It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science & Technology, when shared freely, are a threat to the social order

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Because most people are not twisted like you. If EVERYONE did it he would .. and your claim is that it's not theft and is ok.


No, because people pay for his records and his live performance fees

even people who also listen to him on youtube

"if everyone did what i do"

I love that argument

try it




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You can't patent a book.

*facepalm*



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

That's what copyright means

ownership of the right to reproduce an idea

yet science requires reproduction of experiments to verify conclusions



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

No it's not. Patent is not copyright.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

English, motherlover.

Do you speak it?



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

No wonder you're having such a hard time with semantics:


Patents refer to an invention, whereas copyrights refer to the expression of an idea, such as an artistic work. They are governed by different rules, so it is important to know which is applicable to your works.


cjam.info...



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Actually it was regarding to the topic, most people has a, illusion of things, i write a book and make a million dollars..

Did you contact a publisher with a draft? and the reply is; No.. '

And when they dont make money they blame something that really wasnt part of the issue to begin with..

The topic at hand, technology and science, should it be made free? My answer is no, does it have anything to do with getting a paycheck, no not really..

Information should be free, but fiction is a fantasy.. So no, fiction shouldnt be free..
But dont use freedom of information with a work of fiction..



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Now we are in a very different argument. You can do as you like with that physical copy. What you can NOT do is what the OP says you can .. which is make copies and give those copies to as many people as you want.


So what is the difference between me borrowing you my original bought DVD or providing you with a link to someone who likes to share stuff he owns ?

Maybe you want to prevent people from sharing stuff they legally own ?




You can not download it and give it to 1 million people and claim you know for a fact none of them would have gone.


Of course I cant know that...but neither can the owner/producer in a vice versa case. How can he claim profits that were by your words.."stolen"...unless having in depth insight in one man's mind and intentions ?




Never once did I make that claim. I claimed if you give it to 1 million people you caused a loss.


And you state it again...here. By using a word "loss", you imply a set in figure of planned profit. There can be no financial loss...as long as you covered production cost...everything over that is profit. What companies like to do...(my own included) is to make financial prediction of profit margin based on popularity or quality of the product. Not achieving financial plans...usually doesnt entail "loss"...just unachieved profit margins.




When you share it with others is when you stole it.


And this is one of the things I feel very strongly about being wrong in this society we created. Sharing stuff you own is considered theft. Exposing the ugly truth is considered treason...and so on. I'm sorry man...but with my last dying breath...I will never belong to that society. It doesnt matter how many laws you invent to protect the sacred profit margins.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Cjam is not a legit source of linguistic definition as compared to Oxford's dictionary

That's like saying bossa nova is not music based on george bush's opinion of tap dancing

go away



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly




And this is one of the things I feel very strongly about being wrong in this society we created. Sharing stuff you own is considered theft. Exposing the ugly truth is considered treason...and so on. I'm sorry man...but with my last dying breath...I will never belong to that society. It doesnt matter how many laws you invent to protect the sacred profit margins.


Thanks for being raised in Yugoslavia

these #s don't even know they're wrong when shown proper definition of "theft" or "treason"
they'll swear an oath to the constitution and become a domestic enemy, and see no contradiction


King James Bible Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.


Proverbs 30:20



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




So would you happy with working your current job for no paycheque? There's the "potential" for earning but you won't get payed a dime. Yes or no answer.


No man. Of course not. There is no "potential" actually...my salary is fixed and agreed upon when I joined to company. Whether my boss gives me work to work 40 hours a week...or it's a slow month and there's work for maybe 20 hours per week...I still get payed the same. My salary is only predicated upon me arriving to work and doing my duties. It is not potential...I can decide not to come to work at all...and my boss has to pay me...right until that time he fires me.

So in essence...unlike the movie industry...we have figures defined in advance. My salary is not dependent on the success of my company. But on a fixed number of hours I need to work through.

Again...this is a very awkward example. People dont go to jobs because they could "potentialy" earn money that way. It has to be set in stone, otherwise...a whole lot of people wouldnt be going to jobs.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You really are reaching.


A patent is a limited duration property right relating to an invention, granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in exchange for public disclosure of the invention. Patentable materials include machines, manufactured articles, industrial processes, and chemical compositions. The duration of patent protection depends on the type of patent granted: 14 years for design patents and 20 years for utility and plant patents.

A copyright protects works of authorship that have been tangibly expressed in a physical form. Think songs, books, movies, and works of art. The duration of copyright protection depends on several factors. For works created by an individual, protection lasts for the life of the author, plus 70 years. For works created anonymously, pseudonymously, and for hire, protection lasts 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is shorter.


www.uspto.gov...

Have the strength of character to accept that you were wrong.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: GetHyped




So would you happy with working your current job for no paycheque? There's the "potential" for earning but you won't get payed a dime. Yes or no answer.


No man. Of course not.


Another hypocrite.
edit on 31-3-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




Thanks for being raised in Yugoslavia


I'm not sure Yugoslavia has anything to do with it
But maybe...who knows...




these #s don't even know they're wrong when shown proper definition of "theft" or "treason" they'll swear an oath to the constitution and become a domestic enemy, and see no contradiction


honestly I dont care what definitions say....I know what's right in my mind...and sharing things with other people is a OK with me. If sharing is making somebody "lose" money (which honestly isnt)...then you're making money in wrong ways.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Now you're using us govt definitions.




Have the strength of character to accept that you were wrong.


Patent can be defined by non linguists in many ways: www.urbandictionary.com...

This is why a reliable source of linguistics was made available.

Besides, the same govt believes genes (not on that definition) can also be patented, unless chemical composition counts as genes, in which case it also represents books, and farts.

again, no useful contribution from you

just more bull#



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

LOL! So I post an official source (which the friggin' laws are based around) and you post an URBAN DICTIONARY definition as a source instead? And even go as far as to claim it is a "reliable source"?

Please, keep the laughs coming.

Books can't be patented. Patents and copyright aren't the same thing. You are wrong but you continue to double down instead of accepting your mistake.
edit on 31-3-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




LOL! So I post an official source (which the friggin' laws are based around) and you post an URBAN DICTIONARY definition as a source instead? And even go as far as to claim it is a "reliable source"?


What I did was school you as to the meaning of words according to a reliable source, which you repeatedly contested for a trite sideline of my correct use of the word "patent" according to Oxford's dictionary, then demonstrated how people who don't know English as well as they think they do will in fact define anything as anything else.

However, sadly enough for you, I'm sure that your above quoted statement is possibly sincere.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

People don't survive off of flattery... This is a stupid thread that you, if I had to guess, are pushing socialist or communist ideals.

Intellectual property has been around before the internet and is not a new idea.

You creating something to share is different than things for profit... There are open source communities which are cool and I support, but that's their choice. I believe it was Ben Franklin who changed the world with the pot belly stove and said it was his gift to the world.

Stay in school and then get out of your parents house... Then continue to society like the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You are being very silly indeed. The terms "patent" and "copyright" have completely different meanings, both by definition and legally. This is such an absurd argument I'm not even going to bother continuing. I don't think I've ever seen anyone double down so hard when so blatantly in the wrong.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: wisvol

People don't survive off of flattery... This is a stupid thread that you, if I had to guess, are pushing socialist or communist ideals.
(...)
Stay in school and then get out of your parents house... Then continue to society like the rest of us.


The thread has stupid elements, thanks.
You don't have to guess, and I'm not a socialist or a communist. I do know however that when something can be shared without being consumed, preventing the poor from accessing it is criminal, stupid, and evil.

I have contributed more to the world than you have, by far, and would not become one of "the rest of you" if it would avoid me ebola.

Answer the OP's question and cease your trolling




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join