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

[mport1]

I'm sure that people have already said this a million times, but intellectual property is not property. It is not "stealing" to use other people's work. While it is nice to give credit to the content originator, this should not be required.

 

[Razmear]

And yet you too want to add restrictions on the reuse of your IP.

People can do what they like with my IP, I would prefer they use it to promote Ron Paul, but if they choose otherwise I acknowledge the futility of trying to stop them. If I post something in a public place, then I have no expectation of privacy or property rights. I consider the entire internet a public place.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am the only one allowed to decide how my artwork is represented, redistributed, derived from, and is my exclusive right, which does in fact fall under property rights. It would be no different if you came onto my property and put a sign up that I don't want there. What you aren't getting is that digital property is so easily transferable and so you assume that means that no property right applies to how it's used. When you take my property and make it your own, you violate the foundation of property right.

Can you tell me when the OP was no longer in possession of the video? If he had always had possession, then nothing was taken. Similarly, if you put your art up on display on your front-lawn, you can't then claim that you have ownership over the entire line of sight. That's just plain absurd. You have no argument, and you refuse to engage me in the Socratic Method so I can show you, your position is in fact wrong. IP is not property. Nothing was stolen. Nothing was taken. The OP had possession of the video for the entire time and was never dispossessed at any moment. I am done since you will not engage and you will not face the facts.

 

[wizardwatson]

My contribution to yet another IP thread.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. 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. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson

But then....

"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good." - Thomas Jefferson

IP rights are a privilege, a "grant" as Jefferson says and was recognized as such by the framers. And I feel, as Jefferson warned, that the danger of the precedent is glaringly obvious in todays world of patent and copyright wars.

 

[specsaregood]

People can do what they like with my IP, I would prefer they use it to promote Ron Paul, but if they choose otherwise I acknowledge the futility of trying to stop them. If I post something in a public place, then I have no expectation of privacy or property rights. I consider the entire internet a public place.

Well then 2 statements in this comment are incorrect:

Just as an FYI, all my work is CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed.

If your work is in fact copyleft, then people are not free to "do what they like with my IP". The copyleft imposes restrictions on future revisions of your IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

A more accurate statement if you feel that way is to put your work in the "public domain", not copyleft. In fact, copyleft only works in a world where IP rights are protected.

so long as it's used towards the advancement of the Ron Paul campaign.

I can see why you threw that in there, but I guess that is not accurate now.

Personally, I have contributed work to both the public domain and BSD style licenses. But at the same time reserve other work as my IP that I license and restrict the use of.

 

[dusman]

I've been on these lovely boards for a while now and have participated in these arguments ad nauseum. All the reasoning on the pro-IP side boils down to saying its immoral. That may be in a lot of cases.

I remember a interview I saw a few years back where Dr. Dre said that downloading his music illegally was, and I quote "taking food off my families table".

Only in America will multi-millionaires complain about loss of royalties while half the world starves to death. Is that not "immoral"?

No it's not. It's LAW. I mean seriously, all of you whom are putting your personal opinions into the matter really make me want to not contribute anymore to this community. It's embarrassing to have to say that, because I WANT to be involved. However, I won't allow anyone here to infringe on my rights that have been well established in law, nor will I allow anyone here to jeopardize my business with some stupid lawsuit, because someone else put me into that position, because they disregard the law like it means nothing, simply due to their personal beliefs.

You quote Dr. Dre, to try and rationalize your point. Well, don't consider someone like me who is barely making it and risk my business that puts food on my families table. Just less than a few months ago I was put into a potential copyright infringement issue due to SOMEONE ELSE from this forum not giving a shit, like all you anti-IP seem not to. You then disregard the morality of such a position, like morality shouldn't be a factor. I barely make enough to survive as it is and so the risk from people that disregard IP, is a very real concern to me. I spend so much time trying to uphold not only the law, but morally be respectful to those who are like me that put a lot of time into their work, by simply asking for permission.

I would rather keep my talent and my time to myself or direct it instead toward projects that actually make me money, if you all feel this way.

 

[KramerDSP]

Most of you don't caption your Ron Paul videos. When I rip them, I ALWAYS credit the creator and explain that this was ripped only to add captions for the Deaf and hard of hearing communities. Someone ripped my "appeal to the left" and "Ron Paul vs Barack Obama on the war on drugs" videos and did not cite me. Worst, they didnt add captions which pissed me off to no end. Captions can be toggled on/off so there was no need to rip those videos I poured energy and sweat into. Oh well

 

[Razmear]

Well then 2 statements in this comment are incorrect:

If your work is in fact copyleft, then people are not free to "do what they like with my IP". The copyleft imposes restrictions on future revisions of your IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

A CopyLeft's main restriction is to prevent others from copyrighting a work derived from a copyleft work. It's goal is the free flow of information and to ensure further development without restriction.
If you want to read more into it than that, go nuts.

eb

 

[specsaregood]

A CopyLeft's main restriction is to prevent others from copyrighting a work derived from a copyleft work. It's goal is the free flow of information and to ensure further development without restriction.
If you want to read more into it than that, go nuts.

eb

I'm not reading "more into it", I'm just saying what it is. It puts its own restrictions on the work product.
It isn't just me, go look at how the GPL people go nuts when they get the idea that somebody has put their gpl'd work into a closed-source product. Copyleft licensing restrictions such as that only work in an environment where IP is respected.

 

[Razmear]

I'm not reading "more into it", I'm just saying what it is. It puts its own restrictions on the work product.
It isn't just me, go look at how the GPL people go nuts when they get the idea that somebody has put their gpl'd work into a closed-source product. Copyleft licensing restrictions such as that only work in an environment where IP is respected.

Well, I'm not a "GPL People", and you missed the second part of my notice, "CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed." is the total statement, as it was printed in the Principia Discordia in 1965, while most of those GPL people were still in grade school or yet unborn. If folks add new meanings to concepts that were clear cut almost 50 years ago, that's their problem, not mine.

eb

 

[Travlyr]

No it's not. It's LAW. I mean seriously, all of you whom are putting your personal opinions into the matter really make me want to not contribute anymore to this community. It's embarrassing to have to say that, because I WANT to be involved. However, I won't allow anyone here to infringe on my rights that have been well established in law, nor will I allow anyone here to jeopardize my business with some stupid lawsuit, because someone else put me into that position, because they disregard the law like it means nothing, simply due to their personal beliefs.

You quote Dr. Dre, to try and rationalize your point. Well, don't consider someone like me who is barely making it and risk my business that puts food on my families table. Just less than a few months ago I was put into a potential copyright infringement issue due to SOMEONE ELSE from this forum not giving a shit, like all you anti-IP seem not to. You then disregard the morality of such a position, like morality shouldn't be a factor. I barely make enough to survive as it is and so the risk from people that disregard IP, is a very real concern to me. I spend so much time trying to uphold not only the law, but morally be respectful to those who are like me that put a lot of time into their work, by simply asking for permission.

I would rather keep my talent and my time to myself or direct it instead toward projects that actually make me money, if you all feel this way.

This is evidence of the anti-IP position stifling creative work. Why bother? The behind-the-scenes time and effort put forth on a creation is valuable. What is being stolen is just compensation for a creator's previous investment of time and money. Would Thomas Edison and others put forth tremendous resources and time into creating a lightbulb if not for laws that would help them recoup their investments? I doubt it.

 

[specsaregood]

Well, I'm not a "GPL People", and you missed the second part of my notice, "CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed." is the total statement, as it was printed in the Principia Discordia in 1965, while most of those GPL people were still in grade school or yet unborn. If folks add new meanings to concepts that were clear cut almost 50 years ago, that's their problem, not mine.

eb

All I'm pointing out is that your work products are not actually "copyleft" but rather public domain by your own description.

 

[CCTelander]

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?

Yes, it does.

But they're never in a big hurry to admit that. Kind of makes their position absolutely clear.

 

[teacherone]

just to be clear: claiming another's work as one's own is not copyright infringement - it is fraud.

i'm fairly certain even those anti IP will recognize that plagiarism for profit is and should remain criminalized.

 

[muzzled dogg]

Thread is jokes

Stop trying to stifle the grassroots

 

[specsaregood]

Thread is jokes
Stop trying to stifle the grassroots

I'm pretty sure that was the point of the OP, as taking somebody's hard work without permission and releasing without any credit given is a good way to stifle their creativity by discouraging future work. Glad to see you agree with the OP.

 

[Wesker1982]

Have any IP advocates read/listened to this? It really does destroy any arguments in favor of IP. Don't let that scare you, though

 

[trey4sports]

traffic = money, and a lot of times that's what this boils down to on YT. The majority of Ron Paul videos on the YT are not exclusive to the campaign. Yes, it may be better for the campaign to get the traffic but honestly, their social media team probably doesn't understand the first thing about converting views into votes and money. The main thing with the majority of these videos is simply getting the message out and it really doesn't matter who uploads the video. If the videos were unique and actually exclusive to someone I would agree with you.

 

[dusman]

Can you tell me when the OP was no longer in possession of the video? If he had always had possession, then nothing was taken. Similarly, if you put your art up on display on your front-lawn, you can't then claim that you have ownership over the entire line of sight. That's just plain absurd. You have no argument, and you refuse to engage me in the Socratic Method so I can show you, your position is in fact wrong. IP is not property. Nothing was stolen. Nothing was taken. The OP had possession of the video for the entire time and was never dispossessed at any moment. I am done since you will not engage and you will not face the facts.

Look, this isn't a philosophical battle. This is a legal issue.

Your position simply would not hold up in court. You are failing to acknowledge that once an idea is in a tangible form, such as written on paper or produced into something that can be transfered to another human being - it automatically becomes copyrighted and is considered property. I could share an idea with you and without a non-disclosure, you'd have every right to go off and do what you may. I think that is probably the root of your point, which I wouldn't really disagree with. However, the moment I put it into tangible form, it is copyrighted property and in court all I have to prove is that I am the originator. If you don't think that is the case, I have already presented a challenge that YOU can engage in, instead of sidestepping MY points. If you are going to accuse me of doing such a thing, then if you are a reasonable human being, you'll be able to see you have done the same thing through strawman arguments. You are simply trying to force this discussion into the philosophical realm and I'm discussing it purely from the legal realm.

I'm not interested in your "Socratic Method" to debate the philosophical nature of this discussion.

My whole perspective derives down to the very specific situation that I was put in by people on this forum taking what was a composite for review and using it in a fashion that could be construed as commercial use, where licenses for portions of that work had not been purchased yet and was dependent on approval from RevPac, whether such a purchase for license was necessary. That is out of my hands and I have a responsibility to protect whom owned the rights for license. I have no choice but to track those redistributions down and ask them to remove it. If they didn't, I would have needed to serve a cease and desist letter, so I could protect my legal interest. You have so far disregarded that entirely, just so you can prove your philosophical position. Why I have a problem with that is because it has the potential to come back on me and cause me REAL harm. Why would you be ok with that? All opinions aside, I would like an answer to that question specifically. Are you suggesting that because you have an opinion, that that entitles people here to bring harm to other's real-life livelihood?

So if you'd like to get into a philosophical debate why don't you first reveal if you think it's right for others here to put me into a legal situation? I would then afterwards, be more willing to get into philosophical debate with you.

If the conclusion is that people here believe it is morally right or legally-sufficient to put me into that position, you will never see another creative work by me be put forth to this community. That pains me to have to take such a position, but I will not risk my family's well-being for any one of your opinions.

 

[dannno]

just to be clear: claiming another's work as one's own is not copyright infringement - it is fraud.

i'm fairly certain even those anti IP will recognize that plagiarism for profit is and should remain criminalized.

I haven't seen any of these videos, but I'm guessing what the OP means by "claiming it is theirs" is equivalent to "uploading it to their youtube channel"