Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ZetaX

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
31
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:44:32 pm »
Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 10, 2014, 06:35:26 pm
As for the main topic of the thread, the photographer didn't take it, and he didn't deliberately cause the monkey to take it. He just happened to possess the camera after the monkey took the picture. For him to claim authorship is like an art teacher claiming they created a student's painting because they put them in a situation where they chose to create it and then picked it up as part of an assignment.
Yes, the photographer did not contribute more than having a camera and maybe not deleting the picture. But that's why I have chosen a meteorite as an example above: it is entirely random, the new "owner" did nothing to get it, yet we consider it his property because he found it first. I would treat the photo the same.

Quote from: Eagle_eye on August 10, 2014, 06:35:26 pm
a picture of a monkey isn't going to be any more aesthetically appealing or funny because you had to pay for it.
Actually it is: placebo effects on such things exist and a higher price often increases the positive effects of it. But that's just a side remark.

32
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:25:21 pm »
That's now just a non-sequitur. Shall I now give you an equally irrelevant answer about how you seemingly want total communism for communisms sake¿

If someone wants (and is allowed) to share, then this is his decision, as he can do with his owned information almost anything, like with any other goods he might posess. This thread is obviously about a case where the potential owner does not want it to be spread.

33
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:11:50 pm »
It was also about the decrease in value by sharing information, which I forgot to repeat. It still is not about the long term development or the morals involved.
And it is also less valuable in the eyes of everyone by this economy of supply and demand, with supply now being significantly increased (and demand insignificantly decreased).

34
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:56:45 pm »
Quote from: Aklyon on August 10, 2014, 05:49:15 pm
Quote from: ZetaX on August 10, 2014, 05:36:41 pm
Anyway, that man rendered obsolete therefore lost his income. How is that not a loss for him?
You are not guaranteed an income for an effectively-unlimited amount of time just because you did something notable enough to copyright, similar to how the Sherlock Holmes estate recently found out. If he find a new unrevealed secret, he can sell access to that one. Otherwise, he will have to find a new job like everyone else does if they lose their job.
No, not forever, but the story I gave does not talk about that. The story was about explaining why information has a nonzero value and about nothing else. All those objections are completely missing the point. You for example only argued that it should (this is a moral question) not have infinite value; I am ok with that, but as I said, it has nothing to do with that story.

35
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:36:41 pm »
Half of those objections were already answered, please read the whole thread next time before replying to something two pages back.
Anyway, that man rendered obsolete therefore lost his income. How is that not a loss for him¿

On this weird discussion on duplicating objects: a real life object's value is not just in having or controling it, but also in it being useful or valuable in another way. Like having a car allows you to drive.

36
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 07:36:55 am »
Quote from: tuypo1
i am going to say that it belongs to the photographer not the monkey
The option is more between photographer and public, at least on the legal stage. Also, your oppinion is quite uninteresting without an argument to back it up.

I also just realized I did not see one post:
Quote from: Graknorke
Yes, I would. But would you say I shouldn't be allowed to tell the guy behind me?
This one was about the value of information, not an analogy to the picture thingy. But if we want to go one step further, then lets assume I told you that I will only help you if you keep it a secret.
If we want to make it a bit closer to the real case, there should be a sign ("copyright law/agreement") in front of the doors which you did see when coming to me and which tells you of this "no sharing" policy.

37
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 07:23:37 am »
Quote from: martinuzz on August 10, 2014, 07:18:47 am
Quote from: ZetaX on August 10, 2014, 06:25:41 am
Quote from: Graknorke on August 10, 2014, 06:15:01 am
Quote from: ZetaX on August 10, 2014, 05:59:50 am
Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.
No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.
Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿
Why would you think it's okay to ask money for that in the first place?
I chose that one for storytelling purposes. I am pretty sure you can think of several adaptions not involving his death but speaking about e.g. monetary loss. And that's not even touching the fact that your "objection" has nothing to do with the core: the value of information.

The latest posts in this  thread is such a degradation of the previous discussion... Can we please get serious again¿

38
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:45:03 am »
Can we please not use ad-hominems and not call people "idiots" for not agreeing with you¿

39
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:35:45 am »
Quote from: Graknorke on August 10, 2014, 06:27:08 am
Making something worth less is not the same as taking it from someone.
By your reasoning it would be as much of a crime if the thief had found a bunch of rocks on his own, since it's still making each rock worth less, "stealing some value" from the first guy.
What if the photographer put the photo online and mentioned there that this is still his photo and all other usage is forbidden¿

And making something worth less is not taking that very object, but it is taking monetary value. Maybe replace "stealing" by "hitting it with a pipe to make dents into it" if you want; doesn't take the object, still possibly damages its monetary value (note that a meteorite has no inherent functionality lost by hitting it; for something like an engine, you also destroy its ability to work as intended).
Finding rocks on your own is different as you did not abuse someone else's property to gain something.

40
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:25:41 am »
Quote from: Graknorke on August 10, 2014, 06:15:01 am
Quote from: ZetaX on August 10, 2014, 05:59:50 am
Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.
No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.
Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

41
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:20:07 am »
Quote from: Graknorke on August 10, 2014, 06:15:01 am
Quote from: ZetaX on August 10, 2014, 05:59:50 am
Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.
No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.
Yes it is.
An information's worth is the use you get from knowing something. The worth of information is often highly increased if only a few know it. Thus by spreading it or not being able to control its ownership, you lost almost all of your informations value. Thus by taking a copy, you actively decreases the informational content by decreasing its uniqueness, rendering it worth less, thus effectively stealing some value from the owner.

42
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 06:10:07 am »
I chose that analogy carefully to contain all the essential parts. You are free to explain why you think it is faulty, like Graknorke, but your response as it is is worthless.

And by the way, as current laws still are mostly based on non-digital stuff, using such comparisons is close to what some judges do.

43
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:59:50 am »
Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

44
General Discussion / Re: Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:44:05 am »
Quote from: miauw62 on August 10, 2014, 03:49:27 am
Illegal primes is a thing.
They are a thing in the sense that there exist prime numbers that encode copyrighted data. But like for any other integer, that's it. There is no special reason to assume such a prime would occur in a different way unless constructed. Thus the "prime" does not add much, makes it just a bit less likely: 1 in ~10^11 numbers the size of a gigabyte is prime, and 1 in ~10^7 for a megabyte; thus with all the stuff around we almost definitely have some "naturally" occuring megabyte-sized prime numbers in some software.

To claim that a number is exempt from copyright or gets any other special status for being prime sounds quite random to me.


On the topic: I also think that Wikipedia is just making stuff up. While I am all for less patent laws (copyright is not even comparably problematic, but some adaptions to the 21st century are necessary), this case will at best set a bad precedent. It sounds like the digital analogue of this:
- random guy finds meteorite fragment, puts it on display
- thief steals it, claims it was never random guy's property as it just fell from the heavens and he doesn't own the heavens
- people joining in, claiming that thief is right because random guy gave up all his ownership by putting it on display.

45
General Discussion / Re: Overclocking a CPU
« on: July 31, 2014, 07:08:26 pm »
Quote from: Tellemurius on July 31, 2014, 05:54:10 pm
3. Heat exponentially rises as you increase voltage and clock speed. a .3Ghz increase can be enough to slap on additional 10c
This sounds wrong in regard to my understanding of physics, and is also not what I remember from graphs on overclocking. I think it should be quite linear assymptotically (theoretically even a bit lower due to black body radiation, but that's insignificant here), with some nonlinear effects locally.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15