Re: Asimov Site

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

John has slipped away from the workbench again, and having finished three net
apps in a single evening, gives us his high school freshmen view of the world.
;-)

**** **** wrote:

> Frank Townsend wrote in message ...
>

<snip>

> Value does not mean $$$.

Few things mean $$$ whatever that means???

> Some of the most valuable things on the planet are
> said to be priceless. There are those that wish to earn money, so that they
> can survive and even more so be comfortable. There are those that only wish
> to see "profit", no matter what it takes.

The redundancy rabbit bites again. "Profit" is earning money.  ;-)

> For this latter group, anything
> they see as being "valuable" to others makes their eyes light up as "profit
> thoughts" subdue any other brain activity. They are no longer using the
> system as it should be, but exploiting it, mostly for exploitation's sake.

Where is the former group? I suppose you don't work a job? You don't try to make
money? And you certainly never exploit and opportunity do you? Still living at
home with mom and dad exploiting them? ;-)

>
> Maybe we shouldn't actually outlaw such behavior, but it's strange how often
> you stand up to defend it, or even encourage it.

Because it's why the standard of living is so high in North American and
northwestern Europe.

>
>
> >> If it has monetary value, why isn't it for sale anymore from the
> >> copyright owner?
> >
> >You didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours.  The cost of
> >reproduction and marketing may have exceeded the expected return.  But
> >whatever the reason, it doesn't matter.  Copyright confers the exclusive
> >right to make copies, regardless of the value of the copyrighted work.
>
> Funny, but distrobution costs of software are as near zero as is possible.

You obviously haven't shipped anything by rail or truck lately have you? Paid
for any gas? Where do you buy your writable CDs? Do Passenger Pigeons carry them
to you? Watch out for their droppings.

>
> As far as marketing goes, fuck marketing. If all the advertising agencies in
> the world were to be nuked,

Never passed any biology courses did you John?

Never passed any business courses either, did you John? Advertising and
Marketing are related, but not identical. Marketing and Sales are also related,
but not identical. And if you wish to sell a program, you need to get it before
the customer's eyes, and that in this age, still means on store shelves. And
advertising, and marketing, and sales, is how you get your program in the
customer's home, and his money in your bank account.

> the only bad thing would be if it somehow
> managed to miss getting the politicians consulting for their election
> campaigns.
>

Sounds like someone in the 50% who don't vote, but think they still have a right
to complain about how things get (don't get) done here.  ;-)

>
> Here's a Bullshit to English translation, for those that missed all of this.

John know his Bull...  ;-)

>
> >You didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours. Translation: I just
> scored 2 points.
> >The cost of reproduction and marketing may have exceeded the expected
> return.  Translation: I have been living in a cave since 1994. What is this
> Inter-thingy?

John's living in his basement bedroom, and has never seen the millions of trucks
and trains that transport the goods that working people buy every day in the
millions of stores in this country.

>
> >But whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. Translation: It doesn't matter
> if you come up with reasonable or even good laws, we'll find loopholes to
> exploit, and hire corporate lawyers to ream those holes out wider.

John, lawyers and sex acts. What's the connection?  ;-)

>
> >Copyright confers the exclusive right to make copies, regardless of the
> value of the copyrighted work. Translation: I once heard a rumor that
> copyrights were brought about to encourage new works to be created, to enter
> the public domain after a reasonable amount of time. Whoever said that
> though has to be dead by now, so just try to prove it!!

I once heard a rumor about an ethernetcard....

>
>
> >> > Besides, I have plenty of things around my house which I treasure,
> which
> >> > have no value to the rest of the universe.  However they are mine, and
> >just
> >> > because they are truely valueless does not divest me of ownership.
> >>
> >> Would you object a lot of someone made copies of them?  Such copies may
> >> exist more than you're aware of -- for instance on photos your friends
> >> did snap in your home....
>
> Oh f***.

That's an improvement.

> Someone better retain a lawyer,

Here we go with the lawyers again.  ;-)

> and supoena several hundred close
> friends and family. I mean, he's not out so much money, but it is the
> principle of the thing!!!

>
>
> <snip>

>
> >Most people here are comfortable with these rules.
>
> He forgot to mention that most people are sheep, and will start jumping off
> tall buildings without parachutes, as soon as some sick fashion architect
> decides to portray it as cool.

Baaaaaaaaaaa!!!! LOL! Oh John, you slay me! But, seeing the idiots with tattoos
and piercings, perhaps you are right.

>
>
> >> Now, which of these two alternatives would YOU have preferred?
> >
> >I prefer people not roaming into my yard.  I'll stay here, thank you.
>
> He hates the idea of having more privileges/rights, if it means conceding he
> was wrong to you.

John means, he wants the right to what's yours.

> It's kinda why we genocided the native americans, they had
> these funny ideologies that humans can't actually own land.

Strange, where I live is where the Sioux stole land from the Omaha. By warfare
too. And here I thought only scum sucking europeans like the nasty swedes who
settled here did things like that.

> We really showed
> those dumb motherf***ers, didn't we?

I kinda think your mother would wash your mouth out with soap if she saw that.
Someone ought to.

>
>
> >> > Even if you have a license from the owner to enter, you do not have
> >> > an automatic right to remove objects from the land.  Basic property
> law.
> >>
> >> Perhaps I don't even have the right to move a stone or a stick from
> >> one place to another place, within that property?
> >
> >Perhaps.
>
> He's not even willing to say somewhat sane things, if it means conceding a
> point to you.

If you move sticks and rocks in some locations of some national parks you could
have things like that happen to you. If you pick wildflowers in some parts of
the US you get a nice hefty fine too.

> If he were forced to live in Sweden,

You'd have to force me to live there. Now Oslo would be nice I suppose. I have
kin folk there.

> he'd hire lawyers to argu
> e that your entering others land creates foul and unconscionable damage in
> the manner of footprints,

Well, if the government can do that to us to protect the environment, why not
private citizens on their own property?

> and seeking an injuction until such time as you
> manage to levitate. After all, if he doesn't protect his rights, he'll lose
> them.

You got that one right. Which is why I'd never consent to live in New Jersey.
Ok, so there are other good reasons not to live in Jersey.  Ok, lots of good
reasons not to live in Jersey.   ;-)

>
>
> >> But I do still have the right to walk around, if I have the
> >> landowner's permission, right?  Now, what happens if I step on a
> >> stick and break it.  May I be forced to pay damages then?
> >
> >Under Anglo-Saxon law, licensees may be liable for damages to property.
>
> Of course, there is always the chance that he may forget to breathe for
> longer than 15 minutes, and do us all a favor.

Strange John, you were the one showing the signs of oxygen starvation... No
short term memory....

> Barring that, this is the
> prime example of what decent half-way intelligent human beings have to
> contend with on a daily basis. I'm betting he's either middle management, or
> a goverment bureaucrat.

My, you sound like a half-way intelligent human being. Too bad you don't sound
like a fully intelligent human being. I'll bet you are either the assistant
manager of a fast food store, or still looking for your first job. ;-)

>
>
> >>As you say
> >> below, the principle counts, not the value of the item...
> >
> >Yes and no.  As to laws regarding theft, the value is unimportant.  As to
> >civil suits, the value is important in determining damages.
>
> Translation: Years and decades of being subhuman, and a complete dumbass to
> boot, have taught me that rules only apply when they favor me, or when I can
> forsee them possibly favoring me in the future. The best possible legal
> strategy is to push for full prosecution, and then sue in civil court for no
> less than $20 million. In this sense, we can have our "principles" and eat
> them too!

Well, John, I must say that not only do you know your bull, you also know your
subhuman lifestyles.

Roy