Re: Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

[David Kastrup]

Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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  Written by a protestant in an old catholic rite outdated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.

>> 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.

-- 
David Kastrup