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

[awake]

Better bring enough for everybody.

Lol...Hold me a seat...

 

[The Free Hornet]

I didn't say the laws shouldn't be different, just that there is ownership there and when you take the benefit of its use - by copy or otherwise - when you didn't do the work, you took something. Dilution without compensation uses value created by the creator. USING a potter's pot without permission isn't ok either.

Labor unions formed largely because entrenched workers saw people with different color and language diluting the value of their work. To compete, they didn't so much focus on improving their productivity or their skills, but rather using force of law or outright force to eliminate competition.

This is not about the potter's physical artwork, brushes, the wheel, or the pot. This is more like buying his pot, giving it to your cousin, and your cousin - being quite clever - figures he could put 'ears' on a pot too (handles). Nothing is taken. If 'ears on a pot' is such an earth-shattering creation, it is incumbent on the potter to keep it a secret - not on us to financially support police forces and their pensions indefinitely so competing potters can't make use of that idea.

Given the nature of the racket, ought not the potter - not his customers - pay for the police? The potter doesn't even get us to agree not to copy the damn pot! He goes to a third party - the government - and uses them to get concessions that he otherwise might not get in a direct negotiation.

 

[sailingaway]

Labor unions formed largely because entrenched workers saw people with different color and language diluting the value of their work. To compete, they didn't so much focus on improving their productivity or their skills, but rather using force of law or outright force to eliminate competition.

This is not about the potter's physical artwork, brushes, the wheel, or the pot. This is more like buying his pot, giving it to your cousin, and your cousin - being quite clever - figures he could put 'ears' on a pot too (handles). Nothing is taken. If 'ears on a pot' is such an earth-shattering creation, it is incumbent on the potter to keep it a secret - not on us to financially support police forces and their pensions indefinitely so competing potters can't make use of that idea.

Given the nature of the racket, ought not the potter - not his customers - pay for the police? The potter doesn't even get us to agree not to copy the damn pot! He goes to a third party - the government - and uses them to get concessions that he otherwise might not get in a direct negotiation.

it depends on how it was used. Improvements, yeah, but how about just using something and your product wouldn't be as good without it?

I disagree with you on fundamental points here. I understand where you are coming from; I just disagree. I suspect neither of us is going to convince the other.

 

[RickyJ]

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

But according to Paul Ryan sometimes you got to against your principles in order to uphold your principles. So sometimes you can steal stuff to uphold your principles.

Yeah, copyrights should be honored, but unless you are trying to make money off of it, it shouldn't really matter a whole lot if someone steals it, unless they do it for personal gain.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Intellectual Property is not property, so nobody has an moral right to prevent another person from copying and posting their work.

I do think there is a "civility" and "respect" argument to be made. Within certain contexts I agree 100% that as a matter of common courtesy, you shouldn't repost someone else's work if they specifically make such a request. But I'm not sure Youtube is such a context. First, it isn't a tight knit community. A site like this is sort of like a club and most people at least try to get along and respect each other. Youtube is a massive and anonymous free for all. Secondly, there is problem with the platform itself. Youtube is well known for their capricious deleting of material at the request of Big Business or Government. Re-Posting, especially to other sites, is a way of preserving material that should be seen. Several years ago, I stumbled upon what I considered the best set of promotional commercials I had ever seen. It was a group of web ads done to promote S2 of Gossip Girl online. The music utilized was great- a hauntingly manipulated version of Bananarama's Cruel Summer, a punkish remix of Rock Lobster that to this day I can't locate, as well as Plastic Bertrand's classic Ca Plane Pour Moi and Billy Boy on Poison's On My Way. When I went back to watch these masterpieces of art again a few months later, I was devastated to find that most of the music had been changed (I guess because whoever put the videos out at Warner Brothers never secured the rights or the deal The WB made only secured the rights for a short while) and one of the more risque ads had been severely edited (probably because it involved a small child as the punchline and some suit at The WB got finally got around to watching it and got nervous). So that was it. Best ad campaign in history deleted forever. Had a been smart and downloaded this stuff it could have been preserved and circulated forever. You never know when Youtube might pull the plug on something. And you never know when the original uploadeder might pull the plug either. It is just too risky to allow great art to be at the mercy of these two variables. Youtube Re-Posters, annoying or disrespectful as they may be at times, generally serve the greater good.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

@IP laws, they suck but if you don't want people copying your work there are better ways to protect them other than making laws.

This^^

The "copying=theft" argument always makes me lol. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of law, praxeology, and economics.

 

[awake]

Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum; if people are not allowed to copy all non physical arrangements, including pixels, then computers must be made illegal for their ability to do so. As well any one who repeats a quote or idea from some one else owes them a royalty check or must say good things about them by law, or face a fine or jail. Hell, Your parents should be arrested for thinking of the idea to try and have you...its was some one else's idea first to procreate.

Since the wish to abolish copying of non physical things is absolutely ri·dic·u·lous in its totality, and would render humanity extinct if every attempt to copy were made illegal, than this must mean that the little doses of IP poison we are subject to are harmful to human efforts to maintain life in the most efficient manner possible.

I could plagerize Rothbard's work as a full time endevour...but I will be forever open to the person who points out that I just copied it and that I was a fraud all along. No law required.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Change is an open source phenomenon. So...hmm.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

//

 

[Salvial]

It's the nature of the beast. Don't like it? Produce dvd videos and hand them out, brand the video cleverly, or contact gooTube, but don't try to criminalize their behavior. You're waging a dangerous and losing battle and fighting against voluntary networking and innovation.

My recent EP focused a lot on this issue. A song called Cyber Wardrums specifically.

 

[Carson]

This reminds me of a Beverly Hillbillies show. Maybe Petticoat junction. Nope. Nope. It was Green Acres...maybe.

Anyway they bought a script of a play and were talking about making changes in their version. Mr. Douglas said, "You can't do that." And I think Mr. Drucker said, "No. The playwright said it was okay. He said we could make any changes we wanted as long as it didn't get back to him."


I thought that was a pretty good rule.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

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.

Wow, good job comparing your "right" to others' work to killing people and slavery.

Do you really think people who produce films or video games or music do so for your amusement? Not really, they're there to make money. They invest their time, their labor, their skills, their money and take the risk to try and make a profit. And you think people have a right to buy one copy, put it online and let everyone have it for free? This isn't stealing because it's not a tangible item? Please.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow, good job comparing your "right" to others' work to killing people and slavery.

Do you really think people who produce films or video games or music do so for your amusement? Not really, they're there to make money. They invest their time, their labor, their skills, their money and take the risk to try and make a profit. And you think people have a right to buy one copy, put it online and let everyone have it for free? This isn't stealing because it's not a tangible item? Please.

Exactly. A simple reading of the dictionary and the copyright act can teach you that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

//

What they heck does // mean? Do keep in mind that I'm old and have only recently learned the meaning of the term "Woot!"

 

[The Free Hornet]

Do you really think people who produce films or video games or music do so for your amusement? Not really, they're there to make money. They invest their time, their labor, their skills, their money and take the risk to try and make a profit. And you think people have a right to buy one copy, put it online and let everyone have it for free?

If I voluntarily agreed not to make a copy of that and similar films, then it would not be right to violate that agreement.

Why would I make such an agreement to not copy?

1) I work for a content creating industry like Disney and this could be a condition of employment not unlike a confidentiality agreement.

2) In exchange for seeing a movie (buying a DVD or book), I agree not to do certain things including copying. It could apply to getting cable TV or dish service.

3) In order to get any content *I* make similarly protected, I agree to respect works of others who made the same agreement. This type of agreement is naturally, but not necessarily, reciprocal.

4) Maybe I agree with terms 'on principle' and need nothing in return.

5) To connect to a game or streaming service.


What would this agreement have?

- Likely, limited protection times as envisioned by founders and NOT unlimited times as pushed by Hollywood ("Happy Birthday" is still a crime or civil offense for you to sing or copy - don't worry they only prosecute people who truly threaten them)

- Civil penalties, not criminal penalties. Why would you agree to spend time in prison because you backed up a DVD? My guess is that if we had civil, voluntary agreements, going to jail would not be an enforceable contract clause (unless perhaps failing to hand over assets or cooperate with civil court proceedings).

- Fair use rights, backup rights, format shifting, not having to rebuy the content every ten years when Technology Y replaces Technology X.

- No permission to spy on us through devices or other means.



Why would any free-thinking person want government to be a party to private negotiations? Why should every creative work have the same default licensing agreement which changes from Congress to Congress, country to country, and for which you had zero input?

Also, why don't more people here tie this in to the NWO and one-world government? All those anti-counterfeiting (does not apply to money!) agreements are about restricting your ability to buy and resell items. Your job will be outsourced but there will be no option for you to outsource Merck.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This was an unnecessary thread, because of the following considerations:

1) YouTube was designed by default to be a fair use medium, a community where video excerpts are shared for commentary, news, parody or other purposes beneficial to the public domain. It is by NO means clear that any of the repostings constitute stealing or theft, in that context. The intrusion of copyright issues on the original format by Google and strident corporate cops, to force upon it the same exclusive distribution of content rules as seen elsewhere in the commercial market, has been a detriment to exchange in the marketplace of ideas. To see some Paul people join in on these counterfeit property claims is regrettable.

2) Copyright historically and in practice is NOT a 'right,' it is a government subsidy or privilege that was intended to provide a TEMPORARY and local monopoly on the distribution of content to publishers/exhibitors (not the original content producers), long enough to recoup their expenses and provide a window of time to profit. It was never intended to be an endless, global, or indefinite limitation on outside distribution, across all jurisdictions---that is a modern corporate invention. Again, to see Paul supporters fall in line with the myths of the copyright gestapo is disappointing.

3) Has everybody on earth forgotten how the Paul grassroots started in 2007, namely by repackaging and passing out videos to the masses? That RP channel is doing the same in 2012 as it was doing in 2007, as was anybody who was burning CDs and re-distributing them on the streets to people at that time. If it was okay then, it's okay now. Or have we graduated from a grassroots mentality altogether, and only want the movement's media distributed from some top-down source?

 

[ProIndividual]

IP is anti-free market protectionism left over from mercantilism. Fraud is one thing..but copyright and patent are entirely another. You'll notice the most radical capitalists (AnCaps, Agorists, Voluntaryists, etc.), and the more enlightened minarchists are against IP. Why do you suppose that is, OP? Could it be they are more free market than you? Also...Peace&Freedom is right.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I almost want to neg-rep the person who dug this thread up out of the abyss.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

IP is anti-free market protectionism left over from mercantilism. Fraud is one thing..but copyright and patent are entirely another. You'll notice the most radical capitalists (AnCaps, Agorists, Voluntaryists, etc.), and the more enlightened minarchists are against IP. Why do you suppose that is, OP? Could it be they are more free market than you? Also...Peace&Freedom is right.

+rep

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'd still like to know what // means.

No wonder there exists a generational gap.