If people stopped stealing images
I could read that a million times and still laugh at it. Intellectual theft is like someone stealing your car! or your baby!
I could read that a million times and still laugh at it. Intellectual theft is like someone stealing your car! or your baby!
If People stopped stealing images I wouldn't have to hunt them down and extort money out of them for stealing images! You don't know the amount of work it takes, that's why I waste my time hunting down these thieves. Call em thieves, that's what you want anyway, call me by their deeds you Artiste you, who don't waste their time working.
I'll be your huckleberry.
There is no proper right to benefit from one's intellectual property?
While I concur it's not comparable to stealing a car, failing to accord creators the ability to monetize their IP is a wrong. The IP doesn't become unavailable to them, as their car would if it was stolen, but it can become unable to create income.
So it's more like racketeering, where tough guys come around the back of the shop weekly and take their cut of the proceeds.
Nobody is failing to do anything. You don't have a right to hoard ideas, is that not as basic as it gets?
You have a right to not share ideas, but after you uttered an idea, or expressed a Dance, or whatever the fuck it may be, you have no right to tell others that they cannot express that idea, and they cannot perform that idea.
The only racketing that is happening is when the strong arm of the law is used to encroach on people's right to express themselves and on their right to make use of whatever idea or concept they please however that may be, which is inherent in expression. To claim that their expression stole the exclusivity from you to do that is absurd, you are free to use what you created as they do, it doesn't mean it becomes unavailable. The word you are using to describe that premise is exclusivity over ideas, and that doesn't stop or make it unable to create income(or money or goods) it stops and makes it unable to have an exclusive right to an idea.
It's not like anything in the least because obviously it's not forced that you share your ideas, you can try to sell them by omitting important aspects etc. You incur a risk in that because if the idea is too expensive they will take what you disclosed and work to improve on that for free. You can publish your ideas yourself, you can also ask for donations, you can try to work for commision, you can work with a patron, or you could try to make money some other way, because if you depend on making money off art to make more art to make money off art, to make more art, to become famous, and give it all to charity.. so you can make more art and keep making art, to give it to charity, you might as well try to only PUBLISH art, because that is all about making money off art, and not waste your tallents on art when you are clearly inclined to Produce.
Exclusive rights of property are inherent in nature, each creature has their domain and each its own place in that domain, however large or small, it occupies its own distinct domain and people appreciate that and benefit from that obvious law of nature. As what exists and is tangible acts in accordance with the law of cause and effect, so are ideas governed by some obvious laws, and the most obvious law there is, which is subverted by irrationality such as Copying is Theft, is that sharing an idea doesn't rob you of it, and sharing it 10000 times or once is not going to leave you without it, and ideas that are stifled and tainted with a certain taboo, are of no benefit should they indeed be beneficial, but even freely improving on something cannot happen which is another basic law of thoughts, that they are abstrations and abstractions of abstractions and abstractions of abstractions of abstractions etc. Exclusive rights over abstractions inherently rationalize that by chopping down all abstractions to the root/first-order there will be more abstractions sprouting up in all the rest of the space, among the desert of first-order abstractions. Intelectual Theft(an abstraction) and the consequences of copyright in the context of what it tries to accomplish and how it fails miserably at attempting that is a no-brainer once considered. There are far better ways to accomplish getting compensated than copywrongs which create a desert of ideas when it could be a synthesis as organic as creation. The consequence of copywrongs is no exaggeration, the only trees that remain standing tall and without the threat of being pruned in the slightest are the open source behemoths that run the world. The world runs on Linux because NOBODY but us losers trusts windows. Ideas are meant to be shared, which is why actual property never expires because it's meant to be shared with your prodigy or your fellow human race, while intellectual property in the sense of authorship is a fine abstraction but in the sense of exclusive control over an idea is a poor and useless abstraction, it's an infraction upon the freedom of expression and freedom of innovation, it certainly doesn't promote either because it's premise is built on scarcity over the unlimited, and because of that it must expire, or less it would simply run for ever like real proprety.
There's never someone for open source (that you hear of) who runs over to IP, it's quite noticeable in fact.
I'm thinking in terms of Metallica, who famously lamented the lost revenue from their music being shared on Napster.
In essence the ability to copy is what enabled them to earn revenue, by copying their songs and selling the copies. That's pretty much a dead business model now, and musicians make money from their live performances, moreso than recordings.
Personally, I think that's a good thing.
There are other arts where that isn't so possible, like paintings, or photography.
Copying such images is rampant today, because technology. Painters prior to the photocopy age were able to sell originals, but now their ability to sell their originals is far more limited because many folks will settle for a photocopy.
Anyway, it's an interesting mental puzzle.
Thanks!
Did they lose something tangible? Hardly, not only that people that downloaded their music without buying it first might be inclined to buy the music once they actually listened to the whole work and they decided that it was worth paying 9-10x more than most every other artist made during those CD times who couldn't afford to self-publish.
The EXCLUSIVE ability to copy. An important distinction from the act of copying.
I think it's petty that people resort to state granted monopolise to monopolize on ideas and it's a no-brainer to consider conclusivelt those consequences as against freedom of expression.