Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑
11 Jul 2019
Stop pushing me to think or say things you want me to say or think.
Please show some respect!
Respect does not mean "my opinion is critique-proof", while stating facts is not pushing you to think or say what others want
you to think.
It now appears you started this thread to preach a warped and incorrect opinion, or indeed, it's not really an opinion so much as false-thinking, on copyright law rather than have the open debate on sampling ethics, as you seem inclined to shut down all cogent counter-arguments as being disrespectful.
Because that's the third time you've called for "respect" in this thread, and such responses now read more as "stop disagreeing with me", an ad hominen attack itself, rather than an actual call for respect or true engagement with, or attempt to understand or attempt to factually counter, the opposing arguments being presented to you which repeatedly demonstrate the inherent weakness of your position and the fundamental misunderstandings you have on even the basics of copyright law that everyone else seems to grasp. That I'd suggest is far more disrespectful to those who've been patiently taking the time to politely endeavour to explain it you, and instead you retreat into appeal-to-authority type fallacies, such where you asserted that as Props never admitted stolen products were stolen, it thereford can't be illegal*. But then when other direct evidence is presented you just move the evidential bar ever-upwards and still dismiss it!
There's nothing embarrasing about being wrong and admitting it. That's one way we grow and learn
. The total inability to admit an error of judgment and ignore constructive criticism in good time to fix an issue is, for a current Reason-related example , exactly
why Players don't have a front folded view which severely hampers the ability to use them. I was an idiot just the other night. I was a wrong. I'm sorry. See? It's easy. Every day and in every way getting better and better!
Marco, a thought-process being incorrect, being told it's incorrect, and crucially it being explained in some detail by multiple people why
it is incorrect in an attempt to educate and help you is not "disprectful" or—and I've no idea where this came from—some ridiculous Clockwork Orange style thinking-reassignment telling you what to believe. No-one has been calling you names. No-one has been rude to you that I can see. Calling an absurd opinion
"absurd" is not disrespectful, merely stating the utter absurdity of positions you seem to take in some debates: in the other thread just yesterday you wrote: "OJ Simpson was not accused of murder". You actually typed that out loud.
And in this thread you've arguably just put your products in the public domain: you don't believe in copyright but open source, so are granting us permission to reskin and resell your new 2016 Rockmen ReFill as "Rocknonbinarygender" so long as we don't plagiarise it? ("This product was originally created by Marco Raaphorst", and lo, plagiarism avoided)**.
We don't need to be disrespectful to you, sorry to say it but you appear to do it quite adequately to yourself.
* On that point about PH: if you'd only think that through even a tad you'd have to be aware that as Props are the sellers if they confirmed anything they'd automatically be liable and would have to refund and remove all the devices, because whatever gets written in EULA's to try and cover arses, they're really not water-tight in courts of law when someone actually tries to test it, because EULAs do not and cannot supercede local laws, and on this matter PH's EULAs arguably contradict themselves. I'm not a fan of their weasel words on the matter, but objectively I don't really see what other option they'd have as a business but keep schtum. If NI did get involved it's likely there's an NDA between them anyway.
** of course, it's not that simple, you still have copyright
on it whether you want it or not unless you grant a license that specifically waives it
, which I'm guessing you've not done.
Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑
11 Jul 2019
I am a member of Creative Commons and am a open source and open content advocate. Copyright is not a thing written in stone, it is changing. And that is a good thing. Art needs to be free imo. But we also need to make money. This is a complicated balance I have to deal with every day. Keeps me alive.
What exactly are you arguing? What's your actual point there? It sounds like "Having copyright on art is wrong unless it's my art?" It's really not a complicated balance at all, and you're confusing copyright itself with the right to earn a living from those rights: free stuff will still typically be under copyright, meaning another person cannot repackage and sell that product as their own unless the rights to do so were granted by the copyright owner.