The question for all of you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#141
moving_electron said:
The copywrite does not protect the electrical aspects of the schematic. So someone else can legally redraw the schematic and post that to their site. The electrical design aspects would have to be protected in some other way to prevent this from a legal point of view.
Click to expand...

I wondered when someone would point this out. It is utterly amazing what people think a Copyright will do. (And it does more harm by "helping" to facilitate a lay-persons feeling that they have been "ripped-off" when they BELIEVE their copyright has been violated... and of course it usually has not been violated.)

A beginners guide to Intellectual Property:

Typical Copyright in the US costs $500
Typical Trademark in the US costs $2,500
Typical Patent in the US costs $200,000
(extrapolation of value is similar in other countries as well).

Now ask yourself this when looking at all 3: Why would anyone spend 200k when they could get the same protection by only spending 500 bucks? Answer: They wouldn't - because they can't. Each IP "grant" is VERY different.

The notion that Intellectual Property rights are US (Inspired/Dominated) is F A R more naive though than what the average person thinks a Copyright will protect.

*********************
As to what seems fair or right, (not legal), with regard to the board here..

Everyone will be just a bit different with their reaction. From this collective we will have an average and a deviation on both "ends" of the "response spectrum". Thats cool, and I respect it. (Not that I neccesarily respect everyones opinion, but that I respect their right to have AND voice* their opinion.)

There are a couple of things however that seem absurd to me, and appear very much as the "child-ish tantrum" others have alluded to:

1. The moderators have rather plainly stated what is and is not acceptable behaviour on the forum (both expressly, when we signed up and occasionally in such threads, and implicitly everytime they do or don't do something about what is posted). Whether you, (or I), think it is fair or "right" is immaterial because everytime we post here we have all accepted these rules. So what we have here is effectivly: "I accept your rules.. I am now here to post within the rules that I don't accept the rules".

2. *Voicing an opinion seems perfectly acceptable in a Forum setting - even one as stuptifyingly absurd as the example in #1 above. What isn't acceptable (obviously to me), is voicing that opinion again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again and again, and again, and a... well hopefully you get the idea.

Either problem in #1 or 2 could be described as a certain child-ish trait. When you put both together however you virtually set the definition for that trait - WHINNING.
 
#143
ScottG said:
A beginners guide to Intellectual Property:

Typical Copyright in the US costs $500
(...)
Click to expand...
"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection."

( from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr )

But again: this is really not about copyright, about legal issues and stuff. I can't repeat this anymore.
 
#145
"people"?

I've read THIS thread - its FAR more than enough. And I've read other threads like this one. It's a case of "same song second verse, same as the first".

___________

And it most certainly is about legal issues (at least to a degree), though you may not have intended it to be. Why? Because others have made it so when forming a response. (i.e. respondants don't live in a "vacum".)

As for "registration" - I don't believe I ever used that term, nor was it intended. (nor was it the point..)

___________

as to "Fair play", Carlos - did you not state your position some time ago?
 
#147
#149
ScottG said:
OK.. the other was existential, but this one is down right HILARIOUS!!!!
Click to expand...

Of course it is.
I'm not in your mood.
I arrived here yesterday, you came in today.
I'm really not in your tune, after trying to explain what should be automatic, trying to explain the unnecessary: besides fair play, it may be a question of education.
IMHO.

EDIT:
This is HILARIOUS too:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=518163#post518163
 
#152
Well, over 150 posts (in this thread alone) and we seem to have covered many subjects, even if they are not really to do with the original post!

This is about respect, pure and simple, not about the law, about profit, nor explaining things to people.

I can't help thinking that a simple moderator's statement, pointing out the ethics of using information found on the diyAudio forums should be for personal use only, unless the user has sought permission from the relevant poster(s) to use it for other purposes, would have been sufficient! 😉

In an effort to draw things to a conclusion, perhaps I may end with a quote which is as relevant as a lot of the other stuff posted in this thread.

The rational faculty is dependent upon something which is not in and of the mind itself. Either it accepts "a priori"
concepts or intuitions or else it produces "a posteriori"
conclusions drawn from external observations. The idea of "a
priori" conclusions -- that is to say, conclusions drawn prior
to experience -- is good when they are founded upon faith,
that is to say, the attunement of heart. But even intuition is
of no value unless it is put into practice in life.

So far as the mind depending on the senses, not even the
scientists do this. Some philosophers have falsely drawn
conclusions by this method, but when the philosopher's
reasoning is examined, it is generally found that he has
assumed "a Priori" that conclusions must be "a posteriori". In
other words, it has been something other than reason which has
proclaimed the value and supremacy of reason. This is the
fallacy and dilemma of all worldly thinkers.
Click to expand...
 
#153
When I’ve started this thread, I was very aware of the fact there will be different opinions (nor did I want to hear them all the same, I exactly wanted to hear them) but, a bit unexpected for me, moderators (not all, but generally) appear not to understand some simple problems.

This is not overture for my leave from here, but this situation reminds me on the reasons why Thorsten some time ago left the Audio Asylum (he came back as far as I can see, but that’s another topic 😉 ).
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/56369.html
Emphasis is on the second paragraph.

Pedja
 
#157
What do you (the aggrieved) think the moderators should do?
Click to expand...

I can't help thinking that a simple moderator's statement, pointing out the ethics of using information found on the diyAudio forums should be for personal use only, unless the user has sought permission from the relevant poster(s) to use it for other purposes, would have been sufficient!
Click to expand...

How specific do you want Jeff? 😉
 
#158
Nuuk said:




How specific do you want Jeff? 😉
Click to expand...

Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing.

What you quote is incomplete. The implication is that there will be consequences for violating this agreement. What are the consequences? Who will arbitrate who is to receive the credit or acknowledgement? If I'm a moderator I'm not putting my hand up for a mess like that!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom