berkeman said:
Then you've made it obvious that you aren't a working engineer or writer or artist or other person who gains a large portion of their income from copyrighted and patented material, otherwise known as intellectual property. I am one of those people, so yes, I take copyrights seriously. And for legal reasons, so does the PF. Copyright violations will not be tolerated here on the PF. And yes, he could try to lie, but there are often ways to figure that out, and there are many deleted posts that have resulted from such attempted violations here.
So far I don't think there's a copyright violation discussion in this thread, well, until your post. Please steer clear of advocating copyright or patent violations here on the PF, or you will not be here for long.
And you've made it obvious that you think all intellectual advancement is done for profit. One wonders then why, for example, Ben Franklin donated so many of his patents to the public domain, or why so many of those physicists and engineers you mentioned end up working under government grants with their IP going also into the public domain.
Some people create because they are compelled to do so. It's a mistake to project a solely mercenary attitude onto all humanity.
I see you're also the type that likes to win an argument with a threat instead of reason.
Kick me if you like, and delete this thread if you're that threatened by me.
But for the record.
1. I tried to drop it after having said my piece. And you're the one that needlessly injected the question in the first place. Do you always go around interrogating people with file format questions?
2. I'm not advocating copyright violation, I'm simply saying that what Constitutes violation is up for debate and that debate is massive and at times borders on the philosophic. For example, if I type something from memory is it the same as cut and pasting it from somewhere? Should I be allowed to start patenting random large numbers and then suing for license fees when I find them in software? If not why not? We're allowed to patent genes.
If you want my personal opinion on copyright it's this.
If my (our?) country shared your opinion we'd probably still be primarily horse driven. I mean that literally. George B. Selden isn't exactly a household name but Henry Ford sure is.
The attitude that innovation only occurs when motivated by profit has thoroughly been shown to be a myth as a result of numerous scientific funding debates, started by the kinds of people that say NASA and the NSF are wastes of money. The idea that the free market solves all ignores the existence of common good problems. Innovation, copyright, and patents all relate rather closely to modern common good problems.
Corporations don't spend money to solve problems they spend it to profit from ameliorating their symptoms.
I'm a writer btw, and all my work is available for reading for free to anyone. I'd link you, but I'm betting you'd parlay that into a spamming violation to shut me up. I suspect you'll find some other excuse regardless of my adherence to the rules, perhaps by invoking one of the many ever present subjective clauses? Surely showing your logic to be flawed without regard for allowing you to save face could be constructed as disrespectful and rude?
Further, you clearly don't understand the difference between a copyright and a patent, between credit and profit, we as a nation (and by proxy as a planet, since the US exports and imposes it's IP law everywhere, just ask Australia) have allowed business interests and the greedy to in effect patent brush strokes while outlawing competition and holding innovation for ransom.
This behavior and ideology is in fact literally killing people. Pharmaceutical profiteering via tactical patenting is the clearest example.
Allowing the licensing of software and restricting the flow of facts was and is a colossal mistake. If this (your) attitude had been prevalent from the outset we'd not have libraries at all.
By your logic cave painting was done on commission for tiger meat. What a sad view of human creativity and compassion you must have. Art done for money is Britney Spears, art done for the soul is Bach.
Again, if it were me I'd by just a touch worried that I'm on the same side of the issue as the RIAA, Monsanto, Apple, Dow, Eli Lilly and every other greedy innovation squashing Corporate monster.
Literally thousands of technologies sit gathering dust because some defunct company owns the patent.
But I guess knowledge should only go to those that can afford to buy it eh?
How about you not respond and we focus on the PDF splitting, hmm? Or do I get to play the digital version of Rodney King? I guess we'll see if this is a free speech zone.
