Respect Other People's Work and Don't Steal It

[dusman]

Ofcourse it is CaptainObvious.

Don't expect a single creative to take your side on that opinion.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, your logic is simply founded in inexperience in dealing with it. Redistribution IS infringement. As a professional creative, I take offense to it, every time I see it occur.

In order to re-distribute you must take from one to give to another -- which means the person who was taken from is not in possession of what was taken. How hard is this to grasp. You cannot steal an idea, nor, can the duplication of something be considered theft. Perhaps you should analyze the situation again. This person is still in FULL possession of the video and his YT page is still accessible. He is exactly the same the moment before and the moment after the other person uploaded their video (it is in their hard-drive after-all, unless you are perfectly fine with the OP controlling anothers property aka HARD-DRIVE, CD's, etc.).

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Better bring enough for everybody.

LOL intellectual property vs anti-ip 2.0? I think the main topic here is that certain youtube users like to re-upload other viral videos to get their own ratings up.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ofcourse it is CaptainObvious.

Well I didn't see you say "I think it is pure evil" you called it pure evil.

 

[dusman]

So what is the solution? A restriction of the rights of someone else to spread the message? It is unfortunate that some take advantage, but should we restrict the masses in order to stop a few? In this case, everyone still has the fruit (video) of their labor. Someone else just made a copy. Are the number of hits worth the censorship?

A disclaimer should be placed as a sticky on this forum for all to be exposed to 100% of the time. That would help. Further, ask for permission like a decent human being with respect for others to use it. You'll find that 99% of the time, they won't deny you that use and the matter will be avoided altogether.

 

[IndianaPolitico]

So what is the solution? A restriction of the rights of someone else to spread the message? It is unfortunate that some take advantage, but should we restrict the masses in order to stop a few? In this case, everyone still has the fruit (video) of their labor. Someone else just made a copy. Are the number of hits worth the censorship?

YT already has a solution, you can report the video for copywrite infringement. To join YT, you agree to their terms of service. Re-uploading someone else's work, is against their terms of service.

 

[specsaregood]

At this point, is it possible to just SELECT INTO one of the hundreds of other threads into this one? save some typing time?

 

[Chrysamere]

Well I didn't see you say "I think it is pure evil" you called it pure evil.

It is pure evil.

 

[CasualApathy]

No doubt about that! I wasn't aware that ronpaul2008dotcom did that....wouldn't surprise me if it was just a traffic stunt to get ratings up on their little account.

Who is to say that all of those 150k would have seen the video on the official site? maybe only half of them would have, who knows?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A disclaimer should be placed as a sticky on this forum for all to be exposed to 100% of the time. That would help. Further, ask for permission like a decent human being with respect for others to use it. You'll find that 99% of the time, they won't deny you that use and the matter will be avoided altogether.

I don't see why someone should have to ask permission to use their own hard-drive, their own CD's, etc.

 

[dusman]

In order to re-distribute you must take from one to give to another -- which means the person who was taken from is not in possession of what was taken. How hard is this to grasp. You cannot steal an idea, nor, can the duplication of something be considered theft. Perhaps you should analyze the situation again. This person is still in FULL possession of the video and his YT page is still accessible. He is exactly the same the moment before and the moment after the other person uploaded their video (it is in their hard-drive after-all, unless you are perfectly fine with the OP controlling anothers property aka HARD-DRIVE, CD's, etc.).

Again, you are naive to the legalities with this. I deal with this on a daily basis as a graphic/web designer and one whom makes every attempt to clear ALL copyrights at ALL times. Hell, I'd prefer to lose my most valuable client if they ever suggested what you are right now.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It is pure evil.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-Intellectual-Property-rights

have at it in that thread.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, you are naive to the legalities with this. I deal with this on a daily basis as a graphic/web designer and one whom makes every attempt to clear ALL copyrights at ALL times. Hell, I'd prefer to lose my most valuable client if they ever suggested what you are right now.

I do not care about legalities. It's legal to now assassinate American citizens. It was once legal to own another human being. What is your point? I am talking about private property rights -- which is all that matters.

I think you know I am right since you purposefully ignored my argument and then made an appeal to authority (aka Legislators). I would love to see you make that argument for all your other positions. Whatever the Legislators say goes!

 

[Chrysamere]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-intellectual-property-rights

have at it in that thread.

no u.

 

[low preference guy]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.

My position as well.

 

[dusman]

I do not care about legalities. It's legal to now assassinate American citizens. It was once legal to own another human being. What is your point? I am talking about private property rights -- which is all that matters.

Again, you are just proving my point on how naive you are on this. Just because you personally believe that it doesn't matter, doesn't make it so. Your right to private property should not infringe on my right to private property. When my private property shows up on your private property without my consent, you better believe you are on the losing side of the law. I'm frustrated you don't have more respect for that, because of your own personal opinion.

If I seem a little pissed off, it's because people on this same forum exposed me and my business to potential copyright infringement. I do not take it as lightly as you do, excuse me for that.

 

[libertybrewcity]

 

[specsaregood]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.

My position as well.

My position is that people that have that position are free to create items of their own and release them to the public domain.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Again, you are just proving my point on how naive you are on this. Just because you personally believe that it doesn't matter, doesn't make it so. Your right to private property should not infringe on my right to private property. When my private property shows up on your private property without my consent, you better believe you are on the losing side of the law. I'm frustrated you don't have more respect for that, because of your own personal opinion.

If I seem a little pissed off, it's because people on this same forum exposed me and my business to potential copyright infringement. I do not take it as lightly as you do, excuse me for that.

Don't expect any foundational logic from austrian econ disciple.See the intellectual property thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-intellectual-property-rights

 

[dusman]

I don't see what is so hard to understand about taking 30 seconds to send a message to the originator asking for permission.