Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

So someone washes your car, and you drive away without paying them. You have taken their time and labour away from them, exactly what happens when you pirate software, moveis etc.

The dudes on the highway make this exact insane argument. Here's the deal - if you really want to make sure I pay you for your effort, get me to agree with it beforehand! Hell, the whole kickstarter thing is essentially built on that idea, on making people pony up the money up front. If you do a bunch of work, and then I benefit without compensating you, it might be a dick move but it is NOT stealing.

Stealing, in this case, would be if I approached you with the offer, agreed to pay you, and then skipped out - in that case, I would clearly have been stealing your time, and even if I had no benefit whatsoever (drove through a mud puddle on my way out the driveway?) you would still be the worse for it.

But here's the problem - a lot of people are, a lot of creators and developers, are entitled fucking brats who think just because they put in the effort the world owes them something. It doesn't! And thank god the world doesn't work that way. No matter how much work you put into a piece of crap, no one is under any obligation to give you money for it unless they actually agreed to it first. Even if they end up benefiting from it!

I think the better point of view here is to round up all the entitled asshats who think simple effort is enough for them to be rewarded and give them a nice big reminder that that isn't the way the world works. No matter how many times that asshole on the highway squeegies my window, I'm not giving him a dime. And that is not, it really is not, stealing.

Especially since, in this situation, the people pirates are supposedly stealing from (the publishers) aren't even the people who went through the work of squeeging my window! No, you're asking me to pay the guy who pointed him at my car, and hope the squeegieman is compensated appropriately.

It's a joke to call something like that theft.

[MonkeyHead]

You dont have to buy a game/movie/music/whatever though.

[LordBucket]

a lot of creators and developers, are entitled fucking brats who think
just because they put in the effort the world owes them something.

I've been sitting back reading and trying to genuinely understand this issue, and while this might seem to come rather far from left field, I'm beginning to suspect this whole copyright thing is actually a religious/philosophical issue. The argument I see being made by the copyright/you owe me camp....if I understand it correctly...basically seems to be that non-tangibles are ownable. That something like an idea, or a conceptual arrangement, can be property just like physical objects can.

This is a religious/philosophical view.

If I have red, blue and green markers, I can hold those markers in my hand and claim to own them. So far as I can tell, everyone participating in this discussion is agreeable to that. But...what if I take those markers and put them in a row, red blue and green, and then claim "ownership" of, not the physical markers themselves...but the arrangement of "red, blue then green" as applied to markers.

To me, that seems kind of silly. But it appears to be the worldview we're arguing against.

Yes, I am simplifying to demonstrate the ludicrousness of it. But that's all I'm doing. Simplifying. That really does appear to be what they're saying. For example: "I invested my time and energy into arranging these musical notes and sounds in a certain order. I'm not claiming to own the notes, but I own the arrangement and you can't use it." "I invested my time and energy into arranging these words into a certain order. I'm not claiming to own the words, but I own the arrangement and you can't use it. Even if you use your own paper and your own ink, you can't use this arrangement of words because I did it first."

That is basically what's being claimed here, right?

[Zangi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht90i9Ydlow

Off topic, but since you posted this, I've been listening to it too damned much.

It's like an addictive earworm that I like.

It or one of its variations is nearly always brought up when we talk about pirates these days.

Also @Grod's Fire

[Bauglir]

Eh, it's not about ownership. It's about enabling a person to create art for a living.

[LordBucket]

Eh, it's not about ownership. It's about enabling a person to create art for a living.

That's an evasion.

[Bauglir]

Eh, it's not about ownership. It's about enabling a person to create art for a living.

That's an evasion.

No, it's my reasoning. There are a lot of people who think it's about ownership. But not everybody who thinks copyright is a good thing reasons that way, and I'm frustrated by attempts to paint the entire concept that way.

[LordBucket]

No, it's my reasoning.

It's insufficient.

a lot of people who think it's about ownership. But not everybody who thinks copyright is a good thing reasons that way

How can you "reason about it" in a way that makes sense and isn't obviously unreasonable without it being about ownership? If you don't own the thing you're claiming other people can't have without paying you for it...how does that make sense?

[XXSockXX]

What about ownership independent of commercial interest? Let's say you draw a picture, for use as a cd cover or as a poster for a game. You never intended to make money with it and left it to people for free use. But then a big corporation uses it in an advertisement, thus saving themselves tons of money for designing the ad. Or a neo-nazi group uses your pic in a political campaign. Shouldn't you as the creator have a say in who can use your stuff and how?

[Bauglir]

I believe that it should be possible to earn a living by being an artist. I believe that there should be a legal framework to support this, but only because I don't think social conventions are going to do the job until somebody's sufficiently well-known that reproducing their work without providing credit is likely to be noticed by the same audience the copy would be marketed to. The only legal framework I can imagine that does that is one that grants ownership, but that's a consequence of necessity.

It's a tangential result of my argument, not the argument itself, and characterizing it as you have is inaccurate. I don't particularly think that ownership is "right", or that there's a moral obligation to society to provide it - only that it's an inevitable consequence of a system that is. If a system were presented that did not involve ownership, but still allowed artists to survive without recourse to other employment, that would also be good, and possibly better, depending on its other characteristics.

Is that sufficient?

[GlyphGryph]

Bauglirs reasoning is THE reasoning copyright is supposed to be based on. It's not a personal-level thing, it's a societal level thing. It's about greasing the wheels of creation by providing legal incentives. At least, that's how it's supposed to be.

Obviously, it's been twisted and perverted but the entitled assholes who think their effort is actually worth something.

You dont have to buy a game/movie/music/whatever though.

And I won't. But it doesn't change the fact that a great many people think I should have to, simply because they put so much work into.

[LordBucket]

Is that sufficient?

Bauglir...I apologize. I'm really, really trying here. Your thinking...if I understand it...is so foreign to me that I'm, having a difficult time coming up with a response.

I don't particularly think that ownership is "right", or that there's a moral obligation
to society to provide it - only that it's an inevitable consequence of a system that is.

Do you understand the consequences of the consequences you believe to be inevitable?

Do you understand that you already can make a living as an artist...without copyright...provided you're able to convince people to choose to pay you for your art?

And...do you understand that the enforcement of this system you want for the sake of being able to "make a living as an artist" involves third parties stealing money (fines) from and/or imprisoning people  you're unable to convince to pay you for your art?

Do you really believe that's better? There are people being thrown in jail for years, for failing to choose to support the living of artists. You do understand that...right?

I don't particularly think that ownership is "right", or that there's a moral obligation to society to provide it

So you don't even think that ownership is right, and you don't believe there's any obligation for society to provide it. So it's more important for you to make a living as an artist than throwing people in jail for using things you believe weren't even owned by somebody else?

[Darkmere]

Do you understand that you already can make a living as an artist...without copyright...provided you're able to convince people to choose to pay you for your art?

Stop. Stop right there.

The theory behind copyright is to make sure people who want to get paid for their art get paid for their art instead of the next guy who came along, saw something that someone else came up with, and just started selling the exact same thing with zero vested effort. Bicker and banter about enforcement all you like, but that's what copyright is meant to accomplish.

Payment for services rendered is not a foreign, bizarre, mind-blowing new-agey concept... it's the basis of civilization. Creation is a service.

[LordBucket]

Payment for services rendered

Show me a contract where I agreed to pay for your services.

[MonkeyHead]

If you want to access legal advice, you pay a lawyer. You dont get the advice, then not pay. If you dont want legal representation, defend yourself. For free.

If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art, and give it away to others for free, if the time and effort spent on it has no value to you.