"[Cooks Source] saw fit to copy and rework an article found online"but then goes on to say
"Anyway, within hours after Gaudio posted that last night, her story of copy theft had begun richocheting around the Internet." (My emphasis).
(a) Criminal Infringement. —
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000;
Do we, as a community, really not have any idea what people mean when they say "copyright theft?"I actually don't care much which term people refer to in casual conversation until they start talking about what the terms mean, what they imply, and what they are analogous to. The "No, it's theft!" side of these arguments tends to be just as demanding in their arguments. Even in this thread we've seen it. There's a difference between, "Yeah, yeah, 'infringement isn't theft,' but you know what I meant" and "Bite me, it is too theft, you're just one of the pirates trying to rationalize the picking of an artist's bones!"
It boggles the mind that there people whose names aren't Jack Valenti or Hilary Rosen who get so bent out of shape about the act of copyright infringement. Do you guys stand on empty streets and harass jaywalkers, too, or is MeFi the secret hangout for industry bigwigs and assorted fatcats?Having taken my stand on the theft/infringement divide, it's also worth noting that I make my living writing copyable software, producing training materials that are protected by copyright, and I spent a year plus of my life helping to co-author a bestselling tech book that can now be found on RapidShare.
I do feel, however, that there is a good deal of dismissiveness toward people who use colloquial meanings of terms that also have technical definitions.Yeah, that's definitely true. I think the fact that there are legitimate legal issues involved -- not JUST casual opinions being tossed around by members of the general public -- makes it thornier.
This is what I've always thought most people getting panties bunched over infringing music/tv downloads being called "theft" were up in arms about. Collectively, people don't want to think of themselves as doing wrong, and where "infringing" is bad but not bothersome, we all think of theft as wrong.Yeah, that's an assumption that I think the most vocal "Noooo, it's INFRINGEMENT" types disagree with, and consider a needless ad homenim. Some of us object because we think that compensating creators for their investment is a worthwhile goal, but muddling the terms to drum up support for the current conceptually unsustainable system doesn't help.
You're a content creator, verb. What are you doing to change the system other than ratcheting up the heat in this discussion?Helping build and distribute -- for free -- turnkey video portal systems for people or small groups that need a good distribution platform.
Whereas I think anyone who thinks calling uncompensated digital takings "theft" is the equivalent of dragging allcaps GENOCIDE! into the discussion cannot have a discussion about copyright rationally.I didn't say anyone was doing that, or that using colloquialisms was equivalent. What I said was that simply ratcheting up emotional language for the purpose of convincing people not to infringe, collapsing two different crimes into a single one because we think it has more emotional heft, doesn't help. Shouting "GENOCIDE!" is the absurd end-point of that.
You wouldn't download a car, would you?I'm pretty sure that's in next month's MAKE.
"I don't want to pay for it" is an argument I understand and can agree to disagree with, if not respect. "I don't think artists should be compensated; they should just make stuff for free" (an argument I've seen on the blue) or, as suggested upthread, "I don't think theft is wrong" are disagreements on first principles, and that's OK too, but personally I'm not interested in engaging with those folks.The weird one I keep winding up with is "I would pay for it, but they don't want to sell it to me." Note the comment above about the ripping/fansubbing communities, where the "pirates" are distributing something that the content owners won't sell to certain markets. On top of that, the paid versions are so frequently of worse quality than the "pirated" copies (for example, scenes shown in the original are missing for certain regions, or the subtitling is poorly executed, or the music CD has a rootkit on it, or you have to sit through 15 minutes of mandatory ads every time instead of just watching the movie...)
I design a machine that manufactures snow shovels at zero cost to me...Meanwhile, you still have to buy the pieces and build them the old fashioned way....You decide to get back at me by stealing my snow shovels out of my warehouse and giving them away for free.I love the Flawed Analogy Game.
Each copy of the shovel has no (discernible) cost, so you aren't stealing. Right?
A world where artists can't get paid (if they want to) is quickly going to become a world with less art.That is indeed troubling. It's worth noting, however, that the cat is out of the bag in terms of fundamental media shifts. We've never, ever, ever been able to figure out a good way to capture value for creators other than paying to get in the door of a live performance.
Sure we have. There's merchandizing, attention (a lot of artists have offered bennies to fans for various amounts,) even straight-up donations (e.g., Kickstarter.com)You're right -- and I should have been more clear. What I mean is that no one has ever figured out how to directly capture the value of creating the initial unique work. If you make all of your money on merch, value-add bonuses like "access to private discussion forums" or "backstage passes" or what not, you're not capturing value on the original creative work. You're using that creative work to drive sales of other related works.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 8:09 PM on November 4, 2010 [7 favorites]