Balance wrote:It should be observed by everybody that not only libertarians question Intellectual Property. Other people fight it as a part of a general struggle against capitalism. Some people claim to do it out of religious fervor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Church_of_Kopimism
Definitely. I am a bit sour on it (though not completely against it) on grounds of economic efficiency. I'm just trying to lead Nagano down a rabbit hole.
Ah, I see. How's it working?
hyperpape wrote:
nagano wrote:The implication seems to be that by allowing your computer to receive information and respond to it, that you have implicitly agreed to allow someone to gain access to your computer by use of these means. But this misses the mark. If you found a lost laptop in public, do you automatically have the right to snoop through the owner's files if he did not bother to set a password, or if you're good at cracking passwords? No. How is doing so remotely any different? While the owner may have set up the computer to communicate over a network, this is only agreeing to share very specific information, not the general contents of the computer.
Exactly what information are you agreeing to share? And how is that agreement established? In the actual world, they're established by case law and precedent. But neither of those explanations are available to you.
Why are neither of those explanations available to me? Even under anarcho-capitalism, there would be a system of private law that would interpret what is and is not a violation of legitimate property rights.
hyperpape wrote:
This is analogous to arguing that you have the right to enter a house by picking the lock simply because it has uncovered windows, and therefore, some of the information is set up to be "shared" with the outside. Again I will stress the point that goods, be they scarce or non-scarce, can be owned as individual copies (thus they cannot be trespassed against), but no one can hold a monopoly right over the idea of the good.
This is the disanalogy I see. My house is my own. By default, you cannot do anything to it. If you are a handyman, I might give you a narrowly circumscribed right to make a specific modification, which is demarcated from other things you might do by the physical characteristics of what you are doing ("open this door, not that door..."). When you connect your computer to a network, it communicates by a simple protocol (or couple of protocols) which all reduce to a model of sending information or messages from one computer to another. Arguing that computer hacking is a crime requires you to effectively say that some messages are ok, but not others. I doubt such a distinction can be rationalized in terms of property rights. It comes down to much mushier things, like privacy, trade secrets, and simple utility.
Are you saying that if the handyman went to the opposite side of the house, found your social security card, and wrote down the number, he would not be liable if you had not told him not to do that specific thing? This seems to be your assertion with network protocols; that if you permit any action on your property, and do not expressly prohibit all others, then such an action is not a violation of any property right.
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War
daal wrote:I disagree, and think that Nagano's analogy is excellent. The house/handyman issue can be reduced in the same way that you reduce connecting a computer to a network to sending messages. What is a door anyway besides being the way to get in and out of a house? Whether the ownership of ideas is as simple as property rights or mushier, to me it boils down to a question of common decency. It's not decent to take what's on somebody else's computer without asking, and it's not decent to mass produce someone else's work without their permission. How to regulate it is a matter for professional muddlers.
It's not the function of the law to regulate decency. It's the function of the law to regulate conflicts surrounding property rights. Decency is a very subjective, almost religious concept. One's views of decency should not be forced upon another.
For instance, if your brother owns a bookstore, and you're shopping for some books, it might be decent to stop by your brother's store first. But your brother has no rights to your custom; nor can he legitimately use force (his own or that of the government) to compel you to do the decent thing. There may also be other considerations, like ease, in play.
RobertJasiek wrote: For the third time: I am saying that a single game's move sequence is (outside Japan) not copyright-protected.
In the US, the broadcast of an event has a copyright protected. Move sequences are broadcasted to services such as Oro. It is muddy water, not so clear cut as you are making it.
I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.
RobertJasiek wrote:I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.
Can you explain how the copy right is in effect during the game, but lapses immediately afterwards? I have never heard of this before. Copyright usually only expires after many decades.
RobertJasiek wrote:I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.
Can you explain how the copy right is in effect during the game, but lapses immediately afterwards? I have never heard of this before. Copyright usually only expires after many decades.
I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.
RobertJasiek wrote:I do not doubt that a broadcast (video / audio) stream is copyrighted. If a go service broadcasts a game live (say on IGS), then that broadcasting service should not be used for establishing another live broadcasting service, which merely copies the other service (say on KGS), provided there is no permission and no agreed cooperation. There should, however, not be an exclusive right for only one particular broadcasting journalist at an event's site. When an event is not live any longer, then the games' move sequences (their coordinates) have become history and now my earlier stated opinion applies to them.
Can you explain how the copy right is in effect during the game, but lapses immediately afterwards? I have never heard of this before. Copyright usually only expires after many decades.
I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.
Although what you write is completely right Boidhre, turns out the Premiership is a bad example according to this reddit link. A company claims ownership of this data. In the US this data is free, not so clear in the UK. Afaik, in the EU it is, too.
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net
Boidhre wrote:I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.
Although what you write is completely right Boidhre, turns out the Premiership is a bad example according to this reddit link. A company claims ownership of this data. In the US this data is free, not so clear in the UK. Afaik, in the EU it is, too.
Hmm, I'd be really interested to see the result of that court case Yahoo is taking against them.
Boidhre wrote:I imagine he means that a literal broadcast, especially one with commentary, by a site like IGS would be copyright but the move order would not be subject to such copyright, similar to how it works in chess or with sports where anyone can report what happened but you can't legally rebroadcast say the television pictures or radio commentary of a football game. For instance, Sky has the rights to broadcast most Premier League Soccer games in the UK & Ireland but it is not illegal for someone to watch such a broadcast and then post up in their blog a blow-by-blow account of what happened in the game in their own words.
Although what you write is completely right Boidhre, turns out the Premiership is a bad example according to this reddit link. A company claims ownership of this data. In the US this data is free, not so clear in the UK. Afaik, in the EU it is, too.
Hmm, I'd be really interested to see the result of that court case Yahoo is taking against them.
Me too. It looks like Yahoo should win it easily, but who knows...
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net
straight copy additional text snippage to original text <snip> minor rewording
Andrew Kay wins Challengers League Thu, 07/06/2012 - 15:49 — Jon Diamond Tournament Name: Challengers' League Venue: Nippon Club, London Tournament Date: 1 June 2012 - 4 June 2012
The<snip>Challengers' League is the penultimate event in the Championship cycle.With Matthew Macfadyen in retirement, there is a new sense of interest in who will win take the title this year- it will definitely be a new name on the trophy.
Eightof the UK's finest players descended on the Nippon Club, London from June 1st to 4th, for the all play all event. In first place, with 6 wins from 7, was Andrew 'the Great Destroyer Kay.' There was nearly a 4 way tiebreak for second place, but cream rises to the top, and Nick 'Slowhand' Krempel, played his way to a 5th win, taking outright second.
These two will now meet inthe best-of-three Title Match,which will be relayed via KGS. Watch out for more detailed announcements when plans have been finalised.With a mighty 10 titles currently in his possession, Kay must be seen as favourite over last year's defeated finalist, Krempel. Many thanks are due to Kiyohiko Tanaka, Rippei Hayashi and the Nippon Club for hosting, and Michael Webster and Alistair Wall for sharing the refereeing duties with Jenny Radcliffe.
