Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

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

Ha ha oh wow

[LordBucket]

If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art.

Let's see where this goes.

I assert that I am creating my own art when I download a copy of yours

If I see your bicycle, and use my own materials to build my own bicycle based on your design, that's not stealing, right? Why is it stealing if I see your picture and use my computer to make a new picture based on yours?

[GlyphGryph]

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.

Perhaps, like the lawyer, the artist should make sure they have a contract before they waste their time to create something people may be willing to consume but clearly aren't willing to pay for?

If a lawyer simply started representing clients, and then demanded cash from everyone in the courtroom for listening to their legal arguments and the stenographer in particular for writing them down, and all the future legal students who might review the case, they'd be laughed at of the building and publicly shamed, an the client would be told to get a lawyer that isn't an idiot. But they don't have to worry about that sort of madness, because they make sure they'll get paid before any work is done, instead of trying to strongarm everyone who may have tangentially benefited from their work after they've gone and put it out there.

Believe it or not, this is historically how artists worked - and even today, many artists still do! It's called "commission" - and almost everyone who makes money doing creative works, either gets paid by commission or gets paid a salary.

[MonkeyHead]

If you want art, pay the artist. If you dont want to pay, go make your own art.

Let's see where this goes.

I assert that I am creating my own art when I download a copy of yours

If I see your bicycle, and use my own materials to build my own bicycle based on your design, that's not stealing, right? Why is it stealing if I see your picture and use my computer to make a new picture based on yours?

It isnt stealing - but here is the important bit - I never said that it was stealing. I hold it immoral to not compensate someone for thier efforts, be it financially or in kind. You pay your bills, pay your taxes and suchlike, right? Why? Out of a sense of duty or simply out of fear for the consequences if you dont?

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.

Perhaps, like the lawyer, the artist should make sure they have a contract before they waste their time to create something people may be willing to consume but clearly aren't willing to pay for?

If a lawyer simply started representing clients, and then demanded cash from everyone in the courtroom for listening to their legal arguments and the stenographer in particular for writing them down, and all the future legal students who might review the case, they'd be laughed at of the building and publicly shamed, an the client would be told to get a lawyer that isn't an idiot. But they don't have to worry about that sort of madness, because they make sure they'll get paid before any work is done, instead of trying to strongarm everyone who may have tangentially benefited from their work after they've gone and put it out there.

Believe it or not, this is historically how artists worked - and even today, many artists still do! It's called "commission" - and almost everyone who makes money doing creative works, either gets paid by commission or gets paid a salary.

Yep, I agree. This is why earlier I made the distinction that Piracy is theft against the outmoded distribution structure of media, not the creators. However, with regards to art/media, if people arent willing to pay for, the creator will stop creating it - supply and demand again. If there is demand, people will pay for it. Thats how economies work, right?

[LordBucket]

It isnt stealing - but here is the important bit - I never said that it was stealing. I hold it
immoral to not compensate someone for thier efforts

I see. So then, if I wish your car windows then send you a bill, you'll pay?

[da_nang]

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.

Perhaps, like the lawyer, the artist should make sure they have a contract before they waste their time to create something people may be willing to consume but clearly aren't willing to pay for?

If a lawyer simply started representing clients, and then demanded cash from everyone in the courtroom for listening to their legal arguments and the stenographer in particular for writing them down, and all the future legal students who might review the case, they'd be laughed at of the building and publicly shamed, an the client would be told to get a lawyer that isn't an idiot. But they don't have to worry about that sort of madness, because they make sure they'll get paid before any work is done, instead of trying to strongarm everyone who may have tangentially benefited from their work after they've gone and put it out there.

Believe it or not, this is historically how artists worked - and even today, many artists still do! It's called "commission" - and almost everyone who makes money doing creative works, either gets paid by commission or gets paid a salary.

QFT.

Might need an agile model for it, though.

[MonkeyHead]

It isnt stealing - but here is the important bit - I never said that it was stealing. I hold it
immoral to not compensate someone for thier efforts

I see. So then, if I wish your car windows then send you a bill, you'll pay?

If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.

If I want to watch a movie, I pay to get access to the cinema. The cinema doesnt speculativley send me an invoice incase I might want to go and watch a film.

[LordBucket]

If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.

1) How are you "requesting service" by downloading a file made available by an unaffiliated third party?

2) You are clicking on, therefore "seeking and requesting" the content of my thread posts. Should you be paying me for that?

[GlyphGryph]

If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.

Would you mind if I tripled the bill when I heard you let two of your friends look through it afterwards? (Hey, they are benefiting from the effort I put on, so they should have to pay for it, right?)

Because if you're arguing against piracy, you're arguing against people sharing the benefits of something they paid for in most cases. The artist is getting paid, and they in fact getting paid as much as they asked, they just aren't getting paid enough - that's the fundamental argument that copyright holders tend to make, really. That if more people benefit, they should get paid more, even if it costs them no additional effort whatsoever.

Would you support that sort of entitled thinking in other areas of your life? Should we have to pay a few for each child who may use it when we purchase a toy? Because I know some companies who not only love that but are actively trying to make it a reality.

But personally, I find that attitude pretty disgusting. It is making on the fundamental impulses, sharing and giving for others what you have acquired for yourself, what many consider to be a virtue, into a criminal act.

[MonkeyHead]

If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.

1) How are you "requesting service" by downloading a file made available by an unaffiliated third party?

2) You are clicking on, therefore "seeking and requesting" the content of my thread posts. Should you be paying me for that?

1) By wanting to access the media. Can you walk into a building and shout "THIS IS MINE NOW" and expect it to stick? I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.

2) Maybe I should clarify my thinking - "paying" does not strictly mean cash. Both you and I are expending equal amounts of effort in terms of time creating posts - there is no gross imbalance here, and if either of us feels like we do not have to post and nobody is worse off. In sitting on my ass and watching TV, I am expending jack shit, hence a balance needs to be made in some way, be it by being exposed to commericals, paying some kinda fee, whatever. If the maker of media chooses not to make it, then I need not enter into an exchange with them.

If it was a service I wanted and sought out and requested, I should pay for it.

Would you mind if I tripled the bill when I heard you let two of your friends look through it afterwards? (Hey, they are benefiting from the effort I put on, so they should have to pay for it, right?)

Because if you're arguing against piracy, you're arguing against people sharing the benefits of something they paid for in most cases. The artist is getting paid, and they in fact getting paid as much as they asked, they just aren't getting paid enough - that's the fundamental argument that copyright holders tend to make, really. That if more people benefit, they should get paid more, even if it costs them no additional effort whatsoever.

Would you support that sort of entitled thinking in other areas of your life? Should we have to pay a few for each child who may use it when we purchase a toy? Because I know some companies who not only love that but are actively trying to make it a reality.

But personally, I find that attitude pretty disgusting. It is making on the fundamental impulses, sharing and giving for others what you have acquired for yourself, what many consider to be a virtue, into a criminal act.

Fair use policy? TBH I feel that I am being backed into some kid of devlis advocate postition here - can I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts (specialisation of labour and all that), not arguing in favour of seperate entity copyright holders fleecing all and sundry?

[GlyphGryph]

Okay, okay. But I would like to know why you think the existent completely practical concepts of commission and work-for-hire aren't enough to ensure content creators are properly compensated? Why is the copyright system necessary on top of it, if not to enable these third parties?

Again, I understand Bauglir's argument, but it's very different from your own. Why do you actually think the copyright system is needed?

[LordBucket]

I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.

If I copy a file, the artist is not giving me anything. His picture that he made is still in his studio. The paint he used to make it is still on canvas in his possession. Then somebody else came along and used their tools and labor to create a digital copy, and I'm using my tools and labor to create a digital copy of the digital copy.

Why do you expect me to give the artist something when he's not giving me anything?

By wanting to access the media.

I'm not accessing his media. I'm not touching it. I don't have it. He still does. No transfer of ownership occurs, and not one atom, not one electron that I have access to at any point was ever in his possession.

Maybe I should clarify my thinking

That is my intent.

can I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that
content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts

Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.

Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?

[MonkeyHead]

IMHO the copyright system originated as a means of protecting the intellectual property created by individuals, which to me seems a nobel cause. Anyone who has ever had anything of thier own plagarised knows the bitter feeling of others getting credit for your efforts. Of course, over time capitalism has seen it fit to turn this into a monster that has snowballed into an out of hand mess that serves big buisness better than the individuals it was created to protect, and badly needs reform with consideration to modern means of one-to-many distribution. Comission and work for hire are a fine model for a one-to-few market approach, but impractical for a one-to-many mass media or mass market approach as we cant all ring up Disney or Led Zeppelin with our specifications for a film or album, which is where the more speculative model of "make something and charge people to access it if they wish" model has come from, which fits free market economics. IN fact, IIRC, isnt that how production generally works? A publishing body comissions someone to make something, then tries to get rich off that creation? The problem there is the middle man, clearly.

I dont get why anyone should feel entitled to the fruits of another labours without some kind of exchange.

If I copy a file, the artist is not giving me anything. His picture that he made is still in his studio. The paint he used to make it is still on canvas in his possession. Then somebody else came along and used their tools and labor to create a digital copy, and I'm using my tools and labor to create a digital copy of the digital copy.

Why do you expect me to give the artist something when he's not giving me anything?

By wanting to access the media.

I'm not accessing his media. I'm not touching it. I don't have it. He still does. No transfer of ownership occurs, and not one atom, not one electron that I have access to at any point was ever in his possession.

Maybe I should clarify my thinking

That is my intent.

can I make it clear I am only in favour of making sure that
content creators are justly rewarded for thier efforts

Ok. So then if you create a song, put it on CD and sell it to Bob for $20, you have received just reward for your effort. Right? And then Bob makes a copy for me.

Why should you be rewarded for Bob's labor?

Oh, now I get why we disagree. Right. I shouldnt be rewarded for Bobs efforts - Bob should. I was under the misconception that you thought that the person who created the material in the first place deserves no compensation at all. I think we were referring to different entities when we were referring to content creators. Of course, in your first example, the artist should have the right to control the image as he sees fit in the first instance - if he decides nobody should take a copy, it is his right as creator. But once he allows one copy in exchange for whatever he sees fit, it is hard for them to backtrack and say that there should be no subsequent copies. The creator can sure as hell try and stipulate (as would be thier right, after all it would not exists without thier work) that they are entitled to subsequent payments, but free market economics would surely favour those that do not require such an approach.

I guess the trick here is for the content originator could provide thier work directly at a more competetive price/exchange than those trying to make a profit from obtaining it then selling it on - dealing direct with thier consumer base, rather than through publishers, which seems to be the way grass roots stuff is going nowadays more and more. Many people do not want copies - they want legitimate originals as many content creators have some kind of "worth" or prestiege (spelling?) attached to them, and as people will want to support the creators they wish to see create more in the future. However If people undercut content creators, eventually there would be no content to make a profit from.

[Loud Whispers]

Anyone who has ever had anything of thier own plagarised knows the bitter feeling of others getting credit for your efforts.

I do not seek to speak for everyone, but I also make sure that others do the same. There is quite a charm when you write something of value, and give no claim to authorship. Like setting a bird free, there may come a day when you see it again and smile. You say, 'that's my bird.' And someone besides you smiles too, and says the same.

[GlyphGryph]

Copyright... doesn't have much to do with plagiarism. How often have you seen the creator of a pop song or the musicians who put it together credited on an album? Not often Id imagine. Many people genuinanly believe the name of the "artist" is the name of the creator, something companies intentionally encourage since it leads to more sales, but the plagiarism is perfectly legal. It doesn't matter to the law who the creator is or that they get credited, only that the owner gets to say who makes copies and the form they take.

Also the bit about copyright being created to protect intellectual property of individuals is just false. You can go and pull up the law if you wish the intent is quite clear - its not to protect anything, it is simply to encourage more people to create stuff more often. The powers it offers creators and owners is a byproduct, not the purpose.