|
Title: Copyright Math Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on March 16, 2012, 04:18:56 PM http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/16/author-hilariously-illustrates-why-copyright-math-is-bogus/
Quote Giving a recent TED Talk, author Rob Reid, creator of the online music subscription service Rhapsody, illustrated for the audience exactly why so-called “copyright math” is almost completely bogus. “Copyright math” is a term used for the extrapolations published by groups like the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), or the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which lobby Washington for tougher laws on copyright infringement by claiming exorbitant financial and job losses due to online piracy. The best thread on this forum that references copyright laws is 116 pages long and is entitled Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.0 http://www.the-digital-reader.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ringtone-piracy.jpg Discuss. ~Bruno~ Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: BadBear on March 16, 2012, 04:44:33 PM Your thread, you go first. ;)
Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on March 16, 2012, 04:51:29 PM Your thread, you go first. ;) No you don't! I'm not falling for that trap, BadBear. Somebody else is going have to post a comment before I get involved in this vital politicized discussion. Do I have Atlas written on my forehead? (something tells me that I may regret writing that last sentence) ~Cackling Bear~ Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: FirstAscent on March 16, 2012, 05:08:23 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic.
Frustrating as hell. Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: P_Shep on March 16, 2012, 05:14:23 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. God, I hate it when that happens. Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: proudhon on March 16, 2012, 05:17:49 PM The math checks out. Next.
Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: notme on March 16, 2012, 05:20:04 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. Here are some provocative viewpoints that are nearly on topic: 0.999999999.......... < 1 Pi is more awesome than e P=NP Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on March 16, 2012, 05:57:21 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. Stupid me! You are correct, FirstAscent. I have now added an image to the OP. The video is only about 5 minutes long and fun to watch. ~Bruno~ Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: FirstAscent on March 16, 2012, 05:59:10 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. Here are some provocative viewpoints that are nearly on topic: 0.999999999.......... < 1 If the digits on the LHS go on forever, is the above statement true or false? Speaking of provocative, is Godel's Theorem provocative? I only wish I understood it enough to say yes or no. Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: FirstAscent on March 16, 2012, 06:02:04 PM Stupid me! You are correct, FirstAscent. I speak from firsthand experience. Quote I have now added an image to the OP. The video is only about 5 minutes long and fun to watch. Sadly, I have not yet watched the video. Frustrating, isn't it? I mean, geez, it's just five minutes. And I love TED too! However, the image is somewhat helpful. So is he saying that stupid ringtones are where the financial losses are, and music piracy does not account for most of the losses? Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: notme on March 16, 2012, 06:24:25 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. Here are some provocative viewpoints that are nearly on topic: 0.999999999.......... < 1 If the digits on the LHS go on forever, is the above statement true or false? Speaking of provocative, is Godel's Theorem provocative? I only wish I understood it enough to say yes or no. Which of his theorems? One of the two incompleteness theorems, or one of his other works? Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on March 16, 2012, 06:25:40 PM Stupid me! You are correct, FirstAscent. I speak from firsthand experience. Quote I have now added an image to the OP. The video is only about 5 minutes long and fun to watch. Sadly, I have not yet watched the video. Frustrating, isn't it? I mean, geez, it's just five minutes. And I love TED too! However, the image is somewhat helpful. So is he saying that stupid ringtones are where the financial losses are, and music piracy does not account for most of the losses? Now, I official admit that I fucked up! I've revised the OP some more. Thank you, FirstAscent, again, for bringing this to my attention. I will never again start a new thread offering up a so vague first post. ~Bruno~ Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: FirstAscent on March 16, 2012, 06:46:57 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. Here are some provocative viewpoints that are nearly on topic: 0.999999999.......... < 1 If the digits on the LHS go on forever, is the above statement true or false? Speaking of provocative, is Godel's Theorem provocative? I only wish I understood it enough to say yes or no. Which of his theorems? One of the two incompleteness theorems, or one of his other works? Godel's incompleteness theorem(s) is/are known as Godel's Theorem. Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: FirstAscent on March 16, 2012, 06:56:38 PM The best thread on this forum that references copyright laws is 116 pages long and is entitled Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.0 I was a participant in that thread. For the record, a movie is a stream of data which can be construed to be a very large number that, even if compressed, changed, and so on, is unlikely to exist anywhere else in our Solar System as something which exists for the purpose of viewing. Conclusion: it only exists because a group of people made it, and would not have existed otherwise, and thus, its creators deserve to not have it copied and distributed by others. Title: Re: Copyright Math Post by: notme on March 16, 2012, 07:29:05 PM Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic. Frustrating as hell. Here are some provocative viewpoints that are nearly on topic: 0.999999999.......... < 1 If the digits on the LHS go on forever, is the above statement true or false? Speaking of provocative, is Godel's Theorem provocative? I only wish I understood it enough to say yes or no. Which of his theorems? One of the two incompleteness theorems, or one of his other works? Godel's incompleteness theorem(s) is/are known as Godel's Theorem. Well, I find the first more provocative than the second, which is why I ask. Also, Godel had other theorems in the areas of computability and recursive functions. But, most provocative of all was his work proving the undisprovability of the axiom of choice, which opened up thousands of new proofs never before possible. |
