Off Topic Poker Forums

Is anyone NOT familiar with the argument that if you put enough monkeys in front of a typewriter (insert your own number of zeros here) one of them would reproduce Hamlet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mGXYVlLJQo

http://youtu.be/JcSUWP0QNeY

Regarding the topic, piracy is a form of theft in definitions that have a useful or practical meaning.

However, the nature of the product being sold/service provided makes it very easy to be stolen (through ease of duplication), as does the difficulty of enforcement, which prevents any law from properly working.

If you get into selling something of this nature then you pretty much just have to suck it up when it comes to piracy, as enforcement often carries a high cost.

The monkeys situation is a silly hypothetical that I don't think I should even bother talking about, but I will for fun. So let's take this idea of the zookeeper-cum-animal abuse playwright with infinite time and infinite monkeys.

How many scripts did he have them type out before Hamlet was arrived at? Why isn't he selling all the close to infinite other scripts that are filled with gibberish in his store? The answer is because the Hamlet script is recognised as being identical to a previous piece of work and he is piggybacking off that.

If he gave his monkeys one shot to recreate Hamlet and they did, I would probably give it to him to be honest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqY4WnxKkmk

So if their (the monkeys') work is sold by the gift shop at the Zoo, how much do they get sued for? Or is it okay? I mean you agreed they did it on their own?

As long as the zoo gift shop didn't steal if from the monkeys. Mind you, getting them to sign the publishing deal would take another infinite amount of time.

[quote]They're an idea, not a representation of one.[/quote]

Deets, you lost me on this.

I can represent the plot in words, I can represent the sounds with notes on a piece of paper, and I can represent the story (before there were books there were oral histories (stories) ) with letters strung into sentences, paragraphs and maybe even chapters.

These all seem very similar to me, but I am old, and stuck in my ways.

which[/quote]
If you wrote the plot out on a piece of paper you could copyright that but you couldn't copyright the idea of the plot itself.

If someone else made a film that amounted to a character reading out your plot it would breach your copyright. If they acted out a story based on your plot, it wouldn't.

To protect an idea you need to rely on things like trade marks (you can trade mark a name or title, you can't copyright them. You can copyright the physical representation of a logo, though, as well as trade mark it); patents, design rights and, in some territories, unfair competition law such as parasitisme in France.

All these rights have done a good job at promoting invention without handcuffing creativity if you ask me. It's an incredibly difficult line.

All these rights have done a good job at promoting invention without handcuffing creativity if you ask me. It's an incredibly difficult line.

And the difficulty itself lends itself to unfairness. As in the George Harrison case. If two people could come up with the exact same tune without help from each other (I think we can agree that Harrison was a capable tunesmith with no profit motive) why should only one be granted the earning potential?

I realize that 'proving' stuff like this is very difficult, so we take the easy way, and say 'first up wins', but what about the Amen Break that Nawhead linked to (y'all really should listen to the youtube, it was very interesting ) A totally different company now "owns" the rights even though they stole it from the originators.

And for those who think this plays out somewhat fairly, there are many cases where the need to 'defend your trademark' winds up with the little guy getting hammered.

oh, almost forgot.......... we have not even started with photography. Now THAT's a can of worms

which

Have been thinking about it even more.

Improva.......... if you had just had the foresight to put on your website that you don't email the book until you speak to the purchasers via skype, we would not be in this mess.

You sir, need to improve your customer experience !!!

That is the answer to copyright laws.

which

For anyone interested in the George Harrison story, here is the youtube side-by-side.
My Sweet Lord vs. He's So Fine

The judge awarded the plaintiff (originally 1.6mill). The judge said the two songs were nearly identical regardless of minor differences the defense was claiming. Later in court, Harrison confessed to knowing the original song. He claimed, "Subconcious Copying".
---------------------

......Improva, I have not agreed with very much of your philosophy regarding Capitalism vs Socialism. BUT I am on your side on this one -- because I believe that creative/intelligent people should benefit from their creations -- AT LEAST for a substantial time-period before the rats are permitted to steal. There absolutely is an incentive to sit down and do what you did ($$$), and the individuals/companies should be allowed to CAPITALIZE on their works with a protected market (for at least a time period).
......As to your altruistic response of giving free training to those in need, I just think that is very good marketing. You said yourself, that they might come back and pay for training. Nothing wrong with that. In fact that is a little of what the book FREE is about. (still it is capitalism and profit).


It is a bit sickening to read a part of a community philosophying about the correctness of blatant stealing from another member. Sad IMO. The true long-run is that the laws have not yet caught up with the Wild West of the Internet (history). The world economy will never succeed with China philosophies that it is okay to steal another's market/brand. Everyone knows it.
......BTW, I worked in Beijing for a bit. Wow. Everything is copied. Northface. Polo Shirts. etc Everything. Incredible. Yeah, I bought a bunch of knocked-off stuff at fractions of the real price -- because I could. I admit it.

I admit that I am a pirating fool of different things electronic, but there is no way I would ever go on a forum and spit in some guy's face about it. It is stealing. Everyone knows it. Those who don't, definitely are not Improva's friend.

EDIT: OK. Now, can I get some of your altruistic FREE coaching Improva? Just kidding. At this moment, I really do not have time.

I PM'd Improva a while back asking if it'd be possible to get a discount on an old edition of the book but didn't get a response. Now I know I should have nicked it first!

I got a lot of emails and PMs and I often forget to answer. I'm a little distracted at times. Anyway I have answered your PM.

Cheers Oliver, sorry if my post came across as grouchy, it was 3 in the morning when I wrote it and all the intellectual property talk was reminding me of work on a Friday night.

@The people justifying piracy: Just because it is easy to make a copy does not make it easier to create the original work.

Have been thinking about it even more.

Improva.......... if you had just had the foresight to put on your website that you don't email the book until you speak to the purchasers via skype, we would not be in this mess.

You sir, need to improve your customer experience !!!

That is the answer to copyright laws.

which

They do get an email:

Dear [firstname],

You have successfully registered as one of our [memberlevel] members.

Please keep this information safe as it contains your username.

Your Membership Info:
U: [username]

Please contact add me on skype: oliver-improva

Then we can talk a little about your game and upgrade your account so you get full access.

The world economy will never succeed with China philosophies that it is okay to steal another's market/brand. Everyone knows it.

Sneakers,

If you even had a clue it would be nice. You really think the United States can take the moral high ground here? Weren't they the member of the WTO that ignored the World court ruling vs Antigua?

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/3/wto-issues-ruling-against-us.htm

The United States looks out for itself (and I am a US citizen), PERIOD !!!!

If the world wanted to stop knock offs they could. For many reasons, EVERY GOVERNMENT looks the other way, at times.

It is a bit sickening to read a part of a community philosophying about the correctness of blatant stealing from another member. Sad IMO.

yes-- very sad when members can not have a discussion without worrying about others' health issues. "sickening" to see an important discussion about cutting edge technology and how it is, and gets affected by legal systems set up before this 'science fiction' stuff even got invented.

You want to know what is sick? How bout the actors, producers, etc who had contracts giving them royalties on future sales, but DVDs, and CDs, and DVRs, and VCRs, and streaming video had not even been invented yet. Want to guess how much they are getting? You standing in picket lines with them? Or do you just buy/download the DVD/CD and don't worry about the artists that thought they were getting compensated for future revenue off of their hard work?

I wish all the 'holier than thous' could really see how their purchases related to the real world of compensation for those they think "should" be getting their true value.

Sneakers, you ever in your life got a copy of something you did not pay for? Download something you should not have? Purchase a bootleg copy of something? And if not, any of your friends, relatives, anyone you know?

You turning them in? Yourself?

Well, we all the know the answer to these questions don't we? I would go on, but I am about to get sick....

The moral high ground has little room left nowadays, and its not because there are so many there already.

Which

They do get an email:

Dear [firstname],

You have successfully registered as one of our [memberlevel] members.

Please keep this information safe as it contains your username.

Your Membership Info:
U: [username]

Please contact add me on skype: oliver-improva

Then we can talk a little about your game and upgrade your account so you get full access.

Hello, yesterday i just purchased the Poker Puzzle 2nd edition and unlike other poker ebooks and videos there WAS NOT and immediate email sent with the links. My checking account has been charged over $500 and I have nothing! Are you there Oliver? I am 95% sure this is not a mailed item, i have sent a couple emails can you please reply

Well, maybe you should have sent it out sooner? Or added that the book would NOT be mailed until you spoke to him? Because this all started because a customer felt compelled to post

just sayin.....

which

which:

If you reread sneakers post you will see that he was neither taking the moral high ground nor playing holier than thou. He was simply expressing his opinion that intellectual property should be protected. I don't think that anyone in this thread has pretended to have squeeky clean hands, only that they feel that this discussion in this particular thread is a slap in the face to Improva.

As for someone not getting an immediate response from Improva...who cares? If he was out to rip anyone off that would be one thing but as things stand that delayed response is a pretty flimsy rack to hang your hat on.

which:

As for someone not getting an immediate response from Improva...who cares? If he was out to rip anyone off that would be one thing but as things stand that delayed response is a pretty flimsy rack to hang your hat on.

I was teasing Improva about how a perceived lack of customer service resulted in all this getting started. He showed the email that he sends out, and i was again teasing him about the fact that it basically failed to put this particular customer at ease.

which

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpajoF4Uyew&feature=related

@The people justifying piracy: Just because it is easy to make a copy does not make it easier to create the original work.

argument is only valid if we tried to justify piracy with the amount of creativity involved for copied works.

even with your opinion of "us people," much respect improva.

The true long-run is that the laws have not yet caught up with the Wild West of the Internet (history). The world economy will never succeed with China philosophies that it is okay to steal another's market/brand. Everyone knows it.

the subtlety of differentiating profiting on trademarks for commercial use vs merely consuming and spreading creative works for personal use and societal benefit is lost on the uncritical observer (and followers of Pope Copyright), as usual.

argument is only valid if we tried to justify piracy with the amount of creativity involved for copied works.

That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. The fact that it is trivial to make a copy is irrelevant for the debate because it has no or little impact on the effort required to create the original work. Copyright is all about protecting the original investment.

If I could create a new book every month I would not care.. but that is just not possible. You are making the mistake of assuming that (Digital content = Digital content). Not all business models work equally well.

What I'm saying is... when you create something where there is a large personal investment copyright is reasonable and should be respected.

I simply don't understand how anyone, regardless of the security measures, ability to enforce said measures, medium, etc., can think it is ok to take something they didn't pay for and actually try to justify it with a myriad of excuses. To those in that camp, where is your sense of right and wrong? Who the F cares about the logistics of it all? It is wrong to take something that someone is selling if you didn't pay for it. It's as simple as that. Nothing else matters. The fact that the seller should continue to innovate because people like you are forcing them to do so does not make it right that you take their stuff.

I'm done now. Clearly those who think they can take what is not theirs are not going to change their minds because it would be far too inconvenient. I mean, at the end of the day, why not sacrifice your integrity for an episode of Breaking Bad?

I simply don't understand how anyone, regardless of the security measures, ability to enforce said measures, medium, etc., can think it is ok to take something they didn't pay for and actually try to justify it with a myriad of excuses.

1. to not put words in your mouth TSB, you would extend this to "not pay enough for"?

2. you would also extend this outrage beyond the bounds of creative content to other forms of property as well?

3. And the last question would be to ask if you are a citizen of the United States?

there is a term called Eminent Domain here that the various local, state, and national organizations use to 'steal' all sorts of things.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/little-pink-house-by-jeff-benedict/

And if the answer to the above is that you are in the US, you sir, are part of the system that condones stuff like this. So is sneakers (if in US). And sadly, so am I.

nawhead didnt say much of what is alluded to in the others' posts. And outrage for a single person is strange to me. It seems the argument for discussions like this, which are rarely discussions, since no one's preconceived notions seem to be even nicked, let alone changed, generally centers on:

"I like (insert name here), so this particular act is wrong. I just never understand .... you are (insert level of moral depravity here) and you are just using (insert lack of intelligent argument here) to have your way."

TCB, do you honestly think I do not understand your points?

Have I ever said anything close to "you guys who disagree with us, well, go ahead and sacrifice your integrity for .......... "

Yet, somehow, the person who goes against the majority winds up being the bad guy. True in history for a long long time. Then when they, the great unwashed, find out the earth really does revolve around the sun, well, sorry, but that guy is already gone.

I think property 'rights' and the changing history of it to be fascinating. There are so many shades of grey there. But that is probably because I am color blind.

which

Nawhead wrote:
you're confusing taking a physical object with transmission of ideas contained within it. with a hardcopy, if i take it, you no longer have access to the book, and you have a real loss in assets. but if i create a copy, you still have the original.

i posed the simple question before to Nixon but never got an answer: if i have "stolen" from someone when i copy a ebook, what do they have less of than before?

so by this same logic, if i read a book in a library, or buy a book 2nd hand (as the author "loses" business), or even borrow a book from a friend, i have stolen something from the creator. it does not follow.

I'm splicing a couple quotes from different posts because they are about the same thing.

Regarding the first, it seems you are saying if I have two copies of the same book on my desk it can't be stealing to take one because I haven't lost anything. As the one who loses a book, I would disagree.
DLing content isn't stealing from the person who uploaded it. In fact, that's the problem. Borrowing a book from a friend means the friend can't have the book, and/or that you have to return it. DLing it creates a whole new book that was not paid for. The book in the library was bought by someone who does not have it anymore. You (in theory) should be returning a library book when you borrow it. If you went to the library and instead of checking a book out, made copies of it, you would be stealing.

Intellectual property laws can get murky to be sure. But if you're copying someone else's creation without paying for it, chances are you're on the wrong side.

EUSSI wrote:
btw, about the theft thing and what not, my uncle is a famous belgian singer/songwriter.
he is one of the biggest selling singers in the country, and probably also in europe.
i talked to him on the matter and he said he rather have people download his music, then not listening to it at all.
he makes music because he loves doing his job, and he loves the fact that people apreciate his voice and his music, thus listening to it.
obv making money of it is great, but with most of the people out there making music, money comes in second, there love for the music is to great to even start bothering about what is being downloaded en what is being bought.

ofc, this has nothing to do with the comment i said about improvas book, just saying

Does that mean all of his future music will be free to all, or does he still plan to sell albums?

1. to not put words in your mouth TSB, you would extend this to "not pay enough for"?

I don't know what you mean here.

2. you would also extend this outrage beyond the bounds of creative content to other forms of property as well?

I extend it to pretty much anything someone is selling that someone else takes without providing the necessary compensation.

3. And the last question would be to ask if you are a citizen of the United States?

there is a term called Eminent Domain here that the various local, state, and national organizations use to 'steal' all sorts of things.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/little-pink-house-by-jeff-benedict/

And if the answer to the above is that you are in the US, you sir, are part of the system that condones stuff like this. So is sneakers (if in US). And sadly, so am I.

Yes, US citizen. Not sure how other people stealing matters. I think Sneakers is in Mexico fwiw.

"I like (insert name here), so this particular act is wrong. I just never understand .... you are (insert level of moral depravity here) and you are just using (insert lack of intelligent argument here) to have your way."

To be perfectly honest, I'm not Improva's biggest fan so my opinion of him matters not. I respect him and think he's probably a cool dude, but my personal experience with his customer service was less than satisfactory. I bring this up not to make Improva look bad, but only to show that my feelings on this issue are pure.

TCB, do you honestly think I do not understand your points?

Idk. All I know is that taking something that isn't mine is wrong.

Have I ever said anything close to "you guys who disagree with us, well, go ahead and sacrifice your integrity for .......... "

I haven't read everything ITT, but I'd guess no.

I think property 'rights' and the changing history of it to be fascinating. There are so many shades of grey there. But that is probably because I am color blind.

It becomes less grey to me when you look at it as "Did I pay for this? Oh, I didn't? Then I either need to pay for it or give it back."

I'm actually done now. I only responded out of respect, but I have said everything I have to say on this topic.

I don't know what you mean here.

What I meant was that "pay" in your example would be pretty much comparable to "not pay enough for" in mine. In other words, the pay should measure up to what the 'owner' feels its worth is, not some outside entity's sense of it.

can think it is ok to take something they didn't pay for

All I know is that taking something that isn't mine is wrong

My understanding of one of Naw's points is that we as a society should revisit what the term taking has evolved into. In a digital world, it is certainly less obvious that in the old days.

Not sure how other people stealing matters. I think Sneakers is in Mexico fwiw.

Stealing is a legal term, which is decided upon by the government, right? If the case goes against me, I am wrong, if it does not, by definition, I am not 'legally' wrong. For you to use the term so loosely and judgmentally really defeats the purpose of the discussion.

IF, and I agree, there are many that disagree with any of my thoughts, you think stealing is an 'end result' label of my actions AFTER being judged by legal means, then sure, 'stealing' is bad. But until we as a society agree as to what 'taking' digital substance is, stealing is a harsh word to use for those who disagree with your particular sentiment.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not Improva's biggest fan so my opinion of him matters not. I respect him and think he's probably a cool dude, but my personal experience with his customer service was less than satisfactory. I bring this up not to make Improva look bad, but only to show that my feelings on this issue are pure.

And I do not know him at all, so my motives should be pure as well. My point was, these discussions usually do not hit home until it is someone you know (and like, so kudos to you for getting involved in this. Shows more principal IMHO).

Idk. All I know is that taking something that isn't mine is wrong.

Well, want to really learn an issue? Try defending the side you disagree with.... I have played devil's advocate so often it is second nature (y'all could probably tell this already ) Instead of attacking something/someone , trying to examine the various sides of an issue might actually promote getting to the point you want to end up at.

If you (as a group) cannot get beyond the 'all I know is...' type stuff, then we will all just be agreeing to disagree right?

I haven't read everything ITT, but I'd guess no.

And yet your 'go ahead and sacrifice your integrity...' remark seems justified to you? I mean, all those guys who disagree are that lacking in integrity in your opinion? If so, you have a very broad brush sir.

It becomes less grey to me when you look at it as "Did I pay for this? Oh, I didn't? Then I either need to pay for it or give it back."

So when you visit places do you research the area first? My point about eminent domain was made in part because there is a shopping center here in DFW that took/stole/paid less than what the owners felt was fair just to have a parking lot extended for a Nordstroms to be built. Until a recent Supreme Court decision, it was wrong/illegal to take something for private use, rather than public 'good'. In our twisted world, this no longer seems true (in the US). So, when a park is built on land that is 'taken' do you still visit? You shopping anywhere this is true?

So does your "I" in the above refer to you as part of a society? Or just you as a person, who might be blindly traveling around preferring to NOT know all the things that were NOT paid for?

TSB, my point is that we are all part of a system that we at times disagree with. It is a price of belonging to a society. And 'society' decides what is right and wrong.

Nawhead seemed to be saying that the digital world is creating change. Business , economic, and legal systems will need to adjust.

I'm actually done now. I only responded out of respect, but I have said everything I have to say on this topic.

Actually TSB, I am sorry to see you go, you seem to think about these things a little clearer than many.

which