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

Jesus was for peace so lets have a war to reclaim His homeland.

Ron Paul is for smaller government so lets advocate a larger government so that there will be someone to police YouTube sites and demand copies of Ron Paul videos be taken down so that the official campaign channel can get more views.

Yeah. Makes sense. /sarcasm

The idea that RonPaul2008dotcom is doing this to "steal views" from the official campaign is retarded. For one thing their channel views dwarves the official channel. For another if you just want views their are easier ways of doing it. I think this was a simple attempt to get the video out to more people. Is it ill thought out? Maybe. Then again maybe not. If you go to youtube and just search for "Ron Paul The One" the official video comes to the top. So how are views being "stolen"?

Here's something that most people arguing on the "Let's restrict IP to help Paul" side are missing. You can only post a response video on YouTube if it is one you've uploaded. So if RonPaul2008dotcom wants to spread that particular video by posting it as a response to some neocon crap he'd have to download and upload it. (Yeah you can post the last bit of a video URL in a comment, but that kind of sucks and folks are generally to lazy to cut/paste/splice just to see a video.) Now maybe some would feel better if he did a "trailer of the trailer" and posted that. Anyway, enough of the circular firing squad. Go make some cold calls or something. ;)
 
McBell said:
Here's what I think: 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

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.

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.

Personally, this is one thing that is completely unacceptable to me. If you want more videos on your channel, contribute to the movement by making unique videos that help further the cause. Unless you first have permission, don't use other people's on your channel. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

EDIT: LOL! You just copied the OP, I get it..

But seriously, if somebody wants to market a video, then I think they have the right to direct people to their youtube channel if they want to. Just because it is on their channel doesn't mean they claim to have made it.

Not to mention, pretty much every Ron Paul video includes copyrighted material to begin with.

I don't remember this being an issue at all in 07/08, because everybody just wanted everybody to know about Ron Paul.
 
Last edited:
Remember guys, if you make an invention, it's available to everybody for free, just like in Glorious Soviet Union.
 
dannno said:
EDIT: LOL! You just copied the OP, I get it..

But seriously, if somebody wants to market a video, then I think they have the right to direct people to their youtube channel if they want to. Just because it is on their channel doesn't mean they claim to have made it.

Not to mention, pretty much every Ron Paul video includes copyrighted material to begin with.

I don't remember this being an issue at all in 07/08, because everybody just wanted everybody to know about Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm slow today. :o
 
Quote Originally Posted by McBell View Post
Here's what I think: 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

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.

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.

Personally, this is one thing that is completely unacceptable to me. If you want more videos on your channel, contribute to the movement by making unique videos that help further the cause. Unless you first have permission, don't use other people's on your channel. Simple as that.
EDIT: LOL! You just copied the OP, I get it..

But seriously, if somebody wants to market a video, then I think they have the right to direct people to their youtube channel if they want to. Just because it is on their channel doesn't mean they claim to have made it.

Not to mention, pretty much every Ron Paul video includes copyrighted material to begin with.

I don't remember this being an issue at all in 07/08, because everybody just wanted everybody to know about Ron Paul.
 
Warrior_of_Freedom said:
Remember guys, if you make an invention, it's available to everybody for free, just like in Glorious Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

What exactly is "available to everybody for free" ??

If you sell a contraption, and I buy it, and I make more them then I've not taken anything. I've made something. If you are harboring an invention in your basement, it's only available to those you make it available to.
 
Bruno said:
Brb, I'm going to get some popcorn for the discussion on intellectual property and copyright laws.




Back - I can see how this would upset someone for sure that put the hard work into it.
Click to expand...
late I know.
 
dannno said:
No, he's saying someone couldn't have stolen something from you that you have had continuous possession of.

I will post this again:

Click to expand...


I guess what's really missing from this entire debate is a clarification on what constitutes an idea vs. what constitutes a specific realization of an idea.

No one owns music, people do own the rights to their songs.

No one owns the idea of the computer, but people do own the rights to their brand.

If you don't believe in IP, you can't believe in copyright.

If you don't believe in copyright, you don't acknowledge fraud.

Do we, in the liberty movement, hold fraud as one of our core values?
 
Mr Tansill said:
If you don't believe in copyright, you don't acknowledge fraud.

Do we, in the liberty movement, hold fraud as one of our core values?
Click to expand...

Why can't fraud just be fraud? If someone tries to represent themselves as someone else, then it's fraudulent. That doesn't mean I can't play a song by The Beatles, it just means I can't say I am The Beatles.
 
I just want to see people's opinions on this. I'm writing a book and I'm planning on selling it as an ebook, and maybe even having it published later on. I'll probably start selling it through my website for around $19.99 when it's finished. This book will go toward helping me setup my future.

My question is, do you believe in principle that it should be ok for somebody to download my book without offering me any kind of value or monetary exchange in return?

I'm just curious to hear what people have to say on this. If this was the case, it would probably discourage me from wanting to finish writing my book, because I'd be worried that I wouldn't receive compensation for my investment of time and energy in creating it. On the other hand though, I've heard research that claims books that are being pirated receive increased sales compared to books that are not being pirated. If this is true, then allowing your work to be pirated by others actually benefits the creator through increased sales. The only cause I can think of why this would be the case is that word of your book spreads more quickly because the information is easier to access. That coupled with the fact that more people will buy your book legally than pirate it will lead to increased sales.

So I'm torn on this issue. I have a desire to protect my profits, but does closing off access to my work help protect my profits, or does it actually decrease my profits by not allowing my work to spread to as many people as possible? That's an important question in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
dannno said:
Why can't fraud just be fraud? If someone tries to represent themselves as someone else, then it's fraudulent. That doesn't mean I can't play a song by The Beatles, it just means I can't say I am The Beatles.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure...

I can't really envision a world though where we as a society would build a body of law under which no one was allowed to copyright anything, but we were still concerned about fraudulent activities...

Can you?

In my mind, copyright exists to prevent fraud - i.e. they are equivalent, or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CaptUSA
RIP: Charlie Kirk Assassinated at Event in Utah
64 65 66
Replies
1K
Views
14K
acptulsa
acptulsa
ClaytonB
I don't care anymore
Replies
0
Views
169
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Jamaica’s Beaches and Property Rights
Replies
0
Views
63
PAF
PAF
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Take the Deal, President Trump
Replies
0
Views
91
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
jmdrake
Ghislaine Maxwell clears Trump, Clinton and all the other elites.
Replies
15
Views
368
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top