Why online piracy isn't theft

jippiejee said:
Your product is not that mp3 that colleagues will share on usb sticks, or torrents, or that jpeg that goes around, but it is that amazing concert that sells you all these cd's and t-shirts, and that real print instead of the jpeg that was shared as appetizer.
Click to expand...
I call bovine feces. Most people are not going to go to concerts like you imply. Some people will go to concerts and others don't. Probably the younger crowd will go more often. However, most people don't go to a lot of concerts. Some people almost never go to concerts for various reasons such as not living near a venue for concerts. Concerts are fine, but they are expensive and I'll bet most people will go to a handful a year or less, and rather buy the CD which is far cheaper and you can listen to it till you wear it out.
 
as a "professional" designer for some 40 years I only came across one case of "intellectual theft" being pursued successfully.

In reality I was always too busy working to make money on the next new thing rather than buggering about with lawyers chasing the people who had ripped-off last years new thing ... and yes I had lots of stuff stolen by competitors each year
 
TXForester said:
I call bovine feces. Most people are not going to go to concerts like you imply. Some people will go to concerts and others don't. Probably the younger crowd will go more often.
Click to expand...


It's been my experience that the "older crowd" goes more often to concerts, specially when Bach's music is being played.

Anyway, that's the problem with broad definitions: usually they're thought of with a very narrow definition behind it.

Not all online-sharing is theft, not all theft is online-sharing. In order to settle all reasonable discussions, zero-tolerance policies are instated.

Take hot-linking for example: a huge no-no for the "older crowd" --who can't distinguish copying from hot-linking--, a non-issue for the "younger crowd" --who can.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Take hot-linking for example: a huge no-no for the "older crowd" --who can't distinguish copying from hot-linking--, a non-issue for the "younger crowd" --who can.
Click to expand...

Hot-linking synonymous with inline linking? If so, I thought it was a non-issue at least here in the states(in re: copyright law), because US courts have deemed it not to be a violation of any copyright laws. maybe i;m mistaken about that fact
 
huntjump said:
Hot-linking synonymous with inline linking? If so, I thought it was a non-issue at least here in the states(in re: copyright law), because US courts have deemed it not to be a violation of any copyright laws. maybe i;m mistaken about that fact
Click to expand...

No, you're not. But it's a no-no in some forums (fora?) because of this misunderstood fact, and it will not be tolerated.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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...
Click to expand...

That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.
 
Brilliant 😉

rxmd said:
That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.
Click to expand...
 
rxmd said:
That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.
Click to expand...

How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?
 
The wallpaper is an interesting case. Somebody have used time and effort in the design of the wallpaper, I take a photo of it and will suddenly all the effort the designer has put into it is mine. Love it.

For a small fee you can quote me too.
 
Sparrow said:
How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of an odd example as both wallpaper and fabric are material objects. You're basically just making a replica. If a photographer takes pictures at a wedding and gives the client prints, and if that client then gets more prints made from the digital file, then the latter are not replicas of the former.
 
If I buy champagne and give some to somebody, I'm depriving the vineyard of a customer (not to mention that it's against some religions). If I get the $100 bill plaque and create my own, it's a crime. If I study the night before and write the answers from memory it's cheating. If I write the word "Apple" on a record, I'm opening the door for a lawsuit. If I write a book report and quote, it's a direct violation of the stipulation that I should not reproduce it in any way.

One or more of the above are technically correct.

Absolute laws work in absolutely correct ways. Not to mention the would-be enforcers.
 
Sparrow said:
How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's entirely transferable because what I'm talking about is when you commission someone to do something for you, not when you copy something existant.

It's an interesting question though. You can't easily copy wallpaper or fabric for technical reasons, unless you talk about people covering their walls in xeroxed pages. So the question as I see it revolves around the protection of the pattern itself. In the commercial case, where designers would are afraid of getting ripped off by whoever commissione they could switch to contracts of the "$0.X per item sold with this design" type. For private use I wouldn't see much of a problem with taking existent patterns either. If someone decides to take to watercolours and cover the walls of their own living room in Royal Albert Lavender Rose, well then so be it.

One should add that from a legal point of view this is probably not a question of copyright, but one of design patents (in the US) and community design (in the EU), where there are other mechanisms of protection.
 
Jamie123 said:
That's a bit of an odd example as both wallpaper and fabric are material objects. You're basically just making a replica. If a photographer takes pictures at a wedding and gives the client prints, and if that client then gets more prints made from the digital file, then the latter are not replicas of the former.
Click to expand...

...but nevertheless illegal under most current copyright law, one might add.
 
rxmd said:
One should add that from a legal point of view this is probably not a question of copyright, but one of design patents (in the US) and community design (in the EU), where there are other mechanisms of protection.
Click to expand...


I think this just proves the point that one can't throw a blanket definition to cover everything one believes to be correct when in fact reality is different: what is "theft" and what is "infringement"? You can't say that both are one and the same.

If I sell a t-shirt with a photo that I made myself of an image of Mickey Mouse (uhmm, ™), is it "piracy", is it "theft", or is it "infringement"? If I buy a t-shirt with Mickey Mouse (™) on it and lend it or give it to someone, am I depriving revenue from the TM holders? If somebody at the party takes a photo of the gift recipient (or, accessory to theft?) and posts it on Facebook...I mean, it's the image being replicated, correct?

Any arguments dismissing anything else as purely wrong or purely right are exactly the fodder which corrupt the discussion. Nothing is absolute, despite of what some leaders will have you believe.
 
rxmd said:
...but nevertheless illegal under most current copyright law, one might add.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It all depends on how generic the pattern is. If I buy a black and white checkered wallpaper and decide I want to make my own I don't think think that's against copyright law (even if I chose to sell it). If, however, I commission a photographer to take a picture of said wallpaper (so the frame is filled with black and white squares) I am not free to reproduce said picture as I wish (depending on the contract agreement with the photographer).
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Any arguments dismissing anything else as purely wrong or purely right are exactly the fodder which corrupt the discussion. Nothing is absolute, despite of what some leaders will have you believe.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Thanks. That was the whole point of this thread and I'm happy at least some people got it.
 
rxmd said:
That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.
Click to expand...
What about an e-book? Nothing is more easily copied. But it's not a good business model to sell one e-book and then to have everyone pirate it.

It is perfectly open to you to hire a photographer to take pictures of (say) a wedding or a widget, and to negotiate a sale of copyright. But now let us say that he earns a living from fine art photography, and you sell excellent copies of his prints...

What model have you in mind for anyone in a creative business (such as myself) without the monopoly granted by copyright?

Cheers,

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