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

[low preference guy]

..

 

[Napoleon's Shadow]

I've noticed a huge problem in the Ron Paul community of downloading other people's YouTube videos and then reuploading them on their own accounts with 0 attribution to the original creator that made the video. You know what they call this? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Correct, although it's more like "copyprivilege infringement". Government can't grant rights, only privileges.

Blows my mind that we talk about respecting people's private property and then do things like this. My time is considered my private property and when someone puts a lot of time into making a video for Ron Paul, it's wrong to take their video to promote your own agenda. There are ways to share videos you really like. It's called making a playlist and making the video a favorite.

But there is no actual property involved. The government only grants you a privilege for a limited time the ability to control your work; specifically when, where, and how it's performed, copied, transmitted, distributed, etc.

The phrase "Intellectual property" is a misnomer.

Biggest thing is when people download the videos from the official channel and then reupload them with their own links in the description instead of the official RonPaul2012.com (look at the RonPaul2008dotcom channel for an example). Do you realize you're actually hurting the campaign by doing this?
You're taking views away from the official video and new subscribers away from the official channel. Not to mention all the traffic that's now going to your site instead of being introduced to the actual campaign. By siphoning off views from the official campaign videos, you're taking away from their total view counts and thus the channel's authority.

That is a valid point. Total views are important. But the damage cannot actually be measured or quantified in reality. And monetary damage is either so miniscule to be negligible, or nonexistent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Doesn't this IP crap when taken to the full out extent ultimately mean that "creators" can appeal to the government to have my memories of their artwork erased from my brain?

Do NOT give them ideas.

 

[dannno]

I have to ask, but have you ever created anything at all that was available to the public like a book, song or video? Write a book, upload it online and let me know how you like it if a person would completely reproduce that book without giving you any credit and passing it off as their own.

There's a big difference between reproducing a book or piece of music and spreading it around and claiming it as one's own and selling it. The first, as a musician or artist, I would be happy about people spreading my work so I became more well known. The second is fraud.

 

[Birdlady]

I understand what you are saying, but this goes back to end justifies the means. Well it's ok to steal another person's work because it is for a good cause after all... Well I don't believe in that. Ask for permission and if you don't get it, then make your own videos.

There's a big difference between reproducing a book or piece of music and spreading it around and claiming it as one's own and selling it. The first, as a musician or artist, I would be happy about people spreading my work so I became more well known. The second is fraud.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I understand what you are saying, but this goes back to end justifies the means. Well it's ok to steal another person's work because it is for a good cause after all... Well I don't believe in that. Ask for permission and if you don't get it, then make your own videos.

It's not an ends justify the means. Look at the pharmaceutical industry today. Just because you are the first to discover something doesn't make you the owner of that discovery. Imagine if for all eternity (if it was indeed property and the individual/corporation never gave permission for anyone to reproduce) only Tylenol was allowed to produce acetaminophen, even though you at your house, or in a lab, or elsewhere with your own property were barred from using it as you wish, just because someone discovered a formula before you. Imagine if you had to pay royalties to use your own vocal cords? Can you visualize yet how IP infringes on private property rights? I can't make it much clearer. You can't have a contradictory set of property rights -- it simply does not exist, nor can it.

You can own a CD, but not the lyrics on the CD. You can own a DVD, but not the images or ideas on the DVD. You can own a piece of sheet music, but you cannot own the chords within. One is property, one is not. One is scarce, one is not. One is tangible, one is not. IP is nothing more than another individual laying claim to my property and my-own-self.

 

[Matthew Zak]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MatthewDZak

I'm not sure how much of my videos fall into the category of copyright infringement, but as far as I'm concerned, you are all welcome to download and reupload these videos at your discretion in order to get the message out.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've always wondered how on the day before the patent/copyright is set to expire, I can be called a thief, but on the day after, I'm not, yet my actions have remained the same. /whistles

 

[ForLiberty2012]

I didn't read through all of the 170 replies, but I would like to say this: If your video contains content from any news media (clips of Ron Paul) it's not yours, unless you recorded it. If you use Ron Paul's name without his consent, it's not yours. If you use any music in your video that isn't yours, it's not yours. And if it's not yours, you have no "rights".

However, if it's 100% original, and you have the proper copyrights to your video, then by all means, go ahead and notify Youtube and have them shut down those videos if you are so inclined to do so.

Otherwise, it really is not a big deal.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I understand what you are saying, but this goes back to end justifies the means. Well it's ok to steal another person's work because it is for a good cause after all... Well I don't believe in that. Ask for permission and if you don't get it, then make your own videos.

they have no respect for other individuals, so it would negate their very idea of twisted "liberty" to ask other individuals for permission.

 

[fearthereaperx]

I didn't read through all of the 170 replies, but I would like to say this: If your video contains content from any news media (clips of Ron Paul) it's not yours, unless you recorded it. If you use Ron Paul's name without his consent, it's not yours. If you use any music in your video that isn't yours, it's not yours. And if it's not yours, you have no "rights".

However, if it's 100% original, and you have the proper copyrights to your video, then by all means, go ahead and notify Youtube and have them shut down those videos if you are so inclined to do so.

Otherwise, it really is not a big deal.

Atleast, Notify the offender with a message to please take it down.

 

[Travlyr]

For the last 50 years I have considered intellectual property rights to be a cornerstone of liberty. So I am a bit surprised that IP is not cherished by the liberty movement. Perhaps I don't understand the debate so the following scenario is meant to continue this debate in hopes of getting a better understanding of the positions.

If I spend $5 million and two years of my labor making a movie, then what rights do I have to recover my investment? Can just anyone and everyone copy my movie, show it to audiences, charge admission, and not pay me royalties?

 

[Chieppa1]

Sometimes I think all TPTB have to do to keep Ron Paul from winning, is have two people have an debate about some little issue right outside all election voting centers around the country. All Ron Paul supporters would be too busy debating "who sucks more" outside and forget to vote...

 

[ForLiberty2012]

For the last 50 years I have considered intellectual property rights to be a cornerstone of liberty. So I am a bit surprised that IP is not cherished by the liberty movement. Perhaps I don't understand the debate so the following scenario is meant to continue this debate in hopes of getting a better understanding of the positions.

If I spend $5 million and two years of my labor making a movie, then what rights do I have to recover my investment? Can just anyone and everyone copy my movie, show it to audiences, charge admission, and not pay me royalties?

If it's 100% yours... paid for by you, original idea is yours, filmed by you, etc etc... obtained the proper copyrights... then yes you can get lawyers involved and "sue" for "lost profit".

 

[Birdlady]

I'm not talking about IP's here at all. I'm talking about a creative work of art that a person created in their own time, mind and then God forbid wanted to share it with the world. It is theirs no matter what medium is used to share that work.

And actually in your pharmaceutical example you are completely wrong. Only that one company can make that drug as there are patents on all medications. Once the allotted amount of time runs out (20 years), then other companies can produce that same drug as a generic. That's why these companies make small changes all the time, so they reset the clock on their patents. Acetominophen has been off-patent for many many years...

We aren't talking about patent law here though. We are talking about copyright. Copyright never expires, until many years after the creator's death.

It's not an ends justify the means. Look at the pharmaceutical industry today. Just because you are the first to discover something doesn't make you the owner of that discovery. Imagine if for all eternity (if it was indeed property and the individual/corporation never gave permission for anyone to reproduce) only Tylenol was allowed to produce acetaminophen, even though you at your house, or in a lab, or elsewhere with your own property were barred from using it as you wish, just because someone discovered a formula before you. Imagine if you had to pay royalties to use your own vocal cords? Can you visualize yet how IP infringes on private property rights? I can't make it much clearer. You can't have a contradictory set of property rights -- it simply does not exist, nor can it.

You can own a CD, but not the lyrics on the CD. You can own a DVD, but not the images or ideas on the DVD. You can own a piece of sheet music, but you cannot own the chords within. One is property, one is not. One is scarce, one is not. One is tangible, one is not. IP is nothing more than another individual laying claim to my property and my-own-self.

 

[CCTelander]

"I get this strange feeling of deja vu."

 

[Travlyr]

If it's 100% yours... paid for by you, original idea is yours, filmed by you, etc etc... obtained the proper copyrights... then yes you can get lawyers involved and "sue" for "lost profit".

If that's the case, then it might make sense to take the risk and make the investment.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm not talking about IP's here at all. I'm talking about a creative work of art that a person created in their own time, mind and then God forbid wanted to share it with the world. It is theirs no matter what medium is used to share that work.

And actually in your pharmaceutical example you are completely wrong. Only that one company can make that drug as there are patents on all medications. Once the allotted amount of time runs out (20 years), then other companies can produce that same drug as a generic. That's why these companies make small changes all the time, so they reset the clock on their patents. Acetominophen has been off-patent for many many years...

We aren't talking about patent law here though. We are talking about copyright. Copyright never expires, until many years after the creator's death.

So you think property rights come with a time-table? Odd seeing as how non-IP has no restriction, because it is a fundamental natural liberty, unlike IP which are nothing but writs of State-monopoly. If IP was actually property, then it is yours ad infinitum down on lineage unless you decide to give it away. You can't argue that IP is property when it has zero characteristics of property. Not in law. Not in philosophy. Not in reality.

I wish I was around right before the English Language was invented so I could get IP passed and then charge folks for using the language I invented. Nothing like owning everyones vocal cords.

 

[low preference guy]

they have no respect for other individuals, so it would negate their very idea of twisted "liberty" to ask other individuals for permission.

yeah, lying about the people you're arguing with and not arguing against their ideas is very convincing. what more proof does anyone need that you don't have an argument?

 

[satchelmcqueen]

i see the point the OP makes, but i still gotta say that as long as ron paul gets his message heard, i really dont think it matters WHERE it was heard from. If i make a rp vid (and i have) and someone else takes it to further put it out there for people to see, (which they did) i am fine with that. the more the merrier i say. this is about spreading pauls message, not "who made the video". grass roots!!!!