Why online piracy isn't theft

No feeling about it... you were defintely stolen from. Without question. Take the b**tards to court! In the meantime, lets all go out for a beer. :)
 
I suppose I could be justified to illegally download the "Tribute to Steve Goodman" album, they do not give credit to nor pay for the use of the album cover photo. I did not notice until I had bought a copy.

I did give Steve an original though.

Sometimes it is simply about attribution.


Regards, John
 
Jack Conrad said:
That would be genuinely sad that anyone would choose not to engage in creative pursuits if they didn't get paid.
Click to expand...

Even more sad if those who were genuinely good at something were forced to dig roads for a living because they couldn't be paid for what they do well. Doing something professionally, i.e. doing it well and getting paid for it, often requires a LOT more than a little desultory dabbling in the creative pursuit, mixed in with a well-paying job as a dentist or used car dealer -- or even a poorly paid one as a ditch-digger or used car dealer.

Those who sing the praises of amateurism tend to be, yes, amateurs. There are lots of good amateurs. But there are infinitely more bad ones, and the good ones understandably want to 'go pro'. Tim Rudman retired early from medicine, in order to devote more time to (already modestly lucrative) photography. Should he have been forced to remain in general practice until he was 67? Because if he had been forced to do so, the world would have had nothing like as much benefit from a very great teacher and an excellent photographer.

Cheers,

R.
 
FrankS said:
Even creative people have families to support.
Click to expand...

Dear Frank,

If I have not already quoted a memorable conversation between Henry Ford and George Bernard Shaw, I should do so now. If I already have, I should repeat it. GBS said, "Ah, well, there is the difference between us, Mr. Ford. You think only of art, and I think only of money."

Cheers,

R.
 
dogbunny said:
What about those professionals who are clearly mediocre but still seem to eke out a living? They seem to be missing from your equation? It seems like the paradigm is changing for them? Not just speaking about photography, but musicians etc other artists in general.
Click to expand...

Indeed, what about them? Where do they appear in my 'equation'? Where, indeed, is the 'equation'? My argument is simply that if someone is good at something, it seems odd to say that they can be paid for it if they are a surgeon, but not if they are a musician, photographer, writer, or anyone else whose work is easily stolen. It's quite hard to steal an appendectomy...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Indeed, what about them? Where do they appear in my 'equation'? Where, indeed, is the 'equation'? My argument is simply that if someone is good at something, it seems odd to say that they can be paid for it if they are a surgeon, but not if they are a musician, photographer, writer, or anyone else whose work is easily stolen. It's quite hard to steal an appendectomy...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

... not if you're Damien Hirst
 
Ah, Franklin, a wonderful man. Also called one of the original IP pirates by some, as he made unauthorized reprints of European books.

Another one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, wrote beautifully:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin seem to have been truly civilised men, if only because they appear to have recognised their own frailities in others, as well as in themselves. I wonder where they would have stood on this subject? I rather think that the Jefferson quote gives us a clue.
 
What are they stealing?

A compressed, crappy 128kbps mp3 copy of a pop song?
A 1280px picture which can be printed crappily on a 4x5 paper?

Are these the products owned/being sold by artists?

Unless these questions are reconciled, we can never be sure what is being stolen.

While we're thinking about this, most people are happy with their mediocre sounding mp3's.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Thanks for that. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin seem to have been truly civilised men, if only because they appear to have recognised their own frailities in others, as well as in themselves. I wonder where they would have stood on this subject? I rather think that the Jefferson quote gives us a clue.
Click to expand...

They recognized the importance of copyright [for some, anyway!] as an incentive to create. It was supposed to balance the interests of authors/publishers on the one hand, and the interests of the general public on the other hand. Therefore copyright only lasted for a short amount of time. They did not think of it as private "property" as many do now.

It seems like Jefferson was, at least initially, very suspicious of all kinds of monopolies, copyright being one of them. For example:

"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

(Letter to James Madison, July 31, 1788)

Eventually, he accepted copyright, and argued for a term based on average lifespan:

"This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application... Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity for producing it to public consideration... Establish the principle... in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14 years."

Letter to Madison, September 6, 1789 (see the whole thing for a lengthier discussion)

In the end, the Copyright Act of 1790 (the first federal copyright act in the US) granted protection for 14 years from publication, with an optional renewal for another 14 years.

In 1831, the term was extended to 28 years + 14-year renewal.

In 1909, the term was extended to 28 years + 28-year renewal.

In 1976, the term was extended to life of author + 50 years, or 75 years after publication for works of corporate authorship.

In 1998, the term was extended to life of author + 70 years, or 95 years after publication / 120 years after creation for corporate works.

I think it's safe to say that Jefferson would be turning in his grave.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Even more sad if those who were genuinely good at something were forced to dig roads for a living because they couldn't be paid for what they do well. Doing something professionally, i.e. doing it well and getting paid for it, often requires a LOT more than a little desultory dabbling in the creative pursuit, mixed in with a well-paying job as a dentist or used car dealer -- or even a poorly paid one as a ditch-digger or used car dealer.

Those who sing the praises of amateurism tend to be, yes, amateurs. There are lots of good amateurs. But there are infinitely more bad ones, and the good ones understandably want to 'go pro'. Tim Rudman retired early from medicine, in order to devote more time to (already modestly lucrative) photography. Should he have been forced to remain in general practice until he was 67? Because if he had been forced to do so, the world would have had nothing like as much benefit from a very great teacher and an excellent photographer.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Oh no! You found me out. I'm just a road digger. A hobbyist. An amateur.

I'm not saying the pro(whatever) shouldn't be able to make a living, the problem is, the road digger needs to be able to make a living also,... enough to have some free time for a hobby, a creative outlet, you know... on the off chance that they might also contribute a little back to the broader culture...
since the pro's, the experts, the specialists, the technical elite, appear to be a little lost in their own bs these days.

You know, the experts don't seem to be doing such a terrific job at all, beyond hiring armed guards and legislators to protect themselves from the hordes of amateurs and road diggers.
 
Jack Conrad said:
Oh no! You found me out. I'm just a road digger. A hobbyist. An amateur.

I'm not saying the pro(whatever) shouldn't be able to make a living, the problem is, the road digger needs to be able to make a living also,... enough to have some free time for a hobby, a creative outlet, you know... on the off chance that they might also contribute a little back to the broader culture...
since the pro's, the experts, the specialists, the technical elite, appear to be a little lost in their own bs these days.

You know, the experts don't seem to be doing such a terrific job at all, beyond hiring armed guards and legislators to protect themselves from the hordes of amateurs and road diggers.
Click to expand...

No offense, but it seems you missed Roger's point almost completely...hanging your arguments on your own misunderstandings of what the "road digger" was there to illustrate and possibly your own insecurity over the professional/amateur distinction (i say that without judgment, I am an amateur too). It wasn't to insult you, nor the job of road digging. You also speak in such generalities, there is really no point maybe in even arguing with you.
 
huntjump said:
No offense, but it seems you missed Roger's point almost completely...hanging your arguments on your own misunderstandings of what the "road digger" was there to illustrate and possibly your own insecurity over the professional/amateur distinction (i say that without judgment, I am an amateur too). It wasn't to insult you, nor the job of road digging. You also speak in such generalities, there is really no point maybe in even arguing with you.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You probably summarized this faster, and more politely, than I could have.

Cheers,

R.
 
huntjump said:
No offense, but it seems you missed Roger's point almost completely...hanging your arguments on your own misunderstandings of what the "road digger" was there to illustrate and possibly your own insecurity over the professional/amateur distinction (i say that without judgment, I am an amateur too). It wasn't to insult you, nor the job of road digging. You also speak in such generalities, there is really no point maybe in even arguing with you.
Click to expand...

Relax, I really wasn't directing my little rant at Roger. I was riffing off his post. Nothing personal at all.

I'm not particularly good at forum banter and perhaps I did miss the point. My apologies. If you explain, maybe I can umderstand. I noticed you perceived my insecurities. You must be a sensitive guy.
No offense, of course, but perhaps you've misunderstood me due to your own insecurities as well as a lack of ability to see in broader generalities? Not to insult you either, and totally without judgement. :rolleyes:


Big picture.
We're all tense about the future these days. That was my point. Yes, it's based on insecurity. That's what this entire thread is really about. Financial security and the desire to protect it from perceived threats.

I'd go deeper here, but this forum really isn't the place to discuss such sociopolitical topics. Thus the generalities.
I'll say this, though. The problem of our overarching societal insecurity has to do with credit and debt. A debt based economy.

I'll leave discussing legal minutia to the experts, thankyou, since parsing and dissecting is the domain of the modern technocratic elite.
I'm pretty certain they would rather draw and quarter me rather than allow an amateur "road digger" to compete with their superior artistry anyway. :D
 
Jack Conrad said:
I'll leave discussing legal minutia to the experts, thankyou, since parsing and dissecting is the domain of the modern technocratic elite.
I'm pretty certain they would rather draw and quarter me rather than allow an amateur "road digger" to compete with their superior artistry anyway. :D
Click to expand...

That's a large part of the point, really. Total incompetents are being very highly paid to impose deeply flawed economic models on the rest of us. How do we decide what ANYONE is paid to do? Something that many people ignore is that "...is paid $100,000..." and "...earns $100,000..." are very far from the same statement.

The job of the "road digger" amateur, working for the fun of it, may often be to demonstrate the flaws in the "professional" arguments. But once the "road digger" has established his credentials through sound argument, he should be admitted to the pantheon of experts. To insist that the road digger continues to dig roads, in order to subsidize his intellectual contribution (or indeed artistic contribution), while the "experts" continue to rule the roost and determine who is paid what, is very close to my original argument about why someone who is good at something should be paid. We NEED expertise and clear thought.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top