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

[dusman]

If I did that and you sued me, would that get me a free flight to the US?

Hmm, sounds like an interesting scenario.

 

[CasualApathy]

Hmm, sounds like an interesting scenario.

Haha, thanks for being a good sport

By the way, you've given me food for thought and I will certainly consider what you have said in the future.

 

[dusman]

Haha, thanks for being a good sport

By the way, you've given me food for thought and I will certainly consider what you have said in the future.

Thank you. I'd hope it wouldn't be much to ask for a simple 30-second message asking if it was fine to use something. Again, 99% of the time I would be more than happy to let anyone use it! It's scenarios like the above that is the whole reason it's important to ask first. You never know what repercussions could come to others!

 

[CasualApathy]

Thank you. I'd hope it wouldn't be much to ask for a simple 30-second message asking if it was fine to use something. Again, 99% of the time I would be more than happy to let anyone use it! It's scenarios like the above that is the whole reason it's important to ask first. You never know what repercussions could come to others!

True, I honestly hadn't considered that before.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Dusman could you stop being disingenuous? I only support the principle of private property; I haven't said anything about my personal feelings in regards to how a person uses their property. Your assertion is no different than people calling me a racist because I support the right of a person to say what he wants and do what they want on their own property and some people who do so happen to be racist. You have no cogent argument. Sure, do I have sympathy because the courts and the law are wrong and crooked? OF FUCKING COURSE. Just because something is wrong and just so happens to be law, doesn't mean we should either sanction it, or lord it over folks trying to make them to be some horrible person. Take this to heart:

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."

I am also getting tired of the IP folks calling ideas, recipes, formulas, etc. property when it has never been defined or used as such, nor can it stand up to the rigor of critique. Even the law doesn't say it is property, or that a violation is thievery. The only foot you have to stand on is a utilitarian one and that is weak, or you can just appeal to authority and let the Government aka Legislators tell you what you should believe, as if they are the demi-god to bestow upon us the truth. Logic and Reason is truth, and as insofar as man uses these tools which have been fortuitous for us to receive, it shall be. Man is not authority -- logic and reason are.

 

[dusman]

Dusman could you stop being disingenuous? I only support the principle of private property; I haven't said anything about my personal feelings in regards to how a person uses their property. Your assertion is no different than people calling me a racist because I support the right of a person to say what he wants and do what they want on their own property and some people who do so happen to be racist. You have no cogent argument. Sure, do I have sympathy because the courts and the law are wrong and crooked? OF FUCKING COURSE. Just because something is wrong and just so happens to be law, doesn't mean we should either sanction it, or lord it over folks trying to make them to be some horrible person. Take this to heart:



I am also getting tired of the IP folks calling ideas, recipes, formulas, etc. property when it has never been defined or used as such, nor can it stand up to the rigor of critique. Even the law doesn't say it is property, or that a violation is thievery. The only foot you have to stand on is a utilitarian one and that is weak, or you can just appeal to authority and let the Government aka Legislators tell you what you should believe, as if they are the demi-god to bestow upon us the truth. Logic and Reason is truth, and as insofar as man uses these tools which have been fortuitous for us to receive, it shall be. Man is not authority -- logic and reason are.

Think and say whatever you'd like. I will always believe that my artwork is my property and IS tangible property. Even if I am entirely wrong in my basis in law, which I'm not. It is the law and if you don't like it then take it to the legislation to clarify it with your infinite wisdom on the subject.

If you were an artist, perhaps you would understand. If you have ever actually had your artwork stolen.. maybe you'd understand. It doesn't feel good. Whether it be put on canvas or in a file, that is my artwork that I've spent a lifetime building a skillset for. I won't ever condone or stand behind someone who thinks they have a moral or legal right to just take it and make it their own.

I can do strawman arguments all day long too. What if Hitler purchased the Mona Lisa, removed all reference to Leonardo Da Vinci in all of the historical account and wrote his name on it and proclaimed to the world it was his? That would be fine with you - because the morality of it is entirely baseless in your view.

If you don't respect the principle of not only appreciating someone's artwork, but also respect for such expression, then your own opinion proves pointless too.

Curse all you want about it.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Think and say whatever you'd like. I will always believe that my artwork is my property and IS tangible property. Even if I am entirely wrong in my basis in law, which I'm not. It is the law and if you don't like it then take it to the legislation to clarify it with your infinite wisdom on the subject.

If you were an artist, perhaps you would understand. If you have ever actually had your artwork stolen.. maybe you'd understand. It doesn't feel good. Whether it be put on canvas or in a file, that is my artwork that I've spent a lifetime building a skillset for. I won't ever condone or stand behind someone who thinks they have a moral or legal right to just take it and make it their own.

I can do strawman arguments all day long too. What if Hitler purchased the Mona Lisa, removed all reference to Leonardo Da Vinci in all of the historical account and wrote his name on it and proclaimed to the world it was his? That would be fine with you - because the morality of it is entirely baseless in your view.

If you don't respect the principle of not only appreciating someone's artwork, but also respect for such expression, then your own opinion proves pointless too.

Curse all you want about it.

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.

you are truly amazing at being rude and making a case for utopian ownership of what isnt yours.

 

[Travlyr]

If IP laws protect owners of creative projects the right to recoup the investment costs of creation, and creators say that in an anti-IP environment they will be less likely to create, then the anti-IP solution does not seem like a creative environment. That kinda sucks.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

you are truly amazing at being rude and making a case for utopian ownership of what isnt yours.

My CD isn't mine? My Hard-drive isn't mine? My canvas isn't mine? My paint isn't mine? My copper wires aren't mine? What do you mean, isn't mine? You want a renter-ship society where the only things you own are limited to items outside of the patent books. Thank god patents, copyright, and IP originated in the late 17th Century and really didn't gain prominence until the mid 19th, or else most of the items that exist today would be under ownership of the estates of the guy who originally discovered certain ideas.

Imagine if IP was around when the English Language was invented. I wonder what royalties I would have to pay to have the fortune of using my vocal cords.

 

[silverhandorder]

Bulloks on less creation. England with IP laws and Germany without IP laws on books show that it is the other way around. Germany had much more books created and much more demand for books without IP protection.

Even if you think IP is real technology is making it impossible to enforce. I can easily copy anything on internet, make an anonymous account and spread it everywhere. No way to trace to me and no way to stop it. Get with the times.

 

[Chainspell]

@Austrian Econ Disciple:

Wow seriously a lot of people here need to calm down. When I upload a video that video is mine, and whoever re-uploads it, is doing something wrong if they don't get my permission. Data is also property, videos on youtube that you created are Intellectual property. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Just because you still have it doesn't mean nobody can copy it and steal your work. I don't get what is so hard about this, I can understand if you are the one stealing people's Intellectual property then to you have a lot to defend yourself about.

And I have to say, that is the vibe I'm getting from you. You're against society's current stance on Intellectual Property. Which is fine, be that way. So is it okay to copy someone's work and not consider it stealing by today's standards? What does it matter if you don't think so? lol who are you?

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Brendan, many people here are IP thieves and use their anarchistic worldview to defend it. It's a lost cause trying to argue it here. Those of us, like you and I, that make our living by being creative, will never be understood by those that only know how to use their hands and not their heads. Don't bother arguing, it's just a waste of time, and get used to them stealing your work, you can't do anything to stop them. Truly you can't. The only thing that stops a man stealing is his morals, and today, most don't have any to speak of.

And don't worry folks, I won't be back to this thread to read your comments - I have heard it all already.

 

[Chainspell]

Brendan, many people here are IP thieves and use their anarchistic worldview to defend it. It's a lost cause trying to argue it here. Those of us, like you and I, that make our living by being creative, will never be understood by those that only know how to use their hands and not their heads. Don't bother arguing, it's just a waste of time, and get used to them stealing your work, you can't do anything to stop them. Truly you can't. The only thing that stops a man stealing is his morals, and today, most don't have any to speak of.

And don't worry folks, I won't be back to this thread to read your comments - I have heard it all already.

wow I didn't know that. Thanks for warning me, I'm not gonna bother with this.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

People stealing my work and not giving credit is the reason I signed up here. Hopefully more people will see my stuff if I post it here. On that note, enjoy these vids!

 

[dusman]

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.

Traditionally, for someone to have an exact clone of my artwork would require in every case a sophisticated reproduction of the work in some form or another. In most cases, this would require someone with at least the same skill to achieve the desired result and still it would NEVER be an exact copy. Technology has provided the convenience to not NEED to physically take the artwork, but still have the ability to make an exact clone of the work that is impossible to distinguish from the original.

This is where my opinion defers from you.

If I were a painter and displayed my artwork in a public forum and someone took that piece, that would be theft. If they wanted it, without stealing it, they would have to pay for it. Otherwise, it's impossible to have.

However, if we take those same assumptions into the online spectrum, it becomes a very different situation.

I'm the same artist whom displays my artwork in a public forum online and someone takes that piece, that should be theft, correct?. But, it's a conundrum because they can't technically remove the original piece, but they certainly can CLONE the piece, without any need to reproduce the artwork. Just because in the traditional sense that is impossible, doesn't mean the intent was not the same.

You WOULD try to make the case that I am against others using my work as inspiration and that I'm opposed to "the highest form of flattery". It's simply not the truth. That would destroy the whole foundation of art and culture. All artwork is inspired in one way or another from other's artwork. However, you blur the lines between theft and imitation, that should be pretty clear at this point.

So let's compare the two scenarios in regards to theft and imitation:

1) I release my military ad and there is a licensed image attached to said ad that I do not own. Someone comes and CLONES that artwork and reuses it somewhere else without my knowledge. That just created a legal liability for me, because there is no way to disprove that it didn't originate from me. My only remedy is to prove that it was CLONED without my consent and used in a manner I did not intend. In your philosophy, I would be denied that remedy, which all law is required to facilitate.

2) I release my military ad and there is a license attached to said ad that I do not own. Someone comes and is so inspired by it that they IMITATE my work (check the thread, that is exactly what also happened) and use that same licensed image in THEIR OWN work. I have nothing to do with how that person's imitation uses that licensed image, and so therefore liability is now on him, not me. My remedy is to simply show that it was not my work, therefore not my responsibility.

Just because the basic requirement of physically taking my original is no longer necessary, doesn't justify your point; nor does it automatically create a presumption that it cannot be theft, therein. You completely discount the new forms of theft that are possible today and you refuse to acknowledge it, so you can justify the theft that you engage in, most likely.

I don't appreciate you using ANOTHER strawman to associate my position to condoning slavery, because it was legal and poor plantation farmer couldn't put food on his family's table. That is obnoxious and very immature. Grow up. If you think that is anywhere close to whom I am, then you are a poor judge of character and your own bigotry is exposed.

Ultimately, I believe in the basis of common law and reject statutory rules/codes. I believe no human being has the right to do harm to another human being, to damage their property, or be fraudulent in their contracts. I believe with that basis in law, morality becomes much easier to align with law.

Also, it is absolutely laughable that you try to make it seem as if I'm SO MUCH FOR authority. I've risked my own freedom fighting authority and corrupted law. I have walked right into court and ordered Sheriffs to arrest Judge's who refuse to put their oath on record. I've stood up against the military to stand up for my own Constitutional oath. So much for your attempt to pretend I'm the one attacking character. I've simply stood on my own truth in regard to being an artist and the challenges we face protecting our work.

Funny, that you are the one cursing and the one using strawman arguments, to justify your point. I try to avoid that at all costs, so that I don't make the same mistake you just have in the past few posts.

Anyways, I'm bored with this pointless back and forth with you. You are welcome to think however you'd like and I am as well. So on that note, you'll just have to accept to agree to disagree, as much as that probably rowls you up.

 

[silverhandorder]

We don't fight over breathing air do we? Same for ideas. They are not scarce and technology is making it so. It is a fact of life that you just have to accept and move on. You can try and fight it but P2P is impossible to police.

 

[dannno]

Bulloks on less creation. England with IP laws and Germany without IP laws on books show that it is the other way around. Germany had much more books created and much more demand for books without IP protection.

Even if you think IP is real technology is making it impossible to enforce. I can easily copy anything on internet, make an anonymous account and spread it everywhere. No way to trace to me and no way to stop it. Get with the times.

This is reality.

Sorry dusman, at the end of the day, IP is extremely flawed. You are sorta like the record labels trying to prop up a dying system.

That doesn't mean you can't find ways to make good compensation from your hard work, in fact, I think everybody as a whole would be much more successful without it because it would go back to industry and suddenly things would be much cheaper and more available for everyone.

 

[Bman]

I think this whole argument really gets narrowed down to agreeing on fraud, once we get past all the b.s.

When it comes to artwork and anything of a creative process what level of acceptance does the free market provide against fraud?

 

[Birdlady]

I did not read this entire thread, but your post is so true of most people believe on the internet. They think anything listed on the internet is in public domain, but that is absolutely not true at all. Look at google images for example. You are not supposed to copy and paste those picture and use them for your own use. They are indeed copyrighted by the person who took the photo or created the photo and you are supposed to ask for permission to use those. I nearly sued someone because they used a picture of my face on their website without my permission.

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.

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.