|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2006 : 08:31:34 [Permalink]
|
ronnywhite, I can't believe you posted the dictionary definition of “demonize”.*grin* OK, see, I used that word because while the term “thief” does apply while copyright laws exist, if we are having a hypothetical discussion about the very real possibility of either eliminating or reducing the number of copyright laws, the term “thief” doesn't apply because the act of copying intellectual property would then be no longer against the law. If one persists in calling that stealing and using other words like “lazy” (I was mostly reacting to a lot of GeeMack's statements toward Bunga), then one is saying it is more than a legal issue – it is a moral issue. Thus, I thought the word “demonize” was appropriate. Then again, perhaps it was too harsh.
Dave W. wrote: I'm still interested in hearing the socialist solution, marfknox, as you actually mean it. For all creators of literary and artistic works.
I don't recall ever stating that I have already drawn out a total plan for transferring a society with copyright laws into a society without them. I have, however, explained how socialistic elements of American society allow me to make a living which I could not do without public funds. Seriously – the last job I had that wasn't at least partially funded by the government was my paper route when I was 12. The ONLY alternative for people like me in the present society would be to work a full time day job for low pay (think service industry), or to be re-trained in another field and work that career while also attempting to promote my artwork (not to mention be a wife and I'd like to be a mom too some day). I do not and will not ever live a lavish lifestyle because of the government. Only a modest living. And I think that's pretty fair. So given my personal situation, I don't see why other systems couldn't be set up to compensate artists of all sorts if copyright laws were mostly eliminated.
GeeMack wrote: Sorry, marfknox, if I wasn't clear. I had mentioned a socialist approach and a capitalist approach in the previous paragraph. My comment, "Or the social system, the government, realizes we have the ability to create and therefore demands we produce and hand over the results of our work for what they deem fair, or not (communism? slavery?)," was included along with Bungaism (theft by piracy) as a couple of options that I considered quite unreasonable. By "the social system" in that comment I meant "i.e the government", not socialist. I think you and I aren't as far away from the same place as it might seem.
Perhaps so.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/19/2006 08:35:36 |
 |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 08:58:46 [Permalink]
|
marfknox
Yea, I know what ya meant by demonize, I was just joking by dragging out dictionary :)
RE Moral/Legal all comments I made refer to the ethical context- I'm not especially legally knowledgeable, and the ethical side's the important thing anyway, as I see it. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 17:07:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If I were to say that speeding is not theft of any sort would you feel that I was being misleading? Would you respond that speeding is theft of society's right to be free of speeders?
That would be endangerment. Not theft. If you said that speeding wasn't theft of any sort would be accurate. It is still illegal as unnecessary endangerment.
Yes, that's essentially the point I was making.
quote:
quote:
So to rephrase what Bunga said, taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of property or services. It would however constitute theft of rights granted under copyright law.
In this case theft of intellectual property for profit.
Piracy need not be done for profit.quote:
Intellectual property (art) is commonly thought of as the product of the sweat of one's brow. Art is, therefore, the product of a service.
I may not be following your logic here. I suppose art could be considered the product of a service. But why is this relevant? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 06:35:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If I were to say that speeding is not theft of any sort would you feel that I was being misleading? Would you respond that speeding is theft of society's right to be free of speeders?
That would be endangerment. Not theft. If you said that speeding wasn't theft of any sort would be accurate. It is still illegal as unnecessary endangerment.
Yes, that's essentially the point I was making.
quote:
quote:
So to rephrase what Bunga said, taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of property or services. It would however constitute theft of rights granted under copyright law.
In this case theft of intellectual property for profit.
Piracy need not be done for profit.
In essence, it is for profit. You get the art to enjoy at your leisure and don't have to pay for it. You have a thing of value (a copy of the art) and have not provided compensation to the artist. In the protracted example I was discussing with Bunga, the premise was that he would take pictures of Siberia's paintings and put them in a compendium volume for sale. He would clearly give credit to Siberia for producing the paintings, but not compensate her for the use of her art for a commercial venture. He expressed no problem with this and claimed that Siberia would get some sort of benefit from the uncompensated commercial usage approaching the value that Bunga would have in the hypothetical. (100 million copies sold and he gets one penny on each copy = $1 million)
quote:
quote:
Intellectual property (art) is commonly thought of as the product of the sweat of one's brow. Art is, therefore, the product of a service.
I may not be following your logic here. I suppose art could be considered the product of a service. But why is this relevant?
Because it makes piracy of art a theft of service. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 14:49:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
I may not be following your logic here. I suppose art could be considered the product of a service. But why is this relevant?
Because it makes piracy of art a theft of service.
So you're argument is that although the product is not stolen the service is, right? Hmmm... maybe, but I'm not convinced. It strikes me as being based on an overly broad definition of service.
If someone were to break in to an artists studio and physically take several original artworks that would be theft of products. In order for your argument to hold water it would also have to be considered theft of service and it really isn't.
On another note all products could be considered to be the product of a service not just art. After all someone has to produce them. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 20:00:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't recall ever stating that I have already drawn out a total plan for transferring a society with copyright laws into a society without them. I have, however, explained how socialistic elements of American society allow me to make a living which I could not do without public funds.
Okay, I see what you meant, now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 06:43:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
I may not be following your logic here. I suppose art could be considered the product of a service. But why is this relevant?
Because it makes piracy of art a theft of service.
So you're argument is that although the product is not stolen the service is, right? Hmmm... maybe, but I'm not convinced. It strikes me as being based on an overly broad definition of service.
If someone were to break in to an artists studio and physically take several original artworks that would be theft of products. In order for your argument to hold water it would also have to be considered theft of service and it really isn't.
On another note all products could be considered to be the product of a service not just art. After all someone has to produce them.
It is an overly broad definition of service. With physical products, you do pay for the service component at the same time as the physical product.
Due to copyright laws and the nature of art, the best legal way to consider copyright infringement is as a theft of products. If we did not have such protections so that the artist actually gets paid for the sweat of his brow, I'm sure there would be suits alledging theft of service and the legal community would have to set the rate of compensation on time, materials, and estimations of work times (similar to medical RVU's).
It's still profiting from the work of someone else and not compensating them for it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
