On Fri, 27 May 2005, Ely Levy wrote:
This thread is full of personal insults is completly off
topic for this list to this list as far as I can see.
Can you guys please keep it on hamakor discussion list?
No.. This thread is not welcome in Hamakor's discussion list as well :)
I suggest people
This thread is full of personal insults is completly off
topic for this list to this list as far as I can see.
Can you guys please keep it on hamakor discussion list?
there is no reason to cross email it.
Ely Levy
System group
Computer Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Fri, 27 May
UB>> Your own argument was based on "may more people see nothing wrong
UB>> with it" - so "many people" are only relevant when they appear to
UB>> support your view?
No. The point was people actually are divided on that - and there aren't
many things that are "illegal and immoral" (meaning by tha
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
UB>> There are a lot of people who believe, as I do, that disrespecting IP is
UB>> immoral. So your presentation of it is misleading, and your question is
UB>> better unasked.
OK, they do believe so, so what?
Your own argument was based on "may more people see nothin
UB>> There are a lot of people who believe, as I do, that disrespecting IP is
UB>> immoral. So your presentation of it is misleading, and your question is
UB>> better unasked.
OK, they do believe so, so what? My point is entirely different - that
there are not many things that "everybody does it
IZ>> You seem to forget that the music industry is only one of the MANY
IZ>> industries who rely on the copyrights laws. All these industries
IZ>> provide work and job places for many other industries and etc. etc.
IZ>> etc.
I do not forget this - I just considered it obvious that everything
apply
IZ>> Domino Effect"? Music for example pays salaries of numerous of people,
IZ>> allowing them to be able to buy other products and services, and by that
IZ>> help other people receive a paycheck. Producing and trading copyrighted
If music industry ceased to exist, these people without any doubt w
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:18:57PM +0300, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Since the whole copyright discussion is over by popular demand, I won't
answer that.
> Actually, I don't see absolute value in GPL existance. With all due
> respect to RMS, his crusade against commercial software vendors doesn't
EE>> Many people are also avoiding taxes or not follow traffic rules. Do
EE>> you think we need to change our laws to fit what is comfortable to
EE>> most people?
Actually, what can be the nobler purpose for the law if not making life
more comfortable to the most people? ;)
EE>> is chosen by th
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
UB>> That's the "everybody's doing it" argument. There's a whole of a lot
UB>> of immoral and illegal stuff you can "justify" with that.
Actually, I have hard time thinking about anything illegal and immoral
that a lot of people are doing and even more people see nothi
UB>> That's the "everybody's doing it" argument. There's a whole of a lot
UB>> of immoral and illegal stuff you can "justify" with that.
Actually, I have hard time thinking about anything illegal and immoral
that a lot of people are doing and even more people see nothing bad in
doing even if the
GSM>> It's taking of something that you don't have permission to. If that
GSM>> is not stealing, what is?
I hereby deny you permission to breath the air. You are still breathing.
Are you stealing, are you a thief?
GSM>> Note that without copyright laws the GPL would not exist. It would be
Act
://mariska.inter.net.il/~imriz/imriz.pgp
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:17 PM
To: Imri Zvik
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Acting against anti-file-swapping Lawsuits in Israel
On Wednesday 25 May 2005 19:11, you wrote:
> Yo
GSM>> Yes. Your house of cards is built on the concept that copyrighted
GSM>> material is not intelectual property. In most countries it is. The
IP is a very peculiar concept - it's a property for the thing that is not
scarce. You have regular property right on, say, your car because cars are
scar
riska.inter.net.il/~imriz/imriz.pgp
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Imri Zvik
Subject: Re: Acting against anti-file-swapping Lawsuits in Israel
On Wednesday 25 May 2005 13:11, you wrote:
> Shlomi,
>
> It's not
to discuss?
--
Imri Zvik
PGP (2.6.3ia) Public Key: http://mariska.inter.net.il/~imriz/imriz.pgp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shlomi Fish
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:05 PM
To: Uri Bruck
Cc: linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: Acting a
On Wednesday 25 May 2005 14:45, Imri Zvik wrote:
> When people start choosing what laws to obey and what not, it is the
> fastest way to chaos.
The only valid laws are the prevention of initiatory force, threat of force,
or fraud against one's self or property (not the so-called "intellectual
p
off everything you own in
court.
--
Imri Zvik
PGP (2.6.3ia) Public Key: http://mariska.inter.net.il/~imriz/imriz.pgp
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:22 PM
To: Imri Zvik
Cc: linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: Acting ag
> just because that's how *you* think things need to be, then you
> are not too different than the people who block our roads in
> the morning protesting; nor the even more extreme kinds.
i agree. shlomi's actually trying to change something that's wrong with our
legal/political system (like the
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Wednesday 25 May 2005 02:56, Oron Peled wrote:
because traditional copyright law does not allow the copyright
holder to prohibit someone for doing that with a public work.
Ok, let's go REALLY traditional:
"the author and authors of any
Don't they teach you to wrap your lines in NDS?
El-al, Netta wrote:
> i agree. shlomi's actually trying to change something that's wrong with our
> legal/political system (like the protesters) and not just sitting at home
> crying about the fate of humanity.
There is a variety of change a pers
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> H... no mention of non-commercial copying or re-distribution.
Shlomi, *this* is trolling. You're talking about things
*way* over your head, about issues that are non-issues
as there is a written law.
In one of the very first replies to this thread I
clearly copied the wr
Dear all,
I don't mind becoming a SCSI cable at the moment, if that's what it
takes to stop the argument and flames.
I believe that we all raised our points here, and this discussion is
not going anywhere. Orr summarized the discussion pretty well, in my
opinion.
Please, if anybody feels like ans
eat day,
--
Imri Zvik
PGP (2.6.3ia) Public Key: http://mariska.inter.net.il/~imriz/imriz.pgp
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:06 PM
To: Imri Zvik
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Acting against anti-file-swapping Lawsuits
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 23:54, Uri Bruck wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
do you think it is desirable to enforce a law that prevents people from
ripping a CD/eBook/DVD/whatever and sharing it online? Do you think it
would be practical? Do you think that it is a crime to do that?
good stuff that they like and film directors / composers would
strive to create much better content.
That's my perfect win-win situation.
Alon.
- Original Message -
From: "Shlomi Fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Uri Bruck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 22:43, Maxim Kovgan wrote:
> Let me put more stuff into the discussion.
> Shlomi, with all due the respect to your PERL, Python and other
> creations, you GAIN from open source: fame, knowledge, friends ... and
> eventually you will get your salary out of it.
>
Maybe, maybe
On Wednesday 25 May 2005 02:56, Oron Peled wrote:
> > because traditional copyright law does not allow the copyright
> > holder to prohibit someone for doing that with a public work.
>
> Ok, let's go REALLY traditional:
>
> "the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already
>
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 23:54, Uri Bruck wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > do you think it is desirable to enforce a law that prevents people from
> > ripping a CD/eBook/DVD/whatever and sharing it online? Do you think it
> > would be practical? Do you think that it is a crime to do that?
> >
> > Tech
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 22:32, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> ... distributing a copy non-commercially isn't infringing on one's
> copyright,
Darn, Shlomi, are you keep mixing facts and fiction by accident
or are you trolling us?
Copyrights deals with distribution rights. If you distribute 1,000
copies of
I do not believe I enter this pointless thread. Oh well.
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:11:01PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:32:03PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >
> > You seems to have missed Shlomi's valid point here:
> >
> > Infriging copyrights is not exactly
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 23:17, Gil Freund wrote:
> > However, regardless of the intention of the original copyrights law,
> > which were formed during a time where technology was considerably less
> > capable of easily copying and distributing a copyrighted (or PD for that
> > matter) material than
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 23:11, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> It's taking of something that you don't have permission to. If that is
> not stealing, what is?
It's not taking, either.
Taking and stealing both imply that the person you took from now has less of
the thing you took. A zero-sum system.
Shlomi Fish wrote:
do you think it is desirable to enforce a law that prevents people from
ripping a CD/eBook/DVD/whatever and sharing it online? Do you think it would
be practical? Do you think that it is a crime to do that?
Technology advances, and law and philosophy must advance with it.
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 22:26, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >"Absolute Ethics" does not exist.
>
> Hmmm... interesting statement. Would you approve of an Ethical system in
> which Murder was ethical? Or that theft (real world theft, not "theft" of
> copyrighted material) was? After all, absolute ethics
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:47, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> This is a blatant lie. If it's protected by copyright, then copying it is
> illegal unless you already own a copy.
And even then it's still illegal in most places (incl. Israel, apparently?).
> No it's not. As I said before in every coun
Hi
My last post to this OT thread
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:32:03PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> The way I see it the copyrights system gives authors too broad
> protection. Thus too much work will practically never be in the public
> domain and be a source of inspiration for future authors. I
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:32:03PM +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> You seems to have missed Shlomi's valid point here:
>
> Infriging copyrights is not exactly stealing, because the copyrights
> holder is still left with the "goods". It may be illegal, immoral and/or
> publically non-hygienic, but
On 5/24/05, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:54, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > One note, if I may:
> >
> > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:02:26PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > First of all, will you stop with this stealing thing? The only time I
> > > could have stole dat
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:19, Alon Altman wrote:
> Without a mechanism that ensures compensation to the funders of the meida
> (not the artists), there will be very little creation, simply because it
> costs too much.
Not forever it doesn't. Technology and availability are constantly improving.
So
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:39:49PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:47, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> > This is a blatant lie. If it's protected by copyright, then copying it is
> > illegal unless you already own a copy.
> And even then it's still illegal in most places (incl.
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:32, Uri Bruck wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 16:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:46:27PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Check:
http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
This is a very well written artic
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:54, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> One note, if I may:
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:02:26PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > First of all, will you stop with this stealing thing? The only time I
> > could have stole data is if I intruded to someone's computer and got some
> > piece
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:32, Uri Bruck wrote:
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 May 2005 16:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> >>On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:46:27PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >>>Check:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
> >>
> >>This is a very well written ar
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:19, Alon Altman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > I seriously doubt that without copyrights there would be very little
> > creation. Just look at all the wonderful content you can find on the
> > Internet that is available to the public. Artists create b
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:16, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> רק למען הפרוטוקול יש הרבה יותר לזכויות
> יוצרים מאשר מניעת העתקה. בין שאר
> הזכויות שהן מקנות (ואין מניעה ליוצר לוותר
> עליהן):
>
> 1. התניית attribution לכל עותק של היצירה.
>
> 2. התנייה שכל עותק נגזר או כולל של היצירה
> יהיה תחת רשיון ובעלות ש
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:47, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> This is a blatant lie. If it's protected by copyright, then copying it is
> illegal unless you already own a copy.
And even then it's still illegal in most places (incl. Israel, apparently?).
> No it's not. As I said before in every coun
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 19:57, Alon Altman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Elad Efrat wrote:
> > This is *stealing*. You are not to decide what you need to
> > pay for, and your ideology is not that of the one who made
> > the music, nor the circle of people who helped him put it
> > into a CD.
>
>
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 20:02, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Furthermore, making a copy of a song, video,
> picture, etc. is not infringing on one's copyright.
Yes it is. Copyright is the exclusive right to copy which you don't have.
That's exactly what it is. You're not allowed to make copies of things (w
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 18:52, Shai Berger wrote:
>
> בעבודה אני על כנף-הרעם של מוזילה, ומסתבר
> שהיא עושה דברים משונים... בכל
> אופן, זה מה שכתבתי:
>
> שלומי,
>
> הפרשנות שלך לעיקרון ה"מכירה הראשונית" היא
> מפוקפקת משהו; זו הפעם הראשונה
> שאני שומע פרשנות כזאת. הפרשנות המקובלת, עד
> כמה שידוע ל
Hi
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:47:01PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:02:26PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > Do you mean it tries to justify software copyright infringement? And I
> > specificlaly mentioned that intellectual property was an incorrect term
> > b
One note, if I may:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:02:26PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> First of all, will you stop with this stealing thing? The only time I could
> have stole data is if I intruded to someone's computer and got some piece of
> data which was private or confidential. This is real st
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:02:26PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Do you mean it tries to justify software copyright infringement? And I
> specificlaly mentioned that intellectual property was an incorrect term
> because it isn't property and because copyrights, patents and trademarks are
> comple
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
In your article, you write the following:
"Neither I, nor my sisters or fathers feel an ounce of guilt about
having downloading these songs without buying them afterward. While I
highly approve of Online Music Buying services like iTu
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 16:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:46:27PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Check:
http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
This is a very well written article, which attempts to justify software
and other intelectual property
Shlomi Fish wrote:
http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
" As an artist, I can testify that making a
living out of one's creations plays a very marginal in one's artistic
activities. The main motivation is creating something new and getting
everybody possible to experience it, and comme
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I seriously doubt that without copyrights there would be very little creation.
Just look at all the wonderful content you can find on the Internet that is
available to the public. Artists create because they _need_ to create. I am
an artist and have written
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 16:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:46:27PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Check:
> >
> > http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
>
> This is a very well written article, which attempts to justify software
> and other intelectual property using th
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Elad Efrat wrote:
This is *stealing*. You are not to decide what you need to
pay for, and your ideology is not that of the one who made
the music, nor the circle of people who helped him put it
into a CD.
Just one point: This is breaking the law, which is a big no-no in a
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:46:27PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Check:
>
> http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
This is a very well written article, which attempts to justify software
and other intelectual property using the following skewed arguments:
1. It isn't copy protected, so it's okay
got a bit carried away I forgot to say I have no idea if hamakor deals
with it or not:)
Ely Levy
System group
Computer Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Ely Levy wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> > Check:
> >
> > http://www.advogato.org/article/
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Check:
>
> http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
>
> Is it part of Hamakor's agenda to protect the people's right to share media
> files? If not, whom should I contact about further action? The Israeli
> Society for Human and Civil rights?
Which right
62 matches
Mail list logo
