Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16227 > unrolled thread

Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:53 -0800
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-25 12:54 -0800
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-26 23:53 +0100
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? paolo <pc8875@nospam.mail.com.br> - 2012-02-02 20:03 +0000
      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-02 15:22 -0500
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-03 11:35 +0100
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-03 08:24 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-03 12:39 -0800
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 11:14 +0100
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 06:16 -0500
              Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 12:13 +0000
                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:06 -0500
                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:51 +0000
                    Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:05 -0500
                      Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:08 +0000
                        Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 11:30 -0500
                          Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 18:18 +0100
                            Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 13:02 -0500
                          Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 18:20 +0000
                            Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 19:38 +0000
                              Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:41 +0000
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 21:56 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:07 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 22:09 +0000
                                    Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-02-06 22:24 +0000
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-06 22:00 +0000
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-12 23:46 +0200
                                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:02 -0500
                                  Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 11:14 +0000
                      Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 12:17 -0600
                        Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 12:52 -0800
                Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:35 -0800
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 13:22 +0100
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 08:18 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-06 15:20 +0100
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:50 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 16:02 +0000
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-06 19:56 -0800
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 20:38 -0800
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:44 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 14:22 -0800
                                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-07 16:33 -0800
                                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-07 19:35 -0800
                                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 00:27 -0500
                                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-08 10:01 -0800
                                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 14:43 -0500
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2012-02-07 08:48 -0600
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 21:32 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 11:16 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 14:35 +0000
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-06 15:28 +0100
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 10:56 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-02-06 18:29 +0000
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-06 14:12 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-08 18:06 +0100
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-08 15:15 -0500
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-09 09:23 +1300
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:58 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:19 -0500
                                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:47 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-13 22:01 +0000
                          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-08 15:04 -0800
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-09 06:46 -0500
                            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:59 -0800
                              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-13 12:50 -0800
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-06 11:51 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 19:19 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-07 00:35 +0000
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-02-06 20:31 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-07 09:19 +0100
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:08 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 07:16 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 17:27 +0100
                        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 12:25 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-13 23:52 +0000
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-13 09:42 -0800
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-13 23:33 +0100
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 03:32 -0800
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 13:36 +0000
    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-02-02 16:27 -0500
      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-02-03 01:48 +0100
        Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 11:45 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-03 09:27 -0800
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-03 15:58 -0500
          Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-03 13:06 -0800
            Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-04 15:52 -0500
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-04 13:58 -0800
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-05 11:37 +0000
                Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-02-07 10:53 -0500
                  Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 14:25 -0800
                    Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-02-07 23:07 -0500
                      Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-07 21:07 -0800
              Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-02-06 11:23 -0800

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#16227 — Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Years ago, I bought a PDF copy of the ISO C90 standard from ansi.org
for $18.  I later bought a PDF copy of the C99 standard for either
$18 or $30

Now when I look on webstore.ansi.org, the C99 standard is still
available for $30, but they want $285 for ISO/IEC 9899:2011.

iso.org is charging CHF 238, which is about $255 US at current
exchange rates.

Apparently ANSI had a policy of selling the C99 standard at a
reasonable price.  Why does that policy not apply to the C11
standard?  Is any other organization selling (legal!) copies of
C11 at a lower price?

(The same thing seems to be happening with the ISO C++ standard.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16228

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[snip]

Sorry, I meant to post that to comp.std.c.  I'll repost there.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16275

Le 25/01/12 21:53, Keith Thompson a écrit :

> Apparently ANSI had a policy of selling the C99 standard at a
> reasonable price.  Why does that policy not apply to the C11
> standard?  Is any other organization selling (legal!) copies of
> C11 at a lower price?

That would be risky. If the price was low, many people could read that
stuff.

:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16640

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:53:54 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Years ago, I bought a PDF copy of the ISO C90 standard from ansi.org for
> $18.  I later bought a PDF copy of the C99 standard for either $18 or
> $30
> 
> Now when I look on webstore.ansi.org, the C99 standard is still
> available for $30, but they want $285 for ISO/IEC 9899:2011.
> 
> iso.org is charging CHF 238, which is about $255 US at current exchange
> rates.
> 
> Apparently ANSI had a policy of selling the C99 standard at a reasonable
> price.  Why does that policy not apply to the C11 standard?  Is any
> other organization selling (legal!) copies of C11 at a lower price?
> 
> (The same thing seems to be happening with the ISO C++ standard.)

Just be patient, it will be on the torrents in a couple of weeks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16641

On 02/02/2012 03:03 PM, paolo wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:53:54 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Years ago, I bought a PDF copy of the ISO C90 standard from ansi.org for
>> $18.  I later bought a PDF copy of the C99 standard for either $18 or
>> $30
>>
>> Now when I look on webstore.ansi.org, the C99 standard is still
>> available for $30, but they want $285 for ISO/IEC 9899:2011.
>>
>> iso.org is charging CHF 238, which is about $255 US at current exchange
>> rates.
>>
>> Apparently ANSI had a policy of selling the C99 standard at a reasonable
>> price.  Why does that policy not apply to the C11 standard?  Is any
>> other organization selling (legal!) copies of C11 at a lower price?
>>
>> (The same thing seems to be happening with the ISO C++ standard.)
> 
> Just be patient, it will be on the torrents in a couple of weeks.

He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16656

> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.

Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy. Will that
work for you? Works for me! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16658

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> > He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.
>
> Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy. Will that
> work for you? Works for me! ;-)

No it doesn't work for me :(.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16667

Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
writes:
>> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.
>
> Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy. Will that
> work for you? Works for me! ;-)

Absolutely not.

(BTW, I posted here by accident, and re-posted to comp.std.c where this
is more topical.  There was some discussion there.)


-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16742

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> James Kuyper wrote:
> 
>> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.
> 
> Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy.
> Will that work for you? Works for me! ;-)

In France, it is legal to provide a copy of a work protected by copyright
to anyone in one's "close circle" (as defined by case law) for personal use.

Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*)
and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright.

(*) It's funny (in a sad way) that "big media" are the ACTUAL "thief"
in this story, pilfering and ransacking the public domain since $DEITY
invented the talking mouse.

Regards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16743

On 02/06/2012 05:14 AM, Noob wrote:
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> 
>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>>> He did specify that he was looking for legal copies.
>>
>> Well that's a fine point. It will be a *copy* of a legal copy.
>> Will that work for you? Works for me! ;-)
> 
> In France, it is legal to provide a copy of a work protected by copyright
> to anyone in one's "close circle" (as defined by case law) for personal use.

It's hard for me to believe that a perfect stranger whose only
connection to you is that he downloaded something that you made
available over the internet, could qualify as being in your "close
circle". If such a person did qualify, it would render copyright
meaningless.

> Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*)
> and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright.

Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having
copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same).
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16744 — Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

James Kuyper wrote:

>> Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*)
>> and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright.
> 
> Some of us can use our own brains to understand the value of having
> copyrights (and reasonable enforcement of same).

Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted 
works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to 
"understand the value of having copyrights".  

Moreover, supporting the totalitarian control of copyrighted works as it is 
demanded by distributors does by no mean implies that one "understands the 
value of having copyrights".  In fact, it demonstrates an appalling lack of 
understanding on the role of copyright in a developed society, that only 
benefits distributors and no one else.  And this includes the very same 
people who actually produce copyrighted works.  Hence, the appropriate 
"brain-washed" reference.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16750 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Rui Maciel wrote:

> Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
> works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to
> "understand the value of having copyrights".
>

There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience.

This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is
evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before
this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to
develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough
revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less  than 20%.
The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced
the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding.

IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment
of most on this news group.

Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16752 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Walter Banks wrote:

> 
> 
> Rui Maciel wrote:
> 
>> Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
>> works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to
>> "understand the value of having copyrights".
>>
> 
> There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience.
> 
> This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is
> evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before
> this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to
> develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough
> revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less  than 20%.
> The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced
> the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding.
> 
> IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment
> of most on this news group.


This "we need totalitarian control over copyrighted works to make a profit" 
argument has already been thoroughly refuted.  It has already been 
demonstrated that totalitarian control of a copyrighted work does not have a 
meaningful effect on sales, and it has also been demonstrated that the 
unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works has a positive influence on 
sales.

The only influence that totalitarian control over copyrighted work has on 
the commercialization of copyrighted works is that it provides distributors, 
and not authors, with a tool to regain complete control over distribution 
channels, and therefore monopolize the access to education, culture and 
entertainment.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16754 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Rui Maciel wrote:

> Walter Banks wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Rui Maciel wrote:
> >
> >> Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
> >> works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to
> >> "understand the value of having copyrights".
> >>
> >
> > There are many copyrights for works with a personal use only audience.
> >
> > This issue more than any other impacts the how innovation risk is
> > evaluated in going forward with new idea's. Thirty years ago before
> > this was anywhere the kind of issue it is now we were willing to
> > develop an idea that had an 80% chance of not creating enough
> > revenue to break even. The acceptable risk is now less  than 20%.
> > The difference is 30 years ago those that did succeed produced
> > the revenue needed to sustain innovation funding.
> >
> > IP protection helps everyone and protects the very employment
> > of most on this news group.
>
> This "we need totalitarian control over copyrighted works to make a profit"
> argument has already been thoroughly refuted.  It has already been
> demonstrated that totalitarian control of a copyrighted work does not have a
> meaningful effect on sales, and it has also been demonstrated that the
> unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works has a positive influence on
> sales.

>
> The only influence that totalitarian control over copyrighted work has on
> the commercialization of copyrighted works is that it provides distributors,
> and not authors, with a tool to regain complete control over distribution
> channels, and therefore monopolize the access to education, culture and
> entertainment.

If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so (many do).

This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment.

What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize
under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights.

Regards,


Walter Banks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16756 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Walter Banks wrote:

> If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so
> (many do).
> 
> This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment.

Why do you believe that nonsense?  Do you believe that there are different 
copyright laws that apply to you and to everyone else in your jurisdiction?


> What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize
> under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights.

Your copyright is still yours, and you lose absolutely nothing if someone 
happens to access any copyrighted work exclusively for personal use.  They 
still have an unauthorized copy, which they cannot sell, and you haven't 
lost a single cent on that.  In fact, unauthorized users will end up 
contributing to any demand for that particular copyrighted work.

So, what exactly do you have to lose?


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16758 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Rui Maciel wrote:

> Walter Banks wrote:
>
> > If authors want to put material into the public domain let them do so
> > (many do).
> >
> > This is not about rights of education, culture and entertainment.
>
> Why do you believe that nonsense?  Do you believe that there are different
> copyright laws that apply to you and to everyone else in your jurisdiction?
>
> > What I develop privately should be distributed in a way I authorize
> > under my terms. Any other way violates my IP rights.
>
> Your copyright is still yours, and you lose absolutely nothing if someone
> happens to access any copyrighted work exclusively for personal use.  They
> still have an unauthorized copy, which they cannot sell, and you haven't
> lost a single cent on that.  In fact, unauthorized users will end up
> contributing to any demand for that particular copyrighted work.
>
> So, what exactly do you have to lose?

Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material to
my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16759 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Walter Banks wrote:

> Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
> choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material
> to my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.

And this irrational power trip (multiplied ten thousand fold
for media corporations) is EXACTLY why many old records,
movies, and books are now forever lost, because the last copy
was destroyed in a fire, flood, earthquake (pick your poison).

Once an "original work" reaches a certain status in the
collective mind of society, it no longer belongs to its
creator, it belongs to everyone who has invested "mind
share" in it.

e.g. songs from the 60s, such as those from the beatles or
the rolling stones should now be in the public domain, for
everyone to listen to, share, sample, whatever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16763 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Noob wrote:

> Walter Banks wrote:
>
> > Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
> > choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material
> > to my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.
>
> And this irrational power trip (multiplied ten thousand fold
> for media corporations) is EXACTLY why many old records,
> movies, and books are now forever lost, because the last copy
> was destroyed in a fire, flood, earthquake (pick your poison).
>
> Once an "original work" reaches a certain status in the
> collective mind of society, it no longer belongs to its
> creator, it belongs to everyone who has invested "mind
> share" in it.

This is also the rational of time limited protection to eventually
allow material to be widely available at some point. Until you
reach that point then it should be distributed according to
the wishes of the IP owner.

If you look at what I have written over the years I am in favor
of  this time protection for software to be similar to patent
protections. Other material may have different appropriate
time periods.

Registered copyrights have preserved the last copy of huge
amount of material, especially old movies. The Library of
Congress copyright copy has been the last copy of many
old works.

Far from an "irrational power trip" ,an insulting comment, there
is copyright material on my companies website (books and
papers) that is free for anyone to download or provide links to,
we do not wish to have this material to be available from other
websites.

Walter Banks

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16765 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

Walter Banks wrote:

> Distribution control of my property. Financial and promotional
> choices are mine not theirs. Maybe I want to distribute material to
> my customers for free as a reward for customer loyalty.

No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work.  In fact, it 
has already been widely demonstrated that unauthorized distribution is 
linked to an increase in demand and provides free publicity.  So, it isn't 
possible to make any rational case based on financial worries.

And for your information, in some jurisdictions if a copyright owner refuses 
to distribute their work then any citizen can sue the copyright owner to 
force him to supply a given market, even if that goes agains the copyright 
owner's wishes.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16771 — Re: Copyright Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?

In <jgp5lp$dvq$1@speranza.aioe.org> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:

> No one loses a red cent if someone copies any copyrighted work.

You seem to be assuming that the infringer is completely unwilling to
purchase a legitimate copy of the work.  Surely that is not true in
all such cases.

Or are you not counting missed sales as "loss"?

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web