Off Topic Poker Forums

Are you saying you don't see a difference between copying X without the author's consent and reading X at a library?

i honestly don't. it seems to be effectively the same thing since many people are reading off a single book.

I agree that technology is allowing us to evolve in many ways. I just think, regardless of the manner, someone should be compensated for creating something they wish to sell. I really don't see how you can disagree with that point.

i'm not disagreeing with this. but markets change, potential profits change, and it's less stressful for all of us the sooner people understand this and get on with making cool stuff without having a futile, adversarial relationship between creators and consumers.

And you edited it out already, but to your threat about not continuing this discussion, I say lol. You often make a lot of good points in various threads, but how the heck do you want me to respond when you say, "oh, and fwiw, I've bought some books too." What is the point of that statement? It made me laugh and if you don't see how ridiculous that statement is then there likely isn't a point in continuing.

yeah that was pretty ridiculous of me to get angry. i only bought the last few books since they were too obscure to download.

FWIW, Oliver's book and coaching sessions are worth many times the cost of the book. He's definitely one of the best coaches out there imo.

FWIW, Oliver's book and coaching sessions are worth many times the cost of the book. He's definitely one of the best coaches out there imo.

this

FWIW, Oliver's book and coaching sessions are worth many times the cost of the book. He's definitely one of the best coaches out there imo.

couldn't agree more

I think nawhead raises a bunch of good issues, and the fact that Improva is involved has colored the argument somewhat. It is always harder when it is someone we like who is affected by a general change in attitude/action towards 'rights'.

We have traditionally thought of rights as absolute. And this is a change from mid/early 19th century, but since we were not around back then we fail to see the differences/changes. So not truly knowing the past, and how we got here, we take short cuts in our thinking.

In the mid 1800s music was often copied with new lyrics until copyright laws were instituted.

But even blatant copies are not so cut and dried.

Anyone remember George Harrison losing a case about his tune for "my sweet lord" being copied?

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm

How about the latest one where Men at Work were found to have copied a children's song from 1938? I mean their hit was in 1983, and they are losing in courst 28 years later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8497433.stm

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? And when, note I did not say "if" they do... are they really plagiarists? Did they violate copyright laws?

I know its a stretch, but I really like Nawhead's call to get realistic about what property is worth protecting, and whether it CAN be. If something can not be 100% protected (quarantined, perhaps?) should we not rethink the model.

Anyone think property rights are absolute should look at this link:

http://www.jhtl.org/docs/pdf/SRWILSONV1N1N.pdf

This is a footnoted summary of a "sampling music lawsuits" brief.

For Techmo I have a question:

1. Given that I am allowed to copy a minimal amount of your intellectual property without violating your rights (I think its clear that a single letter is not enough to violate you, then perhaps a word would be okay, maybe two words. maybe 3? and on and on...)

2. Given that I am allowed to copy a note of music of your intellectual property without violating your rights (clearly one is too few, 2 as well, 3 ? 4? )

Am I stealing your property if I put 3-5 notes/words together and with that get to remind you of an entire work? I am thinking of shows like "name that tune" where even 1 or 2 notes make you remember the entire song/tune?

If I sample those same 3/5 notes/words and with it get an enhanced feeling that contributes to my new song being a number one hit, "how much do I owe them?"

My own belief is that there is no difference between a melody, words of a story, and a plot. Yet plots are not copyrighted, right? Why?

I am rambling here, but my main point is that Nawhead seems to be pointing out that things are changing. You can fight the tide to frustration or you can adapt. The most successful of us will probably be those who embrace inevitable changes and learn how to best grow with the times. (pardon me Naw if I am misrepresenting you )

which

Some of the people who download the book write to me and often they tell me that they cannot afford to buy it.. but that they like the old version [None of the torrented versions are actually the latest version. They claim to be.. but it is not true]. Anyway, most of the time I give those people a free copy and a couple of sessions if I can find the time. If those players have any talent at all for the game they end up playing SSNL and buying more coaching.
.

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!

nice post, Which (tho i am biased to agree).

i think in the end, it's about being aware of the long run instead of the short run, just like in poker. One-hundred years from now, we can still be concerned with petty arguments blaming people for "stealing" a copy of Improva's book (copyright laws extend past authors' lives as they are now), or it could be a classic in the field, everybody would have read it, it could be a foundation upon which all players start, and our main concern would be in trying to extend it rather than trying to limit its propagation.

i know which world i want to live in.

(sorry if i sound a little socialist/Star Trek or whatever. i'm reading and being influenced by a lot of material on free markets right now, so maybe it evens out. or is my stance on IP laws in line with free markets, i.e. are IP laws just another form of govt intervention on markets?)

[and to add to the music appreciation side, since i'm a fan of electronic/sampled music, also for your consideration: The world's most important 6-sec drum loop]

[quote]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? And when, note I did not say "if" they do... are they really plagiarists? Did they violate copyright laws?[quote]

No they aren't, that's not how copyright works, it isn't like trade mark/patent protection

[quote]My own belief is that there is no difference between a melody, words of a story, and a plot. Yet plots are not copyrighted, right? Why?[quote]

They're an idea, not a representation of one.

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? And when, note I did not say "if" they do... are they really plagiarists? Did they violate copyright laws?

No they aren't, that's not how copyright works, it isn't like trade mark/patent protection

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?

which

My own belief is that there is no difference between a melody, words of a story, and a plot. Yet plots are not copyrighted, right? Why?

They're an idea, not a representation of one.

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

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.