopian it does mean that recording stars
will be paid for by the state. Therefore if they hack off the
government they would be denied state funding. A situation where
Margaret Thatcher would have to support Billy Brag is not really a
sustainable vision.

However Richard thinks that artists, authors and musicians could
supplement their income by using a voluntary payment method that allowed
users to donate small amounts at the push of a button.

"A lot of people will push that button because it feels good to support
the artist," Stallman insisted.

This means that rock bands could increase their earnings by showing
themselves with hungry children or dogs on a string.

Stallman told the World Computer Congress in Brisbane that digital
society had to be "free" in order to be a benefit.

Comments (rss feed)

rich wargo - 23 Sep 14:59 .

This stallman is a idiot bolshevik. Another supremely useless parasite.

But then, artists have always been short-sighted. Gladly take money from
government, but then whine like spoiled sissy boys when government steps
all over their precious "freedom of creativity".

You dance with the devil, you dance to his tune."

Exactly.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/233002,stallman-calls-for-end-to-war-on-sharing.aspx

"Art tax

Stallman called for an end to the "global war on sharing", where the use
and distribution of software was controlled.

While artists and musicians were "not entitled to" compensation from
listeners, Stallman said governments could introduce a tax to support
their work.

He had two suggestions. In the first, governments would collect taxes
and distribute these resources to authors or artists according to the
cube root of their popularity so "fairly successful" artists would be
adequately supported.

Alternatively, artists, authors and musicians could use a voluntary
payment method that allowed users to donate small amounts at the push of
a button.

"A lot of people will push that button because it feels good to support
the artist," Stallman said.

"To end the war on sharing is an imperative," he said. "Its goal is bad
because sharing is good; sharing is the way we build a society." "

regards,
alexander.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-sharing-war
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war
Pizza in our time
23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software
Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.
Stallman seems to think that Governments have piles of dosh to give away
to rock stars. Arts are usually the first to get the chop in government
restructuring as "more important things" such as education, health and
science usually get the dough.
However Stallman claims that governments could collect taxes and
distribute resources to authors or artists according to the cube root of
their popularity so "fairly successful" artists would be adequately
supported.
While this sounds all nice and utopian it does mean that recording stars
will be paid for by the state. Therefore if they hack off the
government they would be denied state funding. A situation where
Margaret Thatcher would have to support Billy Brag is not really a
sustainable vision.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/richard-stallman-calls-for-internet-tax-to-combat-piracy/story-e6frgakx-1225927900738

"FREE software activist Richard Stallman has proposed taxing internet
connections to offset the impact of internet piracy on artists.

...

Current research has shown that the peer-to-peer internet sharing
activity varies from country to country. Film and music produced in the
US has also been shown to account for a larger proportion of pirated
material circulating across the internet.

When asked whether the tax-based system could even these discrepancies,
Mr Stallman suggested countries might form trade treaties to cooperate
on collecting levies.

He did not make clear whether the system could absorb variations in
global currency values."

LOL.

Uh comic rms.

regards,
alexander.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Ha ha.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/233077,video-stallman-on-software-patent-fears.aspx

"Video: Stallman on software patent fears"

"GNU founder crashes European Patent session"

Priceless!

regards,
alexander.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Uh comic rms.

But at least he's consistent. I haven't read the GNU Manifesto in a
while, but I'm pretty sure he suggested a similar system to compensate
programmers in a world where all software is free.

BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

[Hadron]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Uh comic rms.

But at least he's consistent. I haven't read the GNU Manifesto in a
while, but I'm pretty sure he suggested a similar system to compensate
programmers in a world where all software is free.
BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

Yup. In Ireland IMRO, Germany GEMA etc etc.

And how does he propose to judge who gets what? Everyone gets the same
or what?

As it is, the programmers who get the most are those whose SW is
purchased. Some of these lunatic fringe ideas are so far out there you
have to wonder about peoples sanity.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hadron

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Uh comic rms.

But at least he's consistent. I haven't read the GNU Manifesto in a
while, but I'm pretty sure he suggested a similar system to compensate
programmers in a world where all software is free.
BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

Yup. In Ireland IMRO, Germany GEMA etc etc.
And how does he propose to judge who gets what? Everyone gets the same
or what?

Uh, how about you actually first _read_ what you are flaming about?
It's not like he does not address this.

One problem is that even the recompensation schemes he proposes (with
diminuishing returns) are problematic to address works like the major
works of James Joyce which were groundbreaking, but in rather limited
circulation during his lifetime, for one thing because they were not
easily accessible, for another, being prohibited due to pornography
laws.

Even worse in that respect would fare J.S.Bach's magnum opus, the Mass
in B minor. Written by a protestant in an old catholic rite outdated
for at least a century, it was not performable until churches opened up
for secular music and concert halls for sacred music. When it was
initially performed in full, he had been dead longer than he had been
alive, some 80 years after his death.

How do you compensate somebody for great works written in the wrong
century?

In the end, even the schemes Stallman proposes are based on numbers of
copies in circulation. So in special cases like that, humanity still
has to be lucky.

[Hadron]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Uh comic rms.

But at least he's consistent. I haven't read the GNU Manifesto in a
while, but I'm pretty sure he suggested a similar system to compensate
programmers in a world where all software is free.
BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

Yup. In Ireland IMRO, Germany GEMA etc etc.
And how does he propose to judge who gets what? Everyone gets the same
or what?

Uh, how about you actually first _read_ what you are flaming about?
It's not like he does not address this.

Oh please.

The whole subject is nonsense.

It was semi rhetorical.

People do work. They get paid. They try to protect their creations from
thieves. Unprotected music/video/sw is stolen.

A common view in COLA is that since its not a physical item you're not
really harming anyone : people dont think twice about downloading things
for free in far too many cases when its unguarded. The nonsense spouted
about how DRM only harms the legitimate purchaser is bullshit since the
HUGE majority of people dont know how to access a lot of warez sites or
are too frightened of malware and spies to do it. Give them the chance
to just "burn a copy" and they will.

The people who lose their hardwork to freeloaders know a hell of a lot
more about it than a bunch of dreamers who are setting themselves up as
big fish in a small pond I am afraid.

Post by David Kastrup
One problem is that even the recompensation schemes he proposes (with
diminuishing returns) are problematic to address works like the major
works of James Joyce which were groundbreaking, but in rather limited
circulation during his lifetime, for one thing because they were not
easily accessible, for another, being prohibited due to pornography
laws.

They dont want to pay for it again? Look after it. Ground breaking I
know but there you go.

Post by David Kastrup
Even worse in that respect would fare J.S.Bach's magnum opus, the Mass
in B minor. Written by a protestant in an old catholic rite outdated
for at least a century, it was not performable until churches opened up
for secular music and concert halls for sacred music. When it was
initially performed in full, he had been dead longer than he had been
alive, some 80 years after his death.
How do you compensate somebody for great works written in the wrong
century?

You don't unless he bequeathed the rights to his family. Are you really
asking such nonsense to try and muddy the waters? meanwhile the people
who produce it and publish it get paid. You know, orchestras, artists,
the recording studios. Good production qualities cost money. Which might
account for the awful tools available to do screencasting in Linux. Yes
we have ffmpeg. recordmydesktop etc. None of which come close to the
solutions on the Mac or Windows which feature proper annotation,
zooming, keypress hiliting etc etc etc.

Post by David Kastrup
In the end, even the schemes Stallman proposes are based on numbers of
copies in circulation. So in special cases like that, humanity still
has to be lucky.

And he knows the number in circulation how?

I mean, the Linux "advocates" in COLA tell us that the entire estimate
of Linux desktops based on the browser IDs monitored at OS agnostic web
sites (about 1.5% and dropping) is nothing more than a Microsoft
lie. What next? People hacking networks to 100x their "sales" figures?

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Yup. In Ireland IMRO, Germany GEMA etc etc.
And how does he propose to judge who gets what? Everyone gets the
same or what?

Uh, how about you actually first _read_ what you are flaming about?
It's not like he does not address this.

Oh please.
The whole subject is nonsense.
It was semi rhetorical.
People do work. They get paid. They try to protect their creations from
thieves. Unprotected music/video/sw is stolen.
A common view in COLA

[And lots more of smokescreen]

So you have not actually read what you are flaming about because you
suggest you know its contents without reading it, and feel competent
flaming it without knowing what it is about.

What a pathetic loser you are.

Post by Hadron
The people who lose their hardwork to freeloaders know a hell of a lot
more about it than a bunch of dreamers who are setting themselves up
as big fish in a small pond I am afraid.

How would you know? The tripe you write is nothing anybody would be
interesting in publishing.

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup
One problem is that even the recompensation schemes he proposes (with
diminuishing returns) are problematic to address works like the major
works of James Joyce which were groundbreaking, but in rather limited
circulation during his lifetime, for one thing because they were not
easily accessible, for another, being prohibited due to pornography
laws.

They dont want to pay for it again? Look after it. Ground breaking I
know but there you go.

You are babbling incoherently.

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup
Even worse in that respect would fare J.S.Bach's magnum opus, the Mass
in B minor. Written by a protestant in an old catholic rite outdated
for at least a century, it was not performable until churches opened up
for secular music and concert halls for sacred music. When it was
initially performed in full, he had been dead longer than he had been
alive, some 80 years after his death.
How do you compensate somebody for great works written in the wrong
century?

You don't unless he bequeathed the rights to his family.

By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized countries
(those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright extension laws)
would have run out. Of course it is utterly unlikely that the
difference between 70 years and 95 years after his death would have
provided a different creative incentive for Bach. In particular if the
rules changed after he had already been dead. For that reason, the
U.S. copyright extension acts are not balancing the rights of creators
and the publics at all. They are just a unilateral gift to media
corporations.

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup
In the end, even the schemes Stallman proposes are based on numbers
of copies in circulation. So in special cases like that, humanity
still has to be lucky.

And he knows the number in circulation how?
I mean, the Linux "advocates" in COLA tell us that the entire estimate
of Linux desktops based on the browser IDs monitored at OS agnostic
web sites (about 1.5% and dropping) is nothing more than a Microsoft
lie. What next? People hacking networks to 100x their "sales" figures?

In all your ravings you forget that blank recording media levies and
broadcasting fees _are_ already distributed according to circulation
figures.

For example, for every public music performance here artists have to pay
fees to the GEMA mostly based on size of venue, and hand in a report of
the covered music pieces.

Every sale (or even giveaway) of media with content on it is reported by
artists to a separate division, and they also get recompensated from the
blank recording media levies according to an assumed number of copies of
the contented media in circulation.

The bureaucracy for this sort of scheme which you consider a crazy
fantasy is already in place and operating. It is mostly a matter of
changing its operating parameters.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by David Kastrup
[And lots more of smokescreen]

Yes indeed. Mr. "Hadron" is just another troll.

Post by David Kastrup
You are babbling incoherently.

"Hadron" does that quite frequently.

Post by David Kastrup
In all your ravings ...

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out. Of course it is utterly
unlikely that the

In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
protection today?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out. Of course it is utterly
unlikely that the

In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
protection today?

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is not in legal circulation beyond existing
copies (of which there are none too few) because the state of Bavaria
asserts the copyrights.

However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
anyway.

Are you sure you know what your trolling is supposed to achieve?

[RJack]

Post by David Kastrup
However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
anyway.

I've always been intrigued concerning relative moral judgments DAK.
Like, what makes one country more civilized than another? You claim that
a country (and by definition its citizens) that passes a restrictive,

Post by David Kastrup

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even
for today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out.

I suspect that a country that attempts to commit genocide might also be
a candidate for the label "uncivilized".

Maybe my relative moral judgment is just wrong... I suppose
"uncivilized" is in the eye of the beholder.

Post by David Kastrup
Are you sure you know what your trolling is supposed to achieve?

DAK said WHAT?
_ _
|L| |R|
|M| /^^^\ |O|
_|A|_ (| "o" |) _|F|_
_| |O| | _ (_---_) _ | |L| |_
| | | | ||-| _| |_ |-|| | | | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo

Sincerely,
RJack:)

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
anyway.

I've always been intrigued concerning relative moral judgments DAK.
Like, what makes one country more civilized than another? You claim that
a country (and by definition its citizens) that passes a restrictive,

In that respect, the said country is controlled less by its citizens as a
body, and more by powerful individuals. Since "civilised" derives from
the Latin word for citizen, the connection should be clear, even if it's
not very strong.

Post by RJack
I suspect that a country that attempts to commit genocide might also be
a candidate for the label "uncivilized".

Countries don't commit genocide. Organised people do. I'm trying to
think of a country where a genocide has never been attempted. It's a bit
difficult. Certainly none of the countries we collectively hale from
would qualify.

Post by RJack
Sincerely,
RJack:)

[RJack]

I'm trying to think of a country where a genocide has never been
attempted. It's a bit difficult. Certainly none of the countries
we collectively hale from would qualify.

Alas and alack, I find myself in agreement. It seems to be in the nature
of the beast. Evolution is morally agnostic. The United States
made a grand attempt to exterminate its pre-European inhabitants all the
while loudly trumpeting:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [white] men [males of
European descent] are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, [such as owning people of
African decent]...

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[David Kastrup]

Post by RJack

I'm trying to think of a country where a genocide has never been
attempted. It's a bit difficult. Certainly none of the countries
we collectively hale from would qualify.

Alas and alack, I find myself in agreement. It seems to be in the nature
of the beast.

Civilization has always been about not letting nature run its course.

[Hadron]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out. Of course it is utterly
unlikely that the

In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
protection today?

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is not in legal circulation beyond existing
copies (of which there are none too few) because the state of Bavaria
asserts the copyrights.
However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
anyway.
Are you sure you know what your trolling is supposed to achieve?

The state of censorship is Germany is almost as bad as it was back
then. WHY cant people buy a copy of this book legally in germany? Why
may people not use the Nazi symbol even when using it to fight Naziism?
Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
(ultimate symbol for bravery)? It's a bit mad.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out. Of course it is utterly
unlikely that the

In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
protection today?

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is not in legal circulation beyond existing
copies (of which there are none too few) because the state of Bavaria
asserts the copyrights.
However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
anyway.
Are you sure you know what your trolling is supposed to achieve?

The state of censorship is Germany is almost as bad as it was back
then. WHY cant people buy a copy of this book legally in germany?

It is not all too hard to do this, just go into a bookshop selling old
used books. You'll not usually find it on display. Not because it
would be prohibited, but because it may offend people. People can't
create _new_ copies of it legally due to copyright. Same as everywhere.
It is likely that once copyright runs out (in 2014 if I am not
mistaken), new copies will reach circulation legally. Advertising them
would likely be somewhat difficult. I don't see that as particularly
desirable.

Post by Hadron
Why may people not use the Nazi symbol even when using it to fight
Naziism?

I recommend you look at appropriate court decisions. Yes, people were
brought to court because of using the Swastika in antifascistic
contexts, but they won those cases.

Post by Hadron
Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
(ultimate symbol for bravery)?

Why wouldn't he be able to?

Post by Hadron
It's a bit mad.

Those nationalistic options you clamor for are already there quite
legally as far as I can see. There are laws against Nazi worshipping in
place that make it problematic to _advertise_ goods like that.
Regarding "mein Kampf", my father's spouse donated her copy to the
history department library of her school when moving in since she was of
the opinion that one copy (that of my father's parents) was more than
enough for a single household. That copy is sitting in an array of WWII
historic literature (actually banned to second row) that puts it in
proper context.

It is rather fascinating reading but not necessarily something that I
would want to see in the hands of children without appropriate parental
guidance (assuming suitably well-educated parents).

The stuff that made such an impact on enough people 75 years ago has not
magically lost all its appeal.

Blaming ethnic groups for economic problems remains a major political
recipe for success. In Germany not as much as, say, the Front Nationale
is able to gain in France using that recipe.

But I still don't care for glorification of that crap. Blaming others
has worked for millennia, and this is a particularly ugly form.

Using copyright to hold dissemination under wraps is a poor measure, but
what's the alternative?

[Hadron]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out. Of course it is utterly
unlikely that the

In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
protection today?

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is not in legal circulation beyond existing
copies (of which there are none too few) because the state of Bavaria
asserts the copyrights.
However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
anyway.
Are you sure you know what your trolling is supposed to achieve?

The state of censorship is Germany is almost as bad as it was back
then. WHY cant people buy a copy of this book legally in germany?

It is not all too hard to do this, just go into a bookshop selling old
used books. You'll not usually find it on display. Not because it
would be prohibited, but because it may offend people. People can't
create _new_ copies of it legally due to copyright. Same as everywhere.
It is likely that once copyright runs out (in 2014 if I am not
mistaken), new copies will reach circulation legally. Advertising them
would likely be somewhat difficult. I don't see that as particularly
desirable.

Then I stand corrected. I was told it was banned.

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Why may people not use the Nazi symbol even when using it to fight
Naziism?

I recommend you look at appropriate court decisions. Yes, people were
brought to court because of using the Swastika in antifascistic
contexts, but they won those cases.

Immaterial. It's still illegal.

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
(ultimate symbol for bravery)?

Why wouldn't he be able to?

The Iron Cross with the Swastika on it is banned afaik. But I'm going on
hearsay...

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
It's a bit mad.

Those nationalistic options you clamor for are already there quite

Huh? What am I clamouring for??

Post by David Kastrup
legally as far as I can see. There are laws against Nazi worshipping in
place that make it problematic to _advertise_ goods like that.
Regarding "mein Kampf", my father's spouse donated her copy to the
history department library of her school when moving in since she was of
the opinion that one copy (that of my father's parents) was more than
enough for a single household. That copy is sitting in an array of WWII
historic literature (actually banned to second row) that puts it in
proper context.
It is rather fascinating reading but not necessarily something that I
would want to see in the hands of children without appropriate parental
guidance (assuming suitably well-educated parents).
The stuff that made such an impact on enough people 75 years ago has not
magically lost all its appeal.
Blaming ethnic groups for economic problems remains a major political
recipe for success. In Germany not as much as, say, the Front Nationale
is able to gain in France using that recipe.
But I still don't care for glorification of that crap. Blaming others
has worked for millennia, and this is a particularly ugly form.
Using copyright to hold dissemination under wraps is a poor measure, but
what's the alternative?

Reasonable enough.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Why may people not use the Nazi symbol even when using it to fight
Naziism?

I recommend you look at appropriate court decisions. Yes, people
were brought to court because of using the Swastika in antifascistic
contexts, but they won those cases.

Immaterial. It's still illegal.

You mean, the courts decided wrong according to the law?

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
(ultimate symbol for bravery)?

Why wouldn't he be able to?

The Iron Cross with the Swastika on it is banned afaik. But I'm going
on hearsay...

The Iron Cross is an old item dating back to Prussian times in the 19th
century (and it is still awarded today). I think somewhere in the
family we have a WWI version from my grandfather. You are talking about
the WWII version apparently.

If you take a look at <URL:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisernes_Kreuz>,
you'll see that the versions with the swastika on them have not been
censored.

Yes, bartering, displaying, and in particular advertising Nazi symbols
is not legally unproblematic in Germany. I don't see that historians
are significantly impeded.

[Hadron]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Why may people not use the Nazi symbol even when using it to fight
Naziism?

I recommend you look at appropriate court decisions. Yes, people
were brought to court because of using the Swastika in antifascistic
contexts, but they won those cases.

Immaterial. It's still illegal.

You mean, the courts decided wrong according to the law?

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron
Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
(ultimate symbol for bravery)?

Why wouldn't he be able to?

The Iron Cross with the Swastika on it is banned afaik. But I'm going
on hearsay...

The Iron Cross is an old item dating back to Prussian times in the 19th
century (and it is still awarded today). I think somewhere in the
family we have a WWI version from my grandfather. You are talking about

I cant think I could explain it more clearly : the one/s with the
Swastika on.

Post by David Kastrup
the WWII version apparently.
If you take a look at <URL:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisernes_Kreuz>,
you'll see that the versions with the swastika on them have not been
censored.
Yes, bartering, displaying, and in particular advertising Nazi symbols
is not legally unproblematic in Germany. I don't see that historians
are significantly impeded.

Are you able to discuss things without dragging the subject into petty
squabbling?

Nazi symbols may not legally be used : forget the odd court case
reprieving some innocent.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by RJack

Post by David Kastrup
By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
extension laws) would have run out. Of course it is utterly unlikely
that the

In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
protection today?

A large quantity of such documents is available at the "Dokuzentrum" (a
museum at the former Nazi parade ground) here in Nuremberg. There is a
somewhat sombre description of the rise of the NS party, available in
both German and English. Feel free to visit the museum on your next
visit to Europe if you're interested.

Post by RJack
Sincerely,
RJack :)

[JEDIDIAH]

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Hadron

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Uh comic rms.

But at least he's consistent. I haven't read the GNU Manifesto in a
while, but I'm pretty sure he suggested a similar system to compensate
programmers in a world where all software is free.
BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

Yup. In Ireland IMRO, Germany GEMA etc etc.
And how does he propose to judge who gets what? Everyone gets the same
or what?

Uh, how about you actually first _read_ what you are flaming about?
It's not like he does not address this.

Oh please.
The whole subject is nonsense.
It was semi rhetorical.
People do work. They get paid. They try to protect their creations from
thieves. Unprotected music/video/sw is stolen.

Making the "product" less useful won't do that.

Neither will taxing completely unrelated products.

Neither will eroding basic property rights.

[deletia]

Destroying the world for a fools errand is just not logical.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by Hadron

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Uh comic rms.

But at least he's consistent. I haven't read the GNU Manifesto in a
while, but I'm pretty sure he suggested a similar system to compensate
programmers in a world where all software is free.
BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

Yup. In Ireland IMRO, Germany GEMA etc etc.
And how does he propose to judge who gets what? Everyone gets the same
or what?

In Germany the members of GEMA get the rates below. In short, GEMA is a
copyright licensing agency and it gets additional income from levies on
empty media, computers, etc. It's not a replacement of copyrights.

http://www.gema.de/index.php?eID=download_file&file=382

"Abrechnungsbeispiele

- Live-Aufführung eines Popsongs aus der U-Musik (Abrechnungssparte U)

Der Abrechnungsbetrag für eine Live-Aufführung im Jahr pendelte
in den vergangenen Jahren zwischen 3,68 € und 4,22 €. Bei einem
Durchschnittsbetrag von 3,95 € würden der Komponist 1,65 €, der
Textdichter 0,99 € und der Verlag 1,31 € erhalten.

- Wiedergabe eines auf Tonträger erschienenen Popstücks aus der
U-Musik (Abrechnungssparte M)

Hier schwankte der Abrechnungsbetrag zuletzt zwischen 4,32 €
und 4,86 €. Sind 4,60 € vorgesehen, entfallen auf den Komponisten
1,92 €, auf den Textdichter 1,15 € und auf den Verlag 1,53 €.

- Aufführung eines Stücks aus der E-Musik (Abrechnungssparte E)
Der Verdienst kann hierfür zwischen 3,82 € und 764 € liegen, je
nachdem, ob es sich um ein Instrumentalwerk für zwei Stimmen
mit einer Dauer von zwei Minuten oder um ein großes Orchesterwerk
mit einer Länge von über einer Stunde handelt. Für ein 15-minütiges
Streichquartett etwa würde der Komponist rund 51 € und der Verlag
25 € bekommen.

- Im Fernsehen gesendetes Werk aus der U-Musik

Ein dreiminütiges Musikstück würde für eine ARD-Fernsehausstrahlung
rund 457 € an Tantiemen einbringen. Für eine Sendung
in einem der Dritten Programme kann sich der Betrag auf bis zu ein
Zehntel reduzieren.

- Im Hörfunk ausgestrahltes Stück aus der U-Musik

Wird ein ebenfalls dreiminütiges Musikstück in einem der
ARDHörfunksender ausgestrahlt, fallen rund 15 € an Tantiemen an.
Davon erhält der Komponist 6,25 €, der Textdichter 3,75 € und der
Verlag 5 €. Bei einer Ausstrahlung in einem privaten Rundfunksender
ist die Höhe der Ausschüttung abhängig von dem Ertrag, den die
GEMA von dem betreffenden Sender bezieht.

- Nutzung eines Werkes auf einer CD (Abrechnungssparte PHO VR)

Beispiel einer CD-Produktion gemäß den Vergütungsbedingungen
für IFPI-Verbandsmitglieder für 10.000 verkaufte Stück: Die GEMA
würde beispielsweise für eine CD, die für 8 € vom Hersteller an den
Händler abgegeben wird, den derzeit bei industriellen Herstellern
vertraglich geregelten Lizenzsatz von 9,009 % vom HAP
(= Händlerabgabepreis) kassieren, also 0,72 € pro CD. Dieser Betrag
wird mit der verkauften Stückzahl multipliziert und dann
spieldaueranteilig auf die verwendeten Werke aufgeteilt: 0,72 €
pro CD x 10.000 Stück = 7.200 €.

Angenommen, die CD enthält 18 Werke und – weiterhin der
Einfachheit halber angenommen – bei allen Werken wäre die
Spieldauer gleich lang, würde ein Lizenzbetrag pro Werk von
400 € (18 Werke: 7.200 €) entfallen. Dieser Lizenzbetrag pro Werk
wird entsprechend der vorhandenen Dokumentation des Werkes,
die die Berechtigten am Werk (Urheber, Verlage) der GEMA bereits
mit den hierfür vorgesehenen Werkeanmeldebögen mitgeteilt
haben, aufgeteilt. Die Aufteilung lautet beispielsweise: Komponist
30 %: 120 €,Textdichter A 15 %: 60 €, Textdichter B 15 %: 60 €,
Verlag 40 %: 160 €."

regards,
alexander.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]

Post by Barry Margolin
BTW, we already have a program where the government pays artists: the
National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to see that
become the sole way that artists get paid?

Over here in Germany it is not the government but rather voluntary
association of music professionals. The association is voluntary and it
is acting as copyright licensing agency (they also have a pension fund
for "full" members). The government merely supports it by imposing
levies on empty media, computers, etc. and levies merely provide
additional funds (additional to licensing fees) to distribute among
members. Note that members must pay membership fees and even licensing
fees for use of their own copyright rights assigned (for a limited time)
to the agency. The agency explicitly points out that membership is
economically feasible for already established music professionals:

http://www.gema.de/index.php?eID=download_file&file=382

"Bevor man sich zu einem Beitritt entschließt, sollte man sichergehen,
dass eine GEMA-Mitgliedschaft für einen selbst auch sinnvoll ist. Denn
ein Beitritt ist erst dann möglich und für das künftige Mitglied
wirtschaftlich rentabel, wenn eigene Musikstücke bereits öffentlich
aufgeführt oder gesendet wurden beziehungsweise auf Bild und Tonträgern
im Handel zu erwerben sind."

regards,
alexander.

[RJack]

Barry Margolin wrote: [...]

the National Endowment for the Arts. Does anyone really want to
see that become the sole way that artists get paid?

Yes Barry! Of course! In the United States, only those who are genius at
manipulating other people's money and efforts truly deserve valuable
compensation for their efforts. Let the scientists, artists, engineers
and laborers grovelfor their undeserved recompense. The top two percent
of citizens only earn twenty four percent of all income. We should lower
the tax burden on those top earners, as their life styles entail much
greater expense. The cost of a private jet, like medical care, has far
outstripped earnings inflation. Remember... the wealthy are people too.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

[Moshe Goldfarb]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:51:33 +0200, Alexander Terekhov

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-sharing-war
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war
Pizza in our time
23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software
Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

They tried this one already and it failed.

The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

[voodoo]

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-

sharing-war

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war
Pizza in our time
23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software
Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

They tried this one already and it failed.
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

[Moshe Goldfarb]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-

sharing-war

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war
Pizza in our time
23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software
Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

They tried this one already and it failed.
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

That was the problem.
Little actually made to the artists as the corrupt record companies
sucked it up to the tune of about 40 percent if I remember correctly.

The problem was the controls to monitor the system were not put in
place properly so it ended up being a mess.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by voodoo

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

That was the problem.
Little actually made to the artists as the corrupt record companies
sucked it up to the tune of about 40 percent if I remember correctly.
The problem was the controls to monitor the system were not put in
place properly so it ended up being a mess.

But don't the corrupt record companies do the same thing with the
revenues from CD sales?

[Moshe Goldfarb]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:37:52 -0400, Barry Margolin

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by voodoo

Post by Moshe Goldfarb
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

That was the problem.
Little actually made to the artists as the corrupt record companies
sucked it up to the tune of about 40 percent if I remember correctly.
The problem was the controls to monitor the system were not put in
place properly so it ended up being a mess.

But don't the corrupt record companies do the same thing with the
revenues from CD sales?

That's closely monitored however it's the artists who get screwed,
especially the new artists.
They have found new ways to screw the artists.

It might come as a surprise but the biggest piece of the pie with CD
sales goes to the middle man wholesaler.

I haven't checked in a while, but that's generally how it has been.

[terekhov]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-

sharing-war

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war
Pizza in our time
23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software
Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

They tried this one already and it failed.
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

See

http://www.gema.de/fileadmin/inhaltsdateien/verein/Verteilungsplan_JB_08_09.pdf

for distribution of such levies in Germany.

Note that GEMA is not a branch of government and the system of levies
does not undo the system of copyright (that is what Stallman wants).

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it
can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said
backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Moshe Goldfarb]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:11:51 -0700 (PDT), terekhov

Post by terekhov

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-

sharing-war

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war
Pizza in our time
23 Sep 2010 11:31 | by Nick Farrell | posted in Software
Open sauce guru Richard Stallman has called for everyone to get off file
sharing's case and has come up with some weirdie beardie advice as to
how the entertainment industry can make money without charging anyone.
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

They tried this one already and it failed.
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

See
http://www.gema.de/fileadmin/inhaltsdateien/verein/Verteilungsplan_JB_08_09.pdf
for distribution of such levies in Germany.
Note that GEMA is not a branch of government and the system of levies
does not undo the system of copyright (that is what Stallman wants).
regards,
alexander.

Correct.

In USA it was "The Audio Home Recording Act" circa early 90's and was
in ADDITION to the copyrights.
It failed miserably, from the artists, especially writers, point.

[David Kastrup]

Post by terekhov
See
http://www.gema.de/fileadmin/inhaltsdateien/verein/Verteilungsplan_JB_08_09.pdf
for distribution of such levies in Germany.
Note that GEMA is not a branch of government and the system of levies
does not undo the system of copyright (that is what Stallman wants).

Effectively, it is rather close to undoing the system of copyright: the
standard GEMA contract (and unless you are rather special, you'll not
get anything else) binds the rights of _all_ of your output for a rather
large minimal time span (2 or 5 years, don't remember which) to the GEMA
forever. So if you hope to make _any_ serious use of your copyright,
you have to sell it away completely. Not just for a single work, but
for all your output. Neither you nor your heirs regain control of it
for anything that gets published ever again. You do get royalties, but
the control has been bartered away for good.

_If_ you want to market your works off commercially, there is no real
alternative to a system that essentially takes your copyright stock, lot
and barrel, in exchange for royalties.

Taking a record label as an intermediary tends to restrict you even
more: you can't market your works off yourself anymore. If the label
decides you are not interesting as an artist for them, they'll just can
your output and not market it, and won't have to pay significant
royalties as one consequence.

So the lack of control that a governmental regulation would mean to the
artist is not so remote from the factually established ways of the music
industry. Including, by the way, the astonishingly small percentages of
royalties ending up with the artists themselves.

There _are_ some artists choosing to ignore the record industry
altogether and marketing themselves off on the internet. While they get
rather poor percentages of payments in relation to the amount they get
paid, what is left to them by the record companies the "regular" way is
often not more. Even if they are rather successful, the companies not
rarely manage to invent conditions where the artists themselves get net
payments below zero: being successful and getting debts as a reward.

That a governmental system is going to be more sane is not guaranteed.
But "don't put something under control of the government that is
sufficiently borked already under control of the free market" sounds
more cynical than anything else.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by terekhov
See
http://www.gema.de/fileadmin/inhaltsdateien/verein/Verteilungsplan_JB_08_09.pdf
for distribution of such levies in Germany.
Note that GEMA is not a branch of government and the system of levies
does not undo the system of copyright (that is what Stallman wants).

Effectively, it is rather close to undoing the system of copyright: the
standard GEMA contract (and unless you are rather special, you'll not
get anything else) binds the rights of _all_ of your output for a rather
large minimal time span (2 or 5 years, don't remember which) to the GEMA
forever. So if you hope to make _any_ serious use of your copyright,
you have to sell it away completely. Not just for a single work, but
for all your output. Neither you nor your heirs regain control of it
for anything that gets published ever again.

Stop hallucinating dak.

http://www.allmusic.de/tool.php?tool=forum_1_0&fid=5&kurz=tontraegerverwertung&beitrag=926&page=1

"Gema-Mitgliedschaft kündigen?

Hallo Zusammen!!

Ich überleg´ mir, ob ich nich bei der GEMA Mitglied werden soll. Der
Nachteil ist, dass wir meine eigenen Songs dann nicht mehr abgabenfrei
aufführen können...

Deshalb die Frage: Kann ich da auch wieder raus? So, dass alles wieder
selber gespielt werden darf, ohne Abgabe?

Thanks for Comments!!"

http://www.allmusic.de/tool.php?tool=forum_1_0&fid=5&kurz=tontraegerverwertung&beitrag=927&page=1

"Kündigungsfristen - Verwertung splitten

Hi Josch,

zunächst solltest Du Dir die Frage stellen, warum Du überhaupt
GEMA-Mitglied werden willst. Nur wegen der Live-Auftritte? Dann macht
das erst ab einer bestimmten Anzahl von Gigs Sinn. Wegen des
PRO-Verfahrens macht es auch erst dann richtig Sinn, wenn man monatlich
in möglichst vielen Gebieten der unterschiedlichen
GEMA-Bezirksdirektionen spielt. Bist Du meist nur im Bereich einer
Bezirksdirektion live auf der Bühne, dann hast Du mit dem "Malfaktor" 1
beim PRO-Verfahren z.B. keine besonders guten Karten bei der
Ausschüttung.

Erwartest Du auch Airplays eines oder mehrerer Deiner Songs im Radio
oder TV, dann ist das schon wieder etwas anderes.

Wenn Du Dich aber oftmals selbst veranstalten musst, um überhaupt zu
Auftritten zu kommen, dann würde ich entweder
a) nicht GEMA-Mitglied werden oder (falls Radio-Airplays winken)
b) bei Abschluss des GEMA-Berechtigungsvertrages Deine Verwertungsrechte
für Live-Auftritte nicht an die GEMA abtreten (also einfach im
Berechtigungsvertrag streichen!!!).

Das Gleiche gilt z.B. auch für die besonders umstrittenen
Online-Verwertungsrechte.

Fakt ist: man kann den Berechtigungsvertrag ganz nach seinen
individuellen Wünschen und Bedürfnissen abschließen bzw. bestimmte
Rechte nicht an die GEMA abtreten.

HAT MAN DIE RECHTE ABER ABGETRETEN; also den Berechtigungsvertrag
unterschrieben, dann ist man 6 Jahre an diesen Vertrag gebunden (früher
betrug die Laufzeit des Berechtigungsvertrages nur 3 Jahre). VORSICHT
auch: der Berechtigungsvertrag verlängert sich immer automatisch. Beim
neuen Vertrag muss man m.W. ein Jahr vor Ablauf kündigen, sonst
verlängert er sich um weitere 6 Jahre.

Die GEMA-Mitgliedschaft ist jährlich kündbar. Das heißt, selbst wenn Du
nicht mehr GEMA-Mitglied sein solltest, kann es sein, dass Deine
Verwertungsrechte noch für weitere 5 Jahre bei der GEMA liegen.

Viele Grüße
Bernd Schweinar / Rock.Büro SÜD"

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup

Post by terekhov
See
http://www.gema.de/fileadmin/inhaltsdateien/verein/Verteilungsplan_JB_08_09.pdf
for distribution of such levies in Germany.
Note that GEMA is not a branch of government and the system of levies
does not undo the system of copyright (that is what Stallman wants).

Effectively, it is rather close to undoing the system of copyright: the
standard GEMA contract (and unless you are rather special, you'll not
get anything else) binds the rights of _all_ of your output for a rather
large minimal time span (2 or 5 years, don't remember which) to the GEMA
forever. So if you hope to make _any_ serious use of your copyright,
you have to sell it away completely. Not just for a single work, but
for all your output. Neither you nor your heirs regain control of it
for anything that gets published ever again.

Stop hallucinating dak.
http://www.allmusic.de/tool.php?tool=forum_1_0&fid=5&kurz=tontraegerverwertung&beitrag=926&page=1

[...]

I always find it fascinating when you spout your derogatory ridicule and
abuse, then go to the pain of digging up some quote on the web that
flatly contradicts your position.

So it is 6 years, even longer than I remembered. And yes, this link
quite explicitly states: _if_ you expect to make money, that's what you
have to do.

Go figure.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
So it is 6 years, even longer than I remembered.

Yes, it is 6 six years of exclusive copyright licensing ownership by
GEMA. NOT FOREVER YOU MORON.

Why did you write

"... to the GEMA forever."

"Neither you nor your heirs regain control of it for anything that gets
published ever again."

silly?

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
So it is 6 years, even longer than I remembered.

Yes, it is 6 six years of exclusive copyright licensing ownership by
GEMA. NOT FOREVER YOU MORON.
Why did you write
"... to the GEMA forever."

Because the 6 years are just concerning the time span where your works
come under the reign of the GEMA, not how long they stay there.

I rechecked the contract, and again my recollections about details was
spotty, but not quite wrong: you nominally _do_ get your rights back
when you terminate the contract:

§ 11
Mit Beendigung des Vertrages fallen die Rechte an den bisherigen
Berechtigten zurück, ohne dass es einer besonderen Rückübertragung
bedarf. Jedoch soll zur Vermeidung einer Störung der öffentlichen
Musikpflege die Auseinandersetzung bezüglich der zurückfallenden
Urheberrechte in der Weise erfolgen, dass die Musikverbraucher,
deren Verträge vor Beendigung dieses Berechtigungsvertrages für die
Nutzung von Werken des ausgeschiedenen Berechtigten abgeschlossen
wurden und über den Zeitpunkt des Ablaufs des Berechtigungs-
vertrages hinaus bestehen, für die ganze Dauer ihrer Verträge zur
Nutzung befugt bleiben. Die Verrechnung der demnach etwa noch auf
den ausgeschiedenen Berechtigten entfallenden Erträge erfolgt nach
den Bestimmungen des Verteilungsplanes der GEMA.

But there is a snag: any contract that the GEMA made for marketing
purposes (including exclusive long-term deals with record companies),
stays in effect and runs through the standard accounting of GEMA, "in
order to avoid a disturbance of the public music maintenance", whatever
that is supposed to mean.

So terminating the contract at the end of six years does get you back
your rights in case the GEMA decided _not_ to do any long-term marketing
contracts for those rights.

Another thing that my recollection missed with regard to those six years
was that I assumed that works before the start of the contract were not
effected. Wrong.

§1
Der Berechtigte überträgt hiermit der GEMA als Treuhänderin für alle
Länder alle ihm gegenwärtig zustehenden und während der
Vertragsdauer noch zuwachsenden, zufallenden, wieder zufallenden
oder sonst erworbenen Urheberrechte in folgendem Umfang zur
Wahrnehmung nach Maßgabe der folgenden Bestimmungen:

So every copyright already in your possession when doing the contract
goes off automatically. If you happen to inherit some rights of which
you did not know previously, the same happens:

§2
Soweit der Berechtigte über die Rechte gegenwärtig nicht verfügen
kann, überträgt er sie für den Fall, dass ihm die Verfügungsbefugnis
wieder zufällt. Die Übertragung umfasst die vorgenannten Rechte auch
insoweit, als der Berechtigte sie durch Rechtsnachfolge erlangt oder
erlangt hat.

So if the son of an independent artist makes a GEMA contract, and at
some point of time his father dies, the copyrights of the father
automatically come into the reach of the GEMA without further ado.

I have my doubts that all clauses of this contract would survive in
court when challenged in an individual case, but of course the GEMA has
deep pockets in order to keep a case running through the various court
instances until the opposing party is willing to settle out of court
without creating a precedence.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
But there is a snag: any contract that the GEMA made for marketing
purposes (including exclusive long-term deals with record companies),
stays in effect and runs through the standard accounting of GEMA, "in

First off, GEMA issues only nonexclusive licenses so that it can police
the use of rights while holding the exclusive licences from members.

As for the rest, stop being silly paranoid sucker and consider that GEMA
is a *trustee* for its members exclusive rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee

Got it now, silly dak?

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
But there is a snag: any contract that the GEMA made for marketing
purposes (including exclusive long-term deals with record companies),
stays in effect and runs through the standard accounting of GEMA, "in

First off, GEMA issues only nonexclusive licenses so that it can police
the use of rights while holding the exclusive licences from members.
As for the rest, stop being silly paranoid sucker and consider that GEMA
is a *trustee* for its members exclusive rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee

According to what _they_ consider to be in your best interest, deducting
their fees and expenses. If your opinion differs, that does not matter
for the duration of the contract (that runs at least six years).

"Stop being paranoid" about contract conditions is not really good legal
advice. If the terms were not relevant, they would not be there in the
first place.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
Got it now, silly dak?

Sounds like you swallow what the GEMA tells you hook, line and sinker.
Yes, got that.

[Tim Smith]

Post by voodoo

Post by Moshe Goldfarb

Post by Alexander Terekhov
According to IT News, Stallman claimed that artists and musicians were
"not entitled to" compensation from listeners, but governments could
introduce a tax to support their work.

They tried this one already and it failed.
The consumer DAT recorders and tape had a tax built into them to help
compensate artists whose work was going to obviously be copied digital
to digital.

how much of that money made its way to the artists? any?
canada has a setup like that. no reports of disbursements yet.

Not much, but largely because consumer DAT never took off, so there was
very little money collected.

The nice thing is that in exchange for that tax consumers got 17 USC
1008:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of
a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium,
an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based
on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium
for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Anyway, Stallman's right on this one. I'm only going to give a quick
summary of the argument here. More detailed versions can be found
online. Basically, it can be shown by mathematical economists that free
markets for goods are optimal for economic allocation of resources, if
those goods have certain properties. If the goods do not have those
properties, free markets do not work.

Copies of musical recordings are goods that do not have the necessary
properties. A free market in them leads to underproduction and
underconsumption (that is, not as much music is produced as consumers
wish to consume).

There are two ways in theory to fix this, if we want to try to make a
free market work with these kind of goods.

The first is to artificially give the goods the missing properties.
That's what current IP law does. Essentially, copyright law makes it so
copies of music act like toasters or TVs or other physical goods. This
greatly addresses the underproduction problem, but still leads to
underconsumption. (You get underconsumption because the "right" price
economically for copies is essentially zero. If consumers have to pay
more than that, they won't consume as much as they "want" to).

The second approach is to essentially make the goods a public resource.
The government pays for production, and consumers can consume for free.
This addresses the underconsumption problem. However, you are now either
not using the free market to decide what music gets funded, or you are
adding a bureaucracy between the market and the funding, which is going
to cause distortions.

Overall, the first approach (the current IP law approach) works pretty
well--provided most people play by the rules. It seems pretty clear that
most people only play by the rules when breaking the rules takes a lot
of work. E.g., when copying an album as opposed to buying a copy
yourself means borrowing an LP from a friend, buying a blank tape,
copying in real time (and having to flip the record half way through),
many people will just buy their own copy. Those who do pirate have a
limited effect, because people who don't want their LPs trashed only
will let people they trust borrow them to tape.

Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy. You can loan out your CDs with a lot less
fear they will get trashed than there was with LPs. People use P2P to
make things available to millions of people, instead of just to people
they actually know. A lot of people (especially younger people) seem to
feel they are entitled to have someone else pay to have music and movies
available for them.

That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music, and
make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can determine
how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it a try.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music, and
make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can determine
how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North Korea
they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is a paradise
for artists...

regards,
alexander.

[Tim Smith]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music, and
make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can determine
how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North Korea
they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is a paradise
for artists...

Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music, and
make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can determine
how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North Korea
they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is a paradise
for artists...

Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

[Hadron]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music, and
make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can determine
how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North Korea
they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is a paradise
for artists...

Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide

And you determine the amount do you? Streuth.

If people want it they buy it.

And what about copies NOT done over the net and so are not measured?!?!?

You're insane man.

Post by Alan Mackenzie
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously

Whats "handsome" by your standards?

Post by Alan Mackenzie
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now

Yeah, like making it even remotely fair.

Post by Alan Mackenzie
misworks the levy would probably work better.

And yet you have ZERO to base that ludicrous claim on.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by Hadron

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote: [...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music,
and make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can
determine how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it
a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North Korea
they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is a
paradise for artists...

Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year
could provide

And you determine the amount do you? Streuth.

No, you lump of foul-mouthed egregiousness, it gets determined by the
normal political process. It's not exactly a new idea.

Post by Hadron
If people want it they buy it.

People want to download music and films, and then listen and watch them
without hassle. That's currently not possible.

Post by Hadron
And what about copies NOT done over the net and so are not
measured?!?!?

Individual copies would not be "measured", indeed would not need to be
measured.

Post by Hadron
You're insane man.

That summarizes the quality of your posting quite nicely.

Post by Hadron

Post by Alan Mackenzie
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously

Whats "handsome" by your standards?

Post by Alan Mackenzie
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now

Yeah, like making it even remotely fair.

How about you telling us how you'd make copyright fair?

Post by Hadron

Post by Alan Mackenzie
misworks the levy would probably work better.

And yet you have ZERO to base that ludicrous claim on.

You think so? You "know" this, without even asking me? The fact is,
similar levies have worked well in the past, and they could work probably
better than the current system now.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Hadron

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a
year could provide

And you determine the amount do you? Streuth.

No, you lump of foul-mouthed egregiousness, it gets determined by the
normal political process. It's not exactly a new idea.

Post by Hadron
If people want it they buy it.

People want to download music and films, and then listen and watch them
without hassle. That's currently not possible.

Post by Hadron
And what about copies NOT done over the net and so are not
measured?!?!?

Individual copies would not be "measured", indeed would not need to be
measured.

Post by Hadron
You're insane man.

[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
You think so? You "know" this, without even asking me? The fact is,
similar levies have worked well in the past, and they could work
probably better than the current system now.

Hm? What's this about "in the past"? All countries putting a levy on
empty media and copying "contributors" (like hard disks, computers and
so on) have distributing schemes in place based on estimates of
circulation. Germany does, and most EC countries likely as well.

A nuisance for people who buy computing equipment for computing
purposes, or blank media for backups of their own data.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a
year could provide

The fact is, similar levies have worked well in the past, and they
could work probably better than the current system now.

Hm? What's this about "in the past"?

Radio and television licenses have worked well.

Post by David Kastrup
All countries putting a levy on empty media and copying "contributors"
(like hard disks, computers and so on) have distributing schemes in
place based on estimates of circulation. Germany does, and most EC
countries likely as well.
A nuisance for people who buy computing equipment for computing
purposes, or blank media for backups of their own data.

Last time I bought a pack of DVD+RWs, they cost less than 1 euro per
disk. The levy on them truly cannot be anything more than a slight
nuisance.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a
year could provide

The fact is, similar levies have worked well in the past, and they
could work probably better than the current system now.

Hm? What's this about "in the past"?

Radio and television licenses have worked well.

Have they switched off radio and television by now?

[Hadron]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a
year could provide

The fact is, similar levies have worked well in the past, and they
could work probably better than the current system now.

Hm? What's this about "in the past"?

Radio and television licenses have worked well.

Except nothing like the case of albums or pc sw/games etc.

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by David Kastrup
All countries putting a levy on empty media and copying "contributors"
(like hard disks, computers and so on) have distributing schemes in
place based on estimates of circulation. Germany does, and most EC
countries likely as well.
A nuisance for people who buy computing equipment for computing
purposes, or blank media for backups of their own data.

Last time I bought a pack of DVD+RWs, they cost less than 1 euro per
disk. The levy on them truly cannot be anything more than a slight
nuisance.

LOL. Crazyville!


How about this : you want it? You pay for it. Easy.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by David Kastrup
All countries putting a levy on empty media and copying "contributors"
(like hard disks, computers and so on) have distributing schemes in
place based on estimates of circulation. Germany does, and most EC
countries likely as well.
A nuisance for people who buy computing equipment for computing
purposes, or blank media for backups of their own data.

Last time I bought a pack of DVD+RWs, they cost less than 1 euro per
disk. The levy on them truly cannot be anything more than a slight
nuisance.

<URL:http://www.gema.de/fileadmin/inhaltsdateien/musiknutzer/tarife/tarife_sonstige/Tarif_Rohlinge.pdf>

Für die Zeit ab dem 01.01.2010 auf der Grundlage von §§ 54, 54a UrhG
Produkt Vergütung je Stück
CD-R €0,062
CD-RW €0,197
DVD+/-R 4,7 GB €0,139
DVD+/-RW 4,7 GB €0,271
DVD-RAM 4,7 GB €0,550
DVD-RAM 9,4 GB €1,264
DVD Double Sided 9,4 GB €0,117
DVD Double Layer / Dual Layer 8,5 GB €0,386
Blu-ray 25 GB II. €3,473

So your "slight nuisance" makes about a third of your price tag.

Drives and PCs are taxed separately.

[Tim Smith]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music, and
make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they can determine
how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to give it a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North Korea
they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is a paradise
for artists...

Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

Isn't that essentially a tax?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote: [...]

Post by Tim Smith
That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music,
and make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they
can determine how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to
give it a try.

Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North
Korea they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is
a paradise for artists...

Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year
could provide handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are
obviously difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly
copyright now misworks the levy would probably work better.

Isn't that essentially a tax?

It might be, depending on how you view such things. But it is different
from funding musicians via a general tax: It is closely linked to the
activity (downloading) it should pay for; those who object to the tax
can avoid it by having a lower speed connection or none at all; it is
a large amount of money, which should be less subject to reduction by
government cuts; since it would be collected by ISPs, it would be
difficult to avoid paying.

[Ben Pfaff]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

[Hadron]

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

Exactly. Freetards like Alan expect others who dont mind PAYING for
things to also subsidise his abuse of other peoples hard work.

That group are simply insane. Who the fuck are they to say what an
artist deserves for their work? If they don't like it then noone is
forcing them to buy it. It's a market price.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers. It might seem a bit
(or even a lot) unfair, but it's not all that much money. Would you
rather that general taxes be used to support them (as others have
suggested), or that the current "system" continue as it is?

I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

If you're not downloading music or films, do you really need a high
capacity net link? Wouldn't a thinner connection do?

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers. It might seem a bit
(or even a lot) unfair, but it's not all that much money. Would you
rather that general taxes be used to support them (as others have
suggested), or that the current "system" continue as it is?
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

That is going to change next year if I understand correctly. Then you
will be required to pay for a television license on account of having a
home.

Post by Alan Mackenzie
If you're not downloading music or films, do you really need a high
capacity net link? Wouldn't a thinner connection do?

If you are not in possession of electronic devices, do you really need a
roof over your head? Wouldn't a cardboard box do?

Anyway, I find it amusing how any levying scheme here is ridiculed as
the brain farts of wannabe communists and whatever else, when such
systems are in place and working in capitaliC-w free market oriented
countries.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers. It might seem a bit
(or even a lot) unfair, but it's not all that much money. Would you
rather that general taxes be used to support them (as others have
suggested), or that the current "system" continue as it is?
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

That is going to change next year if I understand correctly. Then you
will be required to pay for a television license on account of having a
home.

Yes, but GEZ broadcast fee isn't really a "license." The money goes to
the state-controlled TV and radio stations to support operation and to
*license* (paying royalties for) the copyrights from individual authors
and author associations such as GEMA.

regards,
alexander.

[Hadron]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers. It might seem a bit
(or even a lot) unfair, but it's not all that much money. Would you

So now you are telling people what is and isnt a lot of money while also
railing against people actually PAYING for products they want?

Post by Alan Mackenzie
rather that general taxes be used to support them (as others have
suggested), or that the current "system" continue as it is?

You mean paying for what you want? Err, yes. I certainly dont want YOU
telling me I have to pay taxes for thing I dont want because you are too
tight to pay for them.

Post by Alan Mackenzie
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.
If you're not downloading music or films, do you really need a high
capacity net link? Wouldn't a thinner connection do?

And now you're telling people what bandwidth they should have?

It's rare to meet someone so self obsessed and so convinced they have
all the answers.

You should become a benevolent dictator.

In your little world the only reason people need high bandwidth is to
steal music and films?

Sheesh.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

The point is that neither GEZ broadcast fee nor GEMA fee on empty media
(and other things) replace the system of copyrights and capitalist
market of exclusive rights in intangibles. GEZ/GEMA fee payer gets *NO*
rights reserved to copyright owners in exchange for paying a fee at all.
Whereas in the Stallman's insane anti-copyright model everyone
(presumably even tax exempt poor people) gets all the rights in all
works just because someone else pays "small tax".

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

The point is that neither GEZ broadcast fee nor GEMA fee on empty media
(and other things) replace the system of copyrights and capitalist
market of exclusive rights in intangibles. GEZ/GEMA fee payer gets *NO*
rights reserved to copyright owners in exchange for paying a fee at all.

Making private copies of broadcast recordings is legal in Germany.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

The point is that neither GEZ broadcast fee nor GEMA fee on empty media
(and other things) replace the system of copyrights and capitalist
market of exclusive rights in intangibles. GEZ/GEMA fee payer gets *NO*
rights reserved to copyright owners in exchange for paying a fee at all.

Making private copies of broadcast recordings is legal in Germany.

Yes because it is not an exclusive right, silly. This exemption is
actually why GEMA successfully lobbied the law makers to impose a GEMA
fee on empty media (and other things). The argument was that since GEMA
is a licensing agent regarding the biggest chunk of works broadcasted in
Germany and folks are making private copies of them and it is very had
to police that the use is really private (make sure that folks don't
exchange private copies) it is unfair not to be compensated for private
copying. The solution was to impose a fee on empty media (media for
making private copies) and other things such as iPods with GEMA-fee
providing additional income to GEMA.

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
I do understand the objection; in Germany, I'm required to pay for a
radio license on account of possessing a net-connected computer.

The point is that neither GEZ broadcast fee nor GEMA fee on empty media
(and other things) replace the system of copyrights and capitalist
market of exclusive rights in intangibles. GEZ/GEMA fee payer gets *NO*
rights reserved to copyright owners in exchange for paying a fee at all.

Making private copies of broadcast recordings is legal in Germany.

Yes because it is not an exclusive right, silly.

Making private copies of material with unspecified origin is not legal
in Germany. So yes, the GEZ fee payer gets a right reserved to
copyright owners in exchange for paying his fee.

Private radio stations also pay for broadcasting of GEMA material. They
don't get fees in return. In this case, the radio listener pays for the
right to make a private copy by enduring copious paid advertisements.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
This exemption is actually why GEMA successfully lobbied the law
makers to impose a GEMA fee on empty media (and other things). The
argument was that since GEMA is a licensing agent regarding the
biggest chunk of works broadcasted in Germany and folks are making
private copies of them and it is very had to police that the use is
really private (make sure that folks don't exchange private copies) it
is unfair not to be compensated for private copying. The solution was
to impose a fee on empty media (media for making private copies) and
other things such as iPods with GEMA-fee providing additional income
to GEMA.

Sure. The Gema tries to lobby both for stopping private copying (and
campaigns in order to make people believe it is prohibited), with public
"education", and legal and technical means (copying protection etc), as
well as maintaining a copying levy on empty media and "recording
equipment" including computers and hard disks.

IIRC, public broadcasting is explicitly mentioned in the German
copyright laws as a legitimate source of private copies, in contrast to
public performances.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Making private copies of material with unspecified origin is not legal
in Germany.

Who told you that silly dak?

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__53.html

"soweit nicht zur Vervielfältigung eine offensichtlich rechtswidrig..."

Doesn't mean that the origin must be specified.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Making private copies of material with unspecified origin is not legal
in Germany.

Who told you that silly dak?
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__53.html
"soweit nicht zur Vervielfältigung eine offensichtlich rechtswidrig..."
Doesn't mean that the origin must be specified.

You probably don't get the difference to

"soweit nicht offensichtlich zur Vervielfältigung eine rechtswidrig..."

The first (the law text you quoted) is

"as long as there hasn't been used an obviously illegal..."

The second would be

"as long as there hasn't obviously been used an illegal..."

I have my doubts that a court would accept a defense of "I don't need to
say where I got my original from."

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
I have my doubts that a court would accept a defense of "I don't need to
say where I got my original from."

It us to the prosecutor of alleged copyright infringement to prove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof that a private copy
was made from illegal source, silly.

http://anwalt-im-netz.de/urheberrecht/privatkopie-im-urheberrecht.html

"Eine offensichtlich rechtswidrig hergestellte Vorlage kann z.B. die
garantiert "echte" 1-Euro DVD eines aktuellen Films oder eine CD mit
Musikstücken von Filesharing-börsen sein. Ab 2008 sind auch viele
Filesharingsysteme direkt betroffen: Eine "offensichtlich rechtswidrig"
öffentlich zugänglich gemachte Vorlage, z.B. Musik oder Video, wie man
sie bei Filesharing- oder Peer-top-peer-Netzwerken erhalten kann, kann
ebenfalls nicht Gegenstand einer zulässigen Privatkopie sein."

"Ab dem 01. Januar 2008 stellt bereits der Download einer offensichtlich
rechtwidrig hergestellten oder offensichtlich rechtswidrig öffentlich
zugänglich gemachten Vorlage eine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar, die
zivilrechtlich belangt werden kann. Bisher war nur der Upload, also das
eigene Anbieten solcher Werke in Netzwerken verboten.

Im Klartext: Wer jetzt noch aus Tauschnetzen Musik und Videos
runterlädt, macht sich in der Regel bereits mit dem Download einer
Urheberrechtsverletzung schuldig, wenn klar ist, dass die Vorlage nicht
legal sein konnte, z.B. bei aktuellen Kinofilmen und Musikstücken."

"Wer aber ausserhalb von Tauschnetzen für den Download bei einem Portal
einen angemessenen Preis für die Musik oder den Film gezahlt hatte, z.B.
bei einem seriös erscheinenden Musik- oder Filmanbieter, muss nicht von
einer offensichtlich rechtswidrigen Vorlage oder deren rechtswidrigen
Zugänglichmachung ausgehen. In einem solchen Fall ist weder der Download
noch die Privatkopie verboten.

Was ein angemessener Preis ist, bestimmt natürlich der Markt. Den sollte
man zum Downloadzeitpunkt kennen. Gleichfalls darf der verlangte Preis
nicht auffällig vom Marktpreis abweichen. Kosten von der Hälfte oder
einem Viertel des Marktpreises sind regelmäßig auffällig, es sei denn,
es handelt sich um eine nachvollziehbare Aktion eines bekannten und
seriösen Anbieters."

"Gerade bei YouTube besteht für alle Unsicherheit darüber, was illegal
zur Verfügung gestellt wird oder nicht. So haben marktbeherrschende
Unternehmen wie Sony BMG Music, Warner Music und Universal Music
Abkommen mit YouTube getroffen und liefern Inhalte. Der amerikanische
Fernsehsender CBS gehört auch zu diesem Kreis. Der Download derart
verbreiteter Musikstücke und Videos ist daher unschädlich.

Für den Nutzer von YouTube ist jedoch kaum zu ermitteln, ob eine
Videodatei z.B. eines bekannten Musikers offensichtlich rechtswidrig
öffentlich zugänglich gemacht wurde oder nicht. Daher wird man, von
offensichtlichen Ausnahmen abgesehen, als Nutzer nicht damit rechnen
müssen, bei einem Download solcher Dateien auf den eigenen Rechner
urheberrechtlich belangt zu werden. Bei anderen Anbietern hingegen muss
der Nutzer abwägen und unter Umständen Nachforschungen anstellen."

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
I have my doubts that a court would accept a defense of "I don't need to
say where I got my original from."

It us to the prosecutor of alleged copyright infringement to prove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof that a private copy
was made from illegal source, silly.

It is always fascinating when you dig up a quote that says exactly that
which the people you call names did, in this case something clarifying
that the law text talks about "made from obviously impeding sources"
rather than "made obviously from impeding sources".

So thanks for proving my point.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://anwalt-im-netz.de/urheberrecht/privatkopie-im-urheberrecht.html
"Eine offensichtlich rechtswidrig hergestellte Vorlage kann z.B. die
garantiert "echte" 1-Euro DVD eines aktuellen Films oder eine CD mit
Musikstücken von Filesharing-börsen sein. Ab 2008 sind auch viele
Filesharingsysteme direkt betroffen: Eine "offensichtlich rechtswidrig"
öffentlich zugänglich gemachte Vorlage, z.B. Musik oder Video, wie man
sie bei Filesharing- oder Peer-top-peer-Netzwerken erhalten kann, kann
ebenfalls nicht Gegenstand einer zulässigen Privatkopie sein."
"Ab dem 01. Januar 2008 stellt bereits der Download einer offensichtlich
rechtwidrig hergestellten oder offensichtlich rechtswidrig öffentlich
zugänglich gemachten Vorlage eine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar, die
zivilrechtlich belangt werden kann. Bisher war nur der Upload, also das
eigene Anbieten solcher Werke in Netzwerken verboten.
Im Klartext: Wer jetzt noch aus Tauschnetzen Musik und Videos
runterlädt, macht sich in der Regel bereits mit dem Download einer
Urheberrechtsverletzung schuldig, wenn klar ist, dass die Vorlage nicht
legal sein konnte, z.B. bei aktuellen Kinofilmen und Musikstücken."
"Wer aber ausserhalb von Tauschnetzen für den Download bei einem Portal
einen angemessenen Preis für die Musik oder den Film gezahlt hatte, z.B.
bei einem seriös erscheinenden Musik- oder Filmanbieter, muss nicht von
einer offensichtlich rechtswidrigen Vorlage oder deren rechtswidrigen
Zugänglichmachung ausgehen. In einem solchen Fall ist weder der Download
noch die Privatkopie verboten.
Was ein angemessener Preis ist, bestimmt natürlich der Markt. Den sollte
man zum Downloadzeitpunkt kennen. Gleichfalls darf der verlangte Preis
nicht auffällig vom Marktpreis abweichen. Kosten von der Hälfte oder
einem Viertel des Marktpreises sind regelmäßig auffällig, es sei denn,
es handelt sich um eine nachvollziehbare Aktion eines bekannten und
seriösen Anbieters."
"Gerade bei YouTube besteht für alle Unsicherheit darüber, was illegal
zur Verfügung gestellt wird oder nicht. So haben marktbeherrschende
Unternehmen wie Sony BMG Music, Warner Music und Universal Music
Abkommen mit YouTube getroffen und liefern Inhalte. Der amerikanische
Fernsehsender CBS gehört auch zu diesem Kreis. Der Download derart
verbreiteter Musikstücke und Videos ist daher unschädlich.
Für den Nutzer von YouTube ist jedoch kaum zu ermitteln, ob eine
Videodatei z.B. eines bekannten Musikers offensichtlich rechtswidrig
öffentlich zugänglich gemacht wurde oder nicht. Daher wird man, von
offensichtlichen Ausnahmen abgesehen, als Nutzer nicht damit rechnen
müssen, bei einem Download solcher Dateien auf den eigenen Rechner
urheberrechtlich belangt zu werden. Bei anderen Anbietern hingegen muss
der Nutzer abwägen und unter Umständen Nachforschungen anstellen."
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
It is always fascinating when you dig up a quote that says exactly that
which the people you call names did, in this case something clarifying
that the law text talks about "made from obviously impeding sources"
rather than "made obviously from impeding sources".

Uh silly dak...

To repeat:

It is up to the prosecution of alleged copyright infringement to prove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof that a private copy
was made from illegal source, silly.

The link
http://anwalt-im-netz.de/urheberrecht/privatkopie-im-urheberrecht.html
lists several cases that are rightfully considered illegal source vs.
legal source.

The lawyer also warns about some cases where the prosecution MAY be able
to prove "illegal source" even if the uninformed (ignorant regarding the
market prices of legal non-private copies) maker of a private copy may
think otherwise. Ignorance Is Not Excuse.

The moral is: YOU BETTER KNOW THE MARKET.

See the light now, silly?

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
It is always fascinating when you dig up a quote that says exactly that
which the people you call names did, in this case something clarifying
that the law text talks about "made from obviously impeding sources"
rather than "made obviously from impeding sources".

Uh silly dak...
It is up to the prosecution of alleged copyright infringement to prove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof that a private copy
was made from illegal source, silly.

Your original claim was that the defendant need not specify his source.
That's quite a bit different from claiming that the burden of the
plaintiff is to prove that source to be illegal.

You still don't get the difference. It would seem you are too smart to
understand.

Post by Alexander Terekhov
The link
http://anwalt-im-netz.de/urheberrecht/privatkopie-im-urheberrecht.html
lists several cases that are rightfully considered illegal source vs.
legal source.

It does not state that defendants may refuse to state their source.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Your original claim was that the defendant need not specify his source.

That's true. Who told you that the defendant does need to specify his
source in the absence of alleged proof by the plaintiff that the alleged
source was illegal, you idiot dak?

First, the defendant will attack the alleged plaintiff's proof of
illegal source.

Next, the defendant may lay down the evidence of legal source.

What part in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

don't you understand, silly dak?

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Ben Pfaff]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers.

I write free software in my spare time. Why not require ISP
users to pay a fee to support me, too? It wouldn't have to be a
lot of money per person, as long as everyone with an Internet
connection was required to pay me.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Ben!

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
high speed internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a
year could provide handsome income to musicians and film-makers.
There are obviously difficult practical issues to sort out, but
given how badly copyright now misworks the levy would probably work
better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why should I
pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers.

I write free software in my spare time. Why not require ISP users to
pay a fee to support me, too? It wouldn't have to be a lot of money
per person, as long as everyone with an Internet connection was
required to pay me.

Hey, I write free software too. :-) I also don't download music or
films (apart from very occasionally non-copyright recordings).

Why shouldn't we get a bit from an Internet fee? Probably because the
system would be swiftly subverted by some firm like Oracle or Microsoft,
and we'd all end up paying them. Maybe. I do think your question is a
genuine one, not just a rhetorical one.

[David Kastrup]

I write free software in my spare time. Why not require ISP users to
pay a fee to support me, too? It wouldn't have to be a lot of money
per person, as long as everyone with an Internet connection was
required to pay me.

Hey, I write free software too. :-) I also don't download music or
films (apart from very occasionally non-copyright recordings).

There is no such beast. Even if the original has been created more than
50 years ago, the process of digitizing is, like making a good
photograph of a painting, something needing nominal skills and judgment
and consequently bordering on copyrightable. There is a reason we get
flooded with "remastered" and "improved" recordings and "revised
editions" of old stuff: the idea is to obliterate copies with an older
copyright with something protected reasonably well anew.

Why shouldn't we get a bit from an Internet fee? Probably because the
system would be swiftly subverted by some firm like Oracle or
Microsoft, and we'd all end up paying them.

That's how the recording industry works. That's how the free market
works: whenever you have "small people" with financially exploitable
rights, some organization will form in order to offer concentrating the
necessary business interactions, making them happen at all in many
cases, and making them more streamlined in some cases. The streamlining
then diversifies into bureaucracy and business processes completely out
of control of their supporting energy source, and ultimately consuming a
large ratio of that what they are supposed to administer.

That's what corporations are about. Then we have the financial market
in order to further separate and anonymize supporting forces and
resulting machinery.

In a free market, micropayments without administering corporations are
like capillary blood vessels without veins and arteries.

Just doesn't happen.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by David Kastrup

Hey, I write free software too. :-) I also don't download music or
films (apart from very occasionally non-copyright recordings).

There is no such beast. Even if the original has been created more than
50 years ago, the process of digitizing is, like making a good
photograph of a painting, something needing nominal skills and judgment
and consequently bordering on copyrightable.

These recordings are, presumably, placed on the internet by the people
who remake them, in the expectation they will be downloaded. This surely
constitutes a form of consent (or is it entrapment?) They are donating
their work to the public good, just as other hackers do.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by David Kastrup

Hey, I write free software too. :-) I also don't download music or
films (apart from very occasionally non-copyright recordings).

There is no such beast. Even if the original has been created more than
50 years ago, the process of digitizing is, like making a good
photograph of a painting, something needing nominal skills and judgment
and consequently bordering on copyrightable.

These recordings are, presumably, placed on the internet by the people
who remake them, in the expectation they will be downloaded. This surely
constitutes a form of consent (or is it entrapment?) They are donating
their work to the public good, just as other hackers do.

That does not make them non-copyright.

[Hadron]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by David Kastrup

Hey, I write free software too. :-) I also don't download music or
films (apart from very occasionally non-copyright recordings).

There is no such beast. Even if the original has been created more than
50 years ago, the process of digitizing is, like making a good
photograph of a painting, something needing nominal skills and judgment
and consequently bordering on copyrightable.

These recordings are, presumably, placed on the internet by the people
who remake them, in the expectation they will be downloaded. This surely
constitutes a form of consent (or is it entrapment?) They are donating
their work to the public good, just as other hackers do.

It's now your supposition that any art on the net (music, video etc) on
the net was put there by the original author or person who re-mastered
it?

lol.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
constitutes a form of consent (or is it entrapment?) They are donating
their work to the public good, just as other hackers do.

Year, to the public good... so can we agree that I can resell your
hobbyist work without providing the underlying source code and that
failure to provide the underlying source code isn't a copyright
violation? After all the copyright law says nothing about providing the
underlying source code, no?

regards,
alexander.

"Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a work-from-home father who has gifted
to the world software underlying a significant body of consumer
electronics." ROFL
-- SFLC crooks Ravicher, Williamson, Spiegel

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]

Post by Alan Mackenzie

I write free software in my spare time. Why not require ISP users to
pay a fee to support me, too? It wouldn't have to be a lot of money
per person, as long as everyone with an Internet connection was
required to pay me.

Hey, I write free software too. :-) I also don't download music or
films (apart from very occasionally non-copyright recordings).
Why shouldn't we get a bit from an Internet fee? Probably because the

Go ask the crooks at SFLC and FSF to share their fat salaries with you
hobbyist free software developers.

regards,
alexander.

"Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a work-from-home father who has gifted
to the world software underlying a significant body of consumer
electronics." ROFL
-- SFLC crooks Ravicher, Williamson, Spiegel

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[Hadron]

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Alan Mackenzie
How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but instead
of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on high speed
internet lines. A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year could provide
handsome income to musicians and film-makers. There are obviously
difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly copyright now
misworks the levy would probably work better.

I don't download music or films (legally or illegally). Why
should I pay such a fee?

To support your country's musicians and film makers.

I write free software in my spare time. Why not require ISP
users to pay a fee to support me, too? It wouldn't have to be a
lot of money per person, as long as everyone with an Internet
connection was required to pay me.

And those with broadband can pay you more since clearly they are
downloading more of your SW.

I think Mackenzie might be in serious need of some medication if his
incoherent and inconsistent babbling is anything to go by. His self
belief and desire to tax people is somewhat shocking and suggests to me
he needs to get out of his Mom's basement and live in the real world
some more.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

I think that capitalism (in the sense of market of exclusive rights in
intangibles) is economically sound. The history has shown that all
anti-capitalist experiments has failed miserably.

Compare it to

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-millionaire-asks-100-others-to-pledge-wealth-before-Gates-visit/articleshow/6562720.cms

"China millionaire asks 100 others to pledge wealth before Gates' visit

REUTERS, Sep 16, 2010, 01.15am IST

A Chinese multi-millionaire has persuaded over 100 entrepreneurs to
donate all their personal wealth, state media said on Wednesday, ahead
of a visit by two of the world's richest men to promote philanthropy.

Chen Guangbiao, who is worth an estimated $440 million according to last
year's Hurun rich list, and who is already one of the country's top
donors to good causes, has said he will leave his entire fortune to
charity after he dies.

Chen was also one of the country's first businessmen to announce he
would attend a dinner in China this month hosted by billionaire
philanthropists Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who are visiting to talk
about their Giving Pledge campaign. Many rich Chinese have so far shied
away from attending, according to Chinese media.

Chen said he had convinced over 100 businessman who had "responded to
his appeal to donate all of their personal wealth to society," state
news agency Xinhua reported. "Although the pledge makers do not want to
be exposed to the media, I give my sincere respect to their charity
spirit," Chen told Xinhua.

Microsoft founder Gates and investor Buffett said in a letter this week
they would not be pushing mega-wealthy families to sign up for their
campaign because China had to develop its own culture of philanthropy.
Philanthropy in China has complications beyond issues like waste or
corruption that might worry Western donors.

Some wealthy Chinese fear generous donations could expose fortunes
larger than the government or rivals had calculated, inviting unwanted
attention."

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

I think that capitalism (in the sense of market of exclusive rights in
intangibles) is economically sound. The history has shown that all
anti-capitalist experiments has failed miserably.

Like the experiment of giving authors copyrights that terminate after a
finite time span? History has shown that enough money buys everything,
including lawmakers. Time and again.

It has just not shown that this is a good thing.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Like the experiment of giving authors copyrights that terminate after a
finite time span?

It goes down to reward for creating a new thing (intangible intellectual
thing in this case) to stimulate creation by means of free market. I
think that copyright/patent shall be infinite just like infinite
ownership of tangible things (subject to philanthropy). But other folks
think otherwise.

regards,
alexander.

"Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a work-from-home father who has gifted
to the world software underlying a significant body of consumer
electronics." ROFL
-- SFLC crooks Ravicher, Williamson, Spiegel

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
Like the experiment of giving authors copyrights that terminate after a
finite time span?

It goes down to reward for creating a new thing (intangible intellectual
thing in this case) to stimulate creation by means of free market. I
think that copyright/patent shall be infinite just like infinite
ownership of tangible things (subject to philanthropy). But other folks
think otherwise.

In old times, it had been the privilege of the devil to make contracts
for intangible assets remaining after your death.

Your intangible assets become profitable only by the state guaranteeing
copyright. Why should the state bother to do something like that when
he'll never get anything back?

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
copyright. Why should the state bother to do something like that when
he'll never get anything back?

The state gets http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umsatzsteuer you silly.

regards,
alexander.

"Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a work-from-home father who has gifted
to the world software underlying a significant body of consumer
electronics." ROFL
-- SFLC crooks Ravicher, Williamson, Spiegel

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
copyright. Why should the state bother to do something like that when
he'll never get anything back?

The state gets http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umsatzsteuer you silly.

In case you have not noticed, the state is not an entity separate from
its citizens. And money is not an entity separate from available goods.
Where is the point in letting the state's citizens continue to work in
order to gain access to something that has been finished generations ago
and could simply be copied instead? Where is the point? Some people
seem to think that the purpose of capitalism is to make money go round.
But the purpose is to make goods get to the place where they are called
for. And the purpose of culture is to spread, not limit knowledge and
art.

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
and could simply be copied instead? Where is the point? Some people
seem to think that the purpose of capitalism is to make money go round.

IMO the purpose of capitalism is to make the production of products
rewarded by the money paid for it.

regards,
alexander.

"Plaintiff Erik Andersen is a work-from-home father who has gifted
to the world software underlying a significant body of consumer
electronics." ROFL
-- SFLC crooks Ravicher, Williamson, Spiegel

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
and could simply be copied instead? Where is the point? Some people
seem to think that the purpose of capitalism is to make money go round.

IMO the purpose of capitalism is to make the production of products
rewarded by the money paid for it.

You can't eat money. Money is just a means to organize the distribution
of other goods. Stopping the distribution of other goods is countering
its principal purpose. Works in the public domain are goods, wealth,
culture, quality of life for everyone. Locking them away for perpetuity
is counter to the progress and continuing enrichment of humanity by
culture.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

When you can do shoplifting in the privacy of your home, we'll be at a
comparable situation. When I buy fruit in a supermarket, nobody would
think of installing surveillance cameras on my ground in order to make
sure that I don't plant the seeds of the fruits I buy (actually,
companies like Monsanto did take samples on private property
<URL:http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm> and would likely have
succeeded even in Supreme Court if there had been any indication that
the farmer in question had actually sprayed his fields with the killer
herbicide Roundup after getting his seed culture contaminated with
Monsanto's Roundup resilient seeds).

But Sony, for example, installed root kits on the computers of people
who bought music CDs from them in order to make sure that they would not
try copying the CDs.

And when we are talking the invasion of privacy because there are few
other ways of keeping laws upheld, the balance of rights is not as
simple to establish as with counter-shoplifting measures which are
strictly on the property of the seller.

That was one of the principal reasons for allowing private copies in a
number of legislations: the cost of prohibiting them effectively would
have been too high.

Shoplifting, in contrast, is reasonably containable with less invasion
of privacy ("May I look at your bag?" at cashier's point is somewhat
different from supermarket personnel breaking into your house and
checking your bags semi-regularly).

[Hadron]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

When you can do shoplifting in the privacy of your home, we'll be at a
comparable situation. When I buy fruit in a supermarket, nobody would
think of installing surveillance cameras on my ground in order to make
sure that I don't plant the seeds of the fruits I buy (actually,
companies like Monsanto did take samples on private property
<URL:http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm> and would likely have
succeeded even in Supreme Court if there had been any indication that
the farmer in question had actually sprayed his fields with the killer
herbicide Roundup after getting his seed culture contaminated with
Monsanto's Roundup resilient seeds).
But Sony, for example, installed root kits on the computers of people
who bought music CDs from them in order to make sure that they would not
try copying the CDs.

It takes a special kind of idiot to equate planting seeds from mother
nature to copying someones hard work and potentially distributing it for
free. I salute you.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

When you can do shoplifting in the privacy of your home, we'll be at a
comparable situation. When I buy fruit in a supermarket, nobody would
think of installing surveillance cameras on my ground in order to make
sure that I don't plant the seeds of the fruits I buy (actually,
companies like Monsanto did take samples on private property
<URL:http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm> and would likely have
succeeded even in Supreme Court if there had been any indication that
the farmer in question had actually sprayed his fields with the killer
herbicide Roundup after getting his seed culture contaminated with
Monsanto's Roundup resilient seeds).
But Sony, for example, installed root kits on the computers of people
who bought music CDs from them in order to make sure that they would not
try copying the CDs.

It takes a special kind of idiot to equate planting seeds from mother
nature to copying someones hard work and potentially distributing it for
free.

Well, Monsanto did that, and even the Supreme Court in Canada did not
overturn that part of their reasoning.

We are living in a special kind of idiotic world. If we weren't, we
would not need the GNU project and this Usenet group.

[JEDIDIAH]

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

When you can do shoplifting in the privacy of your home, we'll be at a
comparable situation. When I buy fruit in a supermarket, nobody would
think of installing surveillance cameras on my ground in order to make
sure that I don't plant the seeds of the fruits I buy (actually,
companies like Monsanto did take samples on private property
<URL:http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm> and would likely have
succeeded even in Supreme Court if there had been any indication that
the farmer in question had actually sprayed his fields with the killer
herbicide Roundup after getting his seed culture contaminated with
Monsanto's Roundup resilient seeds).
But Sony, for example, installed root kits on the computers of people
who bought music CDs from them in order to make sure that they would not
try copying the CDs.

It takes a special kind of idiot to equate planting seeds from mother
nature to copying someones hard work and potentially distributing it for
free. I salute you.

Seeds don't come from "mother nature". They're the result of thousands
of years of shared effort and common cultural heritage. Monsanto and Disney
are rather similar in this respect. Both abuse centuries of cooperation and
collaboration.

[Hadron]

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

When you can do shoplifting in the privacy of your home, we'll be at a
comparable situation. When I buy fruit in a supermarket, nobody would
think of installing surveillance cameras on my ground in order to make
sure that I don't plant the seeds of the fruits I buy (actually,
companies like Monsanto did take samples on private property
<URL:http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm> and would likely have
succeeded even in Supreme Court if there had been any indication that
the farmer in question had actually sprayed his fields with the killer
herbicide Roundup after getting his seed culture contaminated with
Monsanto's Roundup resilient seeds).
But Sony, for example, installed root kits on the computers of people
who bought music CDs from them in order to make sure that they would not
try copying the CDs.

It takes a special kind of idiot to equate planting seeds from mother
nature to copying someones hard work and potentially distributing it for
free. I salute you.

Seeds don't come from "mother nature". They're the result of thousands
of years of shared effort and common cultural heritage. Monsanto and Disney
are rather similar in this respect. Both abuse centuries of cooperation and
collaboration.

LOL.

Thats up there with some of the more outrageous bullshit even you have
spouted.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Post by Hadron

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Hadron
It takes a special kind of idiot to equate planting seeds from mother
nature to copying someones hard work and potentially distributing it
for free. I salute you.

Seeds don't come from "mother nature". They're the result of thousands
of years of shared effort and common cultural heritage. Monsanto and
Disney are rather similar in this respect. Both abuse centuries of
cooperation and collaboration.

LOL.
Thats up there with some of the more outrageous bullshit even you have
spouted.

Translation: "I am incapable of giving you an intelligent reply,
therefore I will bluster you with an ad-hominem attack instead.".

[ZnU]

Post by Hadron

Post by JEDIDIAH

Post by Hadron

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

When you can do shoplifting in the privacy of your home, we'll be at a
comparable situation. When I buy fruit in a supermarket, nobody would
think of installing surveillance cameras on my ground in order to make
sure that I don't plant the seeds of the fruits I buy (actually,
companies like Monsanto did take samples on private property
<URL:http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm> and would likely have
succeeded even in Supreme Court if there had been any indication that
the farmer in question had actually sprayed his fields with the killer
herbicide Roundup after getting his seed culture contaminated with
Monsanto's Roundup resilient seeds).
But Sony, for example, installed root kits on the computers of people
who bought music CDs from them in order to make sure that they would not
try copying the CDs.

It takes a special kind of idiot to equate planting seeds from mother
nature to copying someones hard work and potentially distributing it for
free. I salute you.

Seeds don't come from "mother nature". They're the result of thousands
of years of shared effort and common cultural heritage. Monsanto and Disney
are rather similar in this respect. Both abuse centuries of cooperation and
collaboration.

LOL.
Thats up there with some of the more outrageous bullshit even you have
spouted.

This doesn't happen often, and I'm sure he'll make me regret saying it
soon enough, but Jed does have something resembling a point.

Today's food crops have been heavily modified from their natural forms
by collectively practiced selective breeding over the centuries.
Monsanto takes these, makes a few minor tweaks, and under current law,
those tweaked versions become 100% Monsanto's property.

Similarly, much of what Disney does is take works that have become part
of the culture (often fables or myths that have been collectively
developed over long periods of time) and create derivative versions of
them, which similarly, under current law, become 100% Disney's property.

Large corporations commonly draw heavily on the public domain, but are
very much of the opinion that their own works should never enrich it.

[Tim Smith]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

Last time I checked, food and household merchandise have the necessary
attributes that allows a free market to give economically correct
resource allocation, and so have not had to rely on an artificial
infusion of those attributes combined with a societal agreement that we
will pretend that these attributes are real, and so with food and
household goods you do not have the case that you have something with a
marginal cost of zero relying almost completely on people being nice for
it to work.

[Snit]

Tim Smith stated in post

Post by Tim Smith

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

Last time I checked, food and household merchandise have the necessary
attributes that allows a free market to give economically correct
resource allocation, and so have not had to rely on an artificial
infusion of those attributes combined with a societal agreement that we
will pretend that these attributes are real, and so with food and
household goods you do not have the case that you have something with a
marginal cost of zero relying almost completely on people being nice for
it to work.

Food is nowhere near based on a free market, at least not in the US. Beef
and dairy, for example, are heavily subsidized and non-organic produce is
often subsidized as well.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Tim Smith wrote:
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Last time I checked, food and household merchandise have the necessary
attributes that allows a free market to give economically correct
resource allocation, and so have not had to rely on an artificial
infusion of those attributes combined with a societal agreement that we
will pretend that these attributes are real, and so with food and
household goods you do not have the case that you have something with a
marginal cost of zero relying almost completely on people being nice for
it to work.

There are many physical things with the fixed price of development
(think intellectual property) and production facilities dominates (vs.
marginal cost of producing a thing). An example is the CPU. Do you want
Intel to sell their processors for the price of silicon they are made
from? Do you want BMW and Mercedes to sell their cars for the price of
metal and plastic and textile plus a small "marginal cost" to build it
all together?

regards,
alexander.

[JEDIDIAH]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Tim Smith
Digital music, computers, and the internet have changed that. First of
all, copying is fast and easy.

Since shoplifting in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket is
certainly faster and easier than stealing in the pre-supermarket era,
why not go 'total communist' and make food and household merchandise
free as well?

Food and Rent was never free under communism.

[Ezekiel]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-sharing-war
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

Stallman is irrelevant. He can cry about "file sharing" or copyrights or
patents or whatever he wants but ultimately he is powerless to make a
difference.

[Moshe Goldfarb]

Post by Ezekiel

Post by Alexander Terekhov
http://www.techeye.net/software/stallman-calls-for-an-end-to-file-sharing-war
"Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

Stallman is irrelevant. He can cry about "file sharing" or copyrights or
patents or whatever he wants but ultimately he is powerless to make a
difference.

One look at him, or Google of him, and he loses most of his
credibility before he even opens his mouth.

Except with the Linux/FOSS community of course, where he is God to the
unwashed masses.