Links to Copyrighted Material August 22, 2005 3:25 PM Subscribe
As it's alright now to start posting links to copyrighted material, I wondered if anyone could FPP details on where to find the latest movies, albums and software.
As it's alright now to start posting links to copyrighted material
It's always been OK. All works are copyrighted to their authors including NYTimes, blogs...etc, so virtually every FPP links to copyrighted material. Perhaps you meant 'link that enable copyright infringement'. Again, that would be vague, since one can copy-paste from a blog as well. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of taste, but there's nothing legally wrong with linking to them. The end-user still has to make the choice. And as far as I know, it's uploading i.e. sharing that's infringement, not downloading, unless there have been new laws since.
posted by Gyan at 3:31 PM on August 22, 2005
It's always been OK. All works are copyrighted to their authors including NYTimes, blogs...etc, so virtually every FPP links to copyrighted material. Perhaps you meant 'link that enable copyright infringement'. Again, that would be vague, since one can copy-paste from a blog as well. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of taste, but there's nothing legally wrong with linking to them. The end-user still has to make the choice. And as far as I know, it's uploading i.e. sharing that's infringement, not downloading, unless there have been new laws since.
posted by Gyan at 3:31 PM on August 22, 2005
Sorry, I meant pirated movies. I'm looking for pirated movies. And a copy of excel so I can calculate how much money I've saved.
posted by seanyboy at 3:32 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by seanyboy at 3:32 PM on August 22, 2005
You are not, nor can you be, forced or obligated to participate in copyright infringement.
But it makes you a better person.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:33 PM on August 22, 2005
But it makes you a better person.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:33 PM on August 22, 2005
I didn't mean "Link that enable copyright infringement" because that phrase makes no sense. Except on some weird Yoda Planet. I guess you know what I mean. Links to MP3s are deleted. Links to comics are kept. One is wrong and the other is OK. I'm curious why this is.
posted by seanyboy at 3:37 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by seanyboy at 3:37 PM on August 22, 2005
Sorry, I meant pirated movies. I'm looking for pirated movies. And a copy of excel so I can calculate how much money I've saved.
posted by seanyboy at 3:32 PM PST on August 22 [!]
Pirate Bay should have both.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:38 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by seanyboy at 3:32 PM PST on August 22 [!]
Pirate Bay should have both.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:38 PM on August 22, 2005
Okay, it's a slippery slope. A lot of us have posted links to individual song files (maybe not here, but elsewhere) or even to whole directories of songs. Technically, that violates copyright too, but I don't recall hearing much outrage or complaint. There have also been lots of links to sites that feature one or more panels from individual comic books (usually for satiric or otherwise humorous effect), and while those sites also (probably) don't have the copyright to do so, again, there hasn't been much complaint.
This, however, is an individual (and complete) comic, scanned and posted on the web. I agree it seems different from my other examples, but it's really only different in scale.
On preview, links to MP3's have NOT always been deleted here - I remember hearing the unreleased Nirvana song here, and a couple of others I believe.
posted by yhbc at 3:39 PM on August 22, 2005
This, however, is an individual (and complete) comic, scanned and posted on the web. I agree it seems different from my other examples, but it's really only different in scale.
On preview, links to MP3's have NOT always been deleted here - I remember hearing the unreleased Nirvana song here, and a couple of others I believe.
posted by yhbc at 3:39 PM on August 22, 2005
seanyboy, it is a borderline post, and it's definitely not cool that someone copied them and posted them to livejournal, and no, of course I don't want front page posts that lead to the leaked OS X torrent or the first season Golden Girls DVD torrent (btw, if anyone has it pm me. Bea Arthur is teh HOTT!!!).
But we're talking about comics here: very small volume, niche things that deserve a bigger audience. This isn't a post leading to leaked mp3s of Madonna's, it's a comic book post.
Legally speaking, I think LiveJournal and the user that posted them very well could get an earful from Gaiman (and he'd be well within his rights to do so), but in terms of social norms here, I'm ok with PiR8 W4ReZZ being mentioned when it's a teeny tiny niche thing like these old comics.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:40 PM on August 22, 2005
But we're talking about comics here: very small volume, niche things that deserve a bigger audience. This isn't a post leading to leaked mp3s of Madonna's, it's a comic book post.
Legally speaking, I think LiveJournal and the user that posted them very well could get an earful from Gaiman (and he'd be well within his rights to do so), but in terms of social norms here, I'm ok with PiR8 W4ReZZ being mentioned when it's a teeny tiny niche thing like these old comics.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:40 PM on August 22, 2005
The link, and even just the Livejournal post, will generate more income for the copyright holders. IP panty bunchers never want to allow such a notion, but it is indeed a fact. Feel free to explain to us how it isn't though.
Pirated movies are easy to find. And if you spent any time looking you'd have found them long ago. But don't let my total dismissal of your hyperbole keep you from it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:41 PM on August 22, 2005
Pirated movies are easy to find. And if you spent any time looking you'd have found them long ago. But don't let my total dismissal of your hyperbole keep you from it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:41 PM on August 22, 2005
I'd second The Pirate Bay, seanyboy, and also add Torrent Reactor.
posted by Bugbread at 3:45 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 3:45 PM on August 22, 2005
mathowie: You're right - of course. Put that one down to a rush of blood to the head. It's not as if I've ever posted whole copyrighted novels to the frontpage before... I suppose it irks me that something so well known and popular falls into that niche tag, but I accept that this is a personal call. Like I said - Rush of blood to the head. (Tries to avoid publishing links to coldplay album of the same name)
I'm not happy about the posting, but that's a subjective opinion.
posted by seanyboy at 3:54 PM on August 22, 2005
I'm not happy about the posting, but that's a subjective opinion.
posted by seanyboy at 3:54 PM on August 22, 2005
I'd argue that none of us is in the position to argue whether copyright infringement is a good thing if, ultimately, it brings the original artist more visibility.
Only the creator can invariably give up the right the copyright in favor of a larger audience, and even that isn't a sure thing. Put me in the camp of being against any copyright infringement whatsoever. Torrents and otherwise.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:59 PM on August 22, 2005
Only the creator can invariably give up the right the copyright in favor of a larger audience, and even that isn't a sure thing. Put me in the camp of being against any copyright infringement whatsoever. Torrents and otherwise.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:59 PM on August 22, 2005
On a tangent I brought a script to Staples to get it copied for my boss.
The copy centre employee said, "This isn't copyrighted is it? Cause I'm not allowed to copy it if it is."
I said, "Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? I'm getting it copied for the rights holder though."
This seemed to confuse her, but she agreed to do it when she couldn't find a copyright notice anywhere.
posted by ODiV at 4:15 PM on August 22, 2005
The copy centre employee said, "This isn't copyrighted is it? Cause I'm not allowed to copy it if it is."
I said, "Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? I'm getting it copied for the rights holder though."
This seemed to confuse her, but she agreed to do it when she couldn't find a copyright notice anywhere.
posted by ODiV at 4:15 PM on August 22, 2005
don't forget mininova.
I think a page from a comic book or its cover is clearly fair use. An entire work without alteration or comment is something else (probably clearly illegal, but then so is xeroxing an entire book, or taping songs off the radio, etc).
posted by amberglow at 4:15 PM on August 22, 2005
I think a page from a comic book or its cover is clearly fair use. An entire work without alteration or comment is something else (probably clearly illegal, but then so is xeroxing an entire book, or taping songs off the radio, etc).
posted by amberglow at 4:15 PM on August 22, 2005
Heh. The story was on a tangent, not the trip to Staples.
posted by ODiV at 4:18 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by ODiV at 4:18 PM on August 22, 2005
I'd argue that none of us is in the position to argue whether copyright infringement is a good thing if, ultimately, it brings the original artist more visibility.
Well, you can argue that, but you'd be wrong. Copyright isn't a natural right. It's a temporary grant that the public extends to the author (at least in the US, and in my opinion everywhere). The public is well within its rights to take back that right as it sees fit.
Now, you could argue correctly that it's the place of the government as representatives of the public good rather than individuals within the society to make that choice, but given that I think the government has abdicated its duty to represent the people in this case, I'm not sure how else you fix it other than civil disobedience.
posted by willnot at 4:36 PM on August 22, 2005
Well, you can argue that, but you'd be wrong. Copyright isn't a natural right. It's a temporary grant that the public extends to the author (at least in the US, and in my opinion everywhere). The public is well within its rights to take back that right as it sees fit.
Now, you could argue correctly that it's the place of the government as representatives of the public good rather than individuals within the society to make that choice, but given that I think the government has abdicated its duty to represent the people in this case, I'm not sure how else you fix it other than civil disobedience.
posted by willnot at 4:36 PM on August 22, 2005
or taping songs off the radio, etc)
amberglow, what's taping? Is that at all like ripping? Because it doesn't sound anywhere near as cool, it sounds like construction when destruction is totally where its at.
posted by fenriq at 4:40 PM on August 22, 2005
amberglow, what's taping? Is that at all like ripping? Because it doesn't sound anywhere near as cool, it sounds like construction when destruction is totally where its at.
posted by fenriq at 4:40 PM on August 22, 2005
I don't want front page posts that lead to the leaked OS X torrent
I do! I DO! Or email me the link or tracker! Hot damn!! Gimme some mactel lovin' baby!!
posted by loquacious at 4:55 PM on August 22, 2005
I do! I DO! Or email me the link or tracker! Hot damn!! Gimme some mactel lovin' baby!!
posted by loquacious at 4:55 PM on August 22, 2005
loquacious, talk to your brother. That's all I'm saying.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:01 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:01 PM on August 22, 2005
Oh yeah, brotherly love. Oh, hell, newer p4 chips only? Damn. Oh well.
posted by loquacious at 5:07 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by loquacious at 5:07 PM on August 22, 2005
It seems pretty clear that the only reason this post has caused a fuss is becuase it's a comic. Somehow, comic artists are treated as folk heroes around here, while links to copyrighted material from musicians / visual artists / filmmakers / writers are generally more tolerated. I mean, geez, there are links to visual artists' works the whole time. Every link to a Shoutcast radio station lets me fire up Streamripper and grab me some songs. Not to mention MP3 blogs, of which Metafilter has linked to several directories.
This seems strange to me, a double standard, probably because I'm not a fan of comics - that little trend completely passed me by. Until, perhaps, I saw this link, because it's some of the coolest looking artwork I've seen in a long, long time. Maybe cool enough for me to go out and buy, even.
posted by Jimbob at 5:10 PM on August 22, 2005
This seems strange to me, a double standard, probably because I'm not a fan of comics - that little trend completely passed me by. Until, perhaps, I saw this link, because it's some of the coolest looking artwork I've seen in a long, long time. Maybe cool enough for me to go out and buy, even.
posted by Jimbob at 5:10 PM on August 22, 2005
I think that comic book artists would be wise to embrace the free publicity. It's not like hordes of mainstream people are beating down their doors to buy tradebooks and single issues.
I'm not a genuine comic fan or patron, but I'm familiar with the Hellblazer series, and have read a few issues. It's good stuff, even from a literary viewpoint.
The scans on that livejournal site suck so bad you can hear the sucking noise when you load the page. It's not even a near replacement for holding a well printed full color book in your hands. There's cropped pages, bad resolutions, and the image quailty is pretty terrible.
But you can at least preview the tone, aesthetic, and quality of the artwork and storyline.
If anything, it should inspire any "caught interests" to go out buy the real thing in reprints. I know it made me wish I could afford some of them, and I probably wouldn't have seen the artist and author in question otherwise.
This is yet another situation when I wish the author would weigh in and tell us how he/she felt about it.
posted by loquacious at 5:20 PM on August 22, 2005
I'm not a genuine comic fan or patron, but I'm familiar with the Hellblazer series, and have read a few issues. It's good stuff, even from a literary viewpoint.
The scans on that livejournal site suck so bad you can hear the sucking noise when you load the page. It's not even a near replacement for holding a well printed full color book in your hands. There's cropped pages, bad resolutions, and the image quailty is pretty terrible.
But you can at least preview the tone, aesthetic, and quality of the artwork and storyline.
If anything, it should inspire any "caught interests" to go out buy the real thing in reprints. I know it made me wish I could afford some of them, and I probably wouldn't have seen the artist and author in question otherwise.
This is yet another situation when I wish the author would weigh in and tell us how he/she felt about it.
posted by loquacious at 5:20 PM on August 22, 2005
amberglow, what's taping?
*feels old, gums some pudding and watches Matlock* ; >
posted by amberglow at 5:39 PM on August 22, 2005
*feels old, gums some pudding and watches Matlock* ; >
posted by amberglow at 5:39 PM on August 22, 2005
cribcage: What the hell does two cents in your town buy? A small, heavily fortified island nation-state?
posted by loquacious at 5:46 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by loquacious at 5:46 PM on August 22, 2005
Gaiman & McKean don't own this story; the publisher does. (See the indicia at the bottom of page two.) This does raise issues, but taking the property of a writer and artist isn't one of them.
posted by Superfrankenstein at 5:56 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Superfrankenstein at 5:56 PM on August 22, 2005
Nice work, Cribcage. You totally had all those K5ers frothing with that Kauffmanesqueness!
Seriously though, copyright infringement is the civil disobedience of our time. The huge extensions in copyright terms are the real theft. I protest the massive theft from the public domain with every megabyte I download. The combination of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, along with the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, were wholesale plundering of the public domain. We're being robbed blind. When you're ready for me to start respecting copyrights, tell me that Mickey Mouse is in the public domain where he belongs.
posted by mullingitover at 6:03 PM on August 22, 2005
Seriously though, copyright infringement is the civil disobedience of our time. The huge extensions in copyright terms are the real theft. I protest the massive theft from the public domain with every megabyte I download. The combination of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, along with the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, were wholesale plundering of the public domain. We're being robbed blind. When you're ready for me to start respecting copyrights, tell me that Mickey Mouse is in the public domain where he belongs.
posted by mullingitover at 6:03 PM on August 22, 2005
Apologies for any trouble this caused.
For better or worse, it seems like a shite-ton of references to unauthorized materials pass in and out of MeFi on a weekly basis (video, audio, comics and so forth), and I've always just assumed it's simply the current Wild West nature of the web, and the only outcome I would have wished for the post is that the people who dug Gaiman & McKean's work would go out and buy the comic—and from the comments, it sounds like it could have that effect.
In any case, since it was not a MeFi user who scanned the pages, I really hope it's not a scandal to simply link to the scans. Those who have trouble with the copyright issues can certainly choose not to read them. And anyone with a real beef can email the folks at LiveJournal. Does mathowie really need to worry that people are hitting the LJ site from MeFi? Does it matter?
If I had to put myself in the author's/artists' shoes, I'd think it was cool that I was getting a new wave of free publicity for a rather old comic, and that the effect on sales & interest would be exponential.
But again, sorry if it ruffled any feathers. It was merely meant to share a great issue of a great comic which moved me to tears as a teenager, and still does. I should have considered the ramifications a bit more.
posted by jenleigh at 6:09 PM on August 22, 2005
For better or worse, it seems like a shite-ton of references to unauthorized materials pass in and out of MeFi on a weekly basis (video, audio, comics and so forth), and I've always just assumed it's simply the current Wild West nature of the web, and the only outcome I would have wished for the post is that the people who dug Gaiman & McKean's work would go out and buy the comic—and from the comments, it sounds like it could have that effect.
In any case, since it was not a MeFi user who scanned the pages, I really hope it's not a scandal to simply link to the scans. Those who have trouble with the copyright issues can certainly choose not to read them. And anyone with a real beef can email the folks at LiveJournal. Does mathowie really need to worry that people are hitting the LJ site from MeFi? Does it matter?
If I had to put myself in the author's/artists' shoes, I'd think it was cool that I was getting a new wave of free publicity for a rather old comic, and that the effect on sales & interest would be exponential.
But again, sorry if it ruffled any feathers. It was merely meant to share a great issue of a great comic which moved me to tears as a teenager, and still does. I should have considered the ramifications a bit more.
posted by jenleigh at 6:09 PM on August 22, 2005
The link, and even just the Livejournal post, will generate more income for the copyright holders. IP panty bunchers never want to allow such a notion, but it is indeed a fact.
Links please.
posted by anathema at 5:21 AM on August 23, 2005
Links please.
posted by anathema at 5:21 AM on August 23, 2005
Metafilter: Bea Arthur is teh HOTT!!!
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:39 AM on August 23, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:39 AM on August 23, 2005
The scans on that livejournal site suck so bad you can hear the sucking noise when you load the page... But you can at least preview the tone, aesthetic, and quality of the artwork and storyline. If anything, it should inspire any "caught interests" to go out buy the real thing in reprints. I know it made me wish I could afford some of them, and I probably wouldn't have seen the artist and author in question otherwise.
Yup, and me too.
Seriously though, copyright infringement is the civil disobedience of our time. The huge extensions in copyright terms are the real theft... The combination of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, along with the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, were wholesale plundering of the public domain. We're being robbed blind. When you're ready for me to start respecting copyrights, tell me that Mickey Mouse is in the public domain where he belongs.
Double yup.
posted by languagehat at 6:59 AM on August 23, 2005
Yup, and me too.
Seriously though, copyright infringement is the civil disobedience of our time. The huge extensions in copyright terms are the real theft... The combination of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, along with the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, were wholesale plundering of the public domain. We're being robbed blind. When you're ready for me to start respecting copyrights, tell me that Mickey Mouse is in the public domain where he belongs.
Double yup.
posted by languagehat at 6:59 AM on August 23, 2005
As a person who never would have picked up or looked at this comic otherwise, I enjoyed it -- even if I didn't know what was going on (hold me? someone explain). It looks like I might come off my high horse and borrow a few of these comics to see if the rest hold up.
posted by geoff. at 8:02 AM on August 23, 2005
posted by geoff. at 8:02 AM on August 23, 2005
Regarding the notion that scans lead to purchases:
Links please.
I have no link for you offhand, but I could put up a page that says "I have on numerous occasions purchased material of which I was initially made aware through web-based copyright infringement." Would that help? Because, link or no link, it is indeed a fact that people buy shit they like, and find out that they like shit by means other than sight-unseen purchase. I do it a fair bit.
And having actually mucked through a couple of Hellblazer books at one point and not liking much what I saw, this post was refreshing: there is Constantine that I would like out there! A trip to the bookstore is now in my plans for the day.
I'm not trying to spitshine copyright infringment on the whole here, but let's not fucking pretend that it's a black and white issue, especially with older niche works shared out of something akin to love for the material. This is not the new Brittany Spears album.
posted by cortex at 8:10 AM on August 23, 2005
Links please.
I have no link for you offhand, but I could put up a page that says "I have on numerous occasions purchased material of which I was initially made aware through web-based copyright infringement." Would that help? Because, link or no link, it is indeed a fact that people buy shit they like, and find out that they like shit by means other than sight-unseen purchase. I do it a fair bit.
And having actually mucked through a couple of Hellblazer books at one point and not liking much what I saw, this post was refreshing: there is Constantine that I would like out there! A trip to the bookstore is now in my plans for the day.
I'm not trying to spitshine copyright infringment on the whole here, but let's not fucking pretend that it's a black and white issue, especially with older niche works shared out of something akin to love for the material. This is not the new Brittany Spears album.
posted by cortex at 8:10 AM on August 23, 2005
I would tend to agree with someone that said current copyright laws are way too strong. But the civil disobedience of our times? Nah. For that to be true, unless you mean to abolish all copyright, this comic would have to have a copyright older than the original term granted in the US Constitution (that's certainly the US fount of copyright, is it elsewhere? It seems some treaties predate it). Is this comic older than 14 years? (Google tells me it's from March 1990; the author would have had the right to another 14 years; so OK, you're close on that one).
But this makes me all think: I have long thought that it was the act of copying that was the infringement, not simply having a copy. Thus the scanner of this comic is the infringer, MeFi viewers are not. But hasn't that changed, legally, in recent times? Because when I view the scans, I first have to copy them to my machine, so I have technically copied them, even if I don't keep them (child porn folks have been busted for their browser cache, haven't they?). But hasn't recent legislation made receiving infringed works illegal, or was that merely a suggestion of late by American rights holders?
Because if that is the case, then certainly MeFites, and perhaps even MeFi, would have some tangential and limited legal liability.
That there is ample evidence to me that copyright needs serious reform, but whatever. This post doesn't really bother me, because for a comic like this, I would think exposure is key. But I might not like it if MeFi was mine, as I wouldn't like the remote chance of legal trouble.
posted by teece at 9:15 AM on August 23, 2005
But this makes me all think: I have long thought that it was the act of copying that was the infringement, not simply having a copy. Thus the scanner of this comic is the infringer, MeFi viewers are not. But hasn't that changed, legally, in recent times? Because when I view the scans, I first have to copy them to my machine, so I have technically copied them, even if I don't keep them (child porn folks have been busted for their browser cache, haven't they?). But hasn't recent legislation made receiving infringed works illegal, or was that merely a suggestion of late by American rights holders?
Because if that is the case, then certainly MeFites, and perhaps even MeFi, would have some tangential and limited legal liability.
That there is ample evidence to me that copyright needs serious reform, but whatever. This post doesn't really bother me, because for a comic like this, I would think exposure is key. But I might not like it if MeFi was mine, as I wouldn't like the remote chance of legal trouble.
posted by teece at 9:15 AM on August 23, 2005
I never said it was a black and white issue. I don't believe it is. But I do think there is a lot of misinformation propagated from all sides.
posted by anathema at 9:20 AM on August 23, 2005
posted by anathema at 9:20 AM on August 23, 2005
The link, and even just the Livejournal post, will generate more income for the copyright holders. IP panty bunchers never want to allow such a notion
No, us "IP panty bunchers" believe that the copyright holder should be allowed the choice of how to use their intellectual property to generate income, if at all. "I'm generating income for you so I get to do whatever I like with your copyrighted material" doesn't cut it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:49 AM on August 23, 2005
No, us "IP panty bunchers" believe that the copyright holder should be allowed the choice of how to use their intellectual property to generate income, if at all. "I'm generating income for you so I get to do whatever I like with your copyrighted material" doesn't cut it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:49 AM on August 23, 2005
There's also a degree of art-advocacy in this sort of case -- seperate from the argument for income-generation, simply feeling more strongly about sharing an artistic work with others who might be similarly moved than one feels about playing by copyright rules.
Not that that's legally any more defensible, but it's a factor, and there are days when I have a terrible time valuing the very dirtied pool of media-bohemoth-driven copyright issues over the simple joy and wonder of a by-passed bit of art. I don't hold that it's a legally rational position.
anathema: I did not intend the "black and white" line as a snark at you in particular. I apologize for any offense caused.
posted by cortex at 11:33 AM on August 23, 2005
Not that that's legally any more defensible, but it's a factor, and there are days when I have a terrible time valuing the very dirtied pool of media-bohemoth-driven copyright issues over the simple joy and wonder of a by-passed bit of art. I don't hold that it's a legally rational position.
anathema: I did not intend the "black and white" line as a snark at you in particular. I apologize for any offense caused.
posted by cortex at 11:33 AM on August 23, 2005
mathowie writes: but in terms of social norms here, I'm ok with PiR8 but in terms of social norms here, I'm ok with PiR8 W4ReZZ being mentioned when it's a teeny tiny niche thing like these comics.
I confess I don't understand this statement. How does it being a "teeny tiny niche thing" make it okay? It just means that the living the author makes from selling his work is smaller. It's like saying it's better to steal from a poor person than a rich one. (Not that I equate copyright violation with theft per se, it's an analogy.) If anything, distributing unauthorized copies of someone's work is worse if it's a niche thing -- it's unethical either way but it's less unkind to steal from the rich. (Remember: analogy, okay?)
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:32 PM on August 23, 2005
I confess I don't understand this statement. How does it being a "teeny tiny niche thing" make it okay? It just means that the living the author makes from selling his work is smaller. It's like saying it's better to steal from a poor person than a rich one. (Not that I equate copyright violation with theft per se, it's an analogy.) If anything, distributing unauthorized copies of someone's work is worse if it's a niche thing -- it's unethical either way but it's less unkind to steal from the rich. (Remember: analogy, okay?)
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:32 PM on August 23, 2005
Um, pardon that garbled quote -- comes of posting from lynx.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:33 PM on August 23, 2005
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:33 PM on August 23, 2005
Hey Matt, could you please post this book as a free PDF, because I'm interested in the tenny tiny niche that is web usability, but I don't want to pay for it, although I may be convinced to purchase books by the author in the future. Thanks.
posted by gwint at 1:12 PM on August 23, 2005
posted by gwint at 1:12 PM on August 23, 2005
In the future I plan to get all my books as scans on livejournals.
This is far more convenient and satisfying than reading a space-wasting printed version of the book.
posted by mosch at 2:20 PM on August 23, 2005
This is far more convenient and satisfying than reading a space-wasting printed version of the book.
posted by mosch at 2:20 PM on August 23, 2005
gwint, if my publisher let me, I certainly would. I put up as many chapters as I can for my other books. Publishers fear it though.
If someone scanned the pages of things I've written, I would totally support that kind of infringement and not say a word (my publishers might flip out on you though). If anyone liked what they read they'd likely buy the book anyway, since reading pdfs and jpegs isn't exactly comfortable or easy, so I totally 100% support this, especially for books.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:31 PM on August 23, 2005
If someone scanned the pages of things I've written, I would totally support that kind of infringement and not say a word (my publishers might flip out on you though). If anyone liked what they read they'd likely buy the book anyway, since reading pdfs and jpegs isn't exactly comfortable or easy, so I totally 100% support this, especially for books.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:31 PM on August 23, 2005
No, us "IP panty bunchers" believe that the copyright holder should be allowed the choice of how to use their intellectual property to generate income, if at all.
Explain why a creator should be given legal protection over their creation for a limited period of time if they choose not allow the public to benefit from it (i.e., by purchasing it). If they don't want income, then they would either be fine with distribution or they want to prevent the public from benefiting from their creation, in which case they don't deserve legal protection.
Now diluting their trademark, that I'm against.
posted by j.edwards at 2:38 PM on August 23, 2005
Explain why a creator should be given legal protection over their creation for a limited period of time if they choose not allow the public to benefit from it (i.e., by purchasing it). If they don't want income, then they would either be fine with distribution or they want to prevent the public from benefiting from their creation, in which case they don't deserve legal protection.
Now diluting their trademark, that I'm against.
posted by j.edwards at 2:38 PM on August 23, 2005
matt, I figured that might be your position and I applaud you for it, but still, if someone posted a FPP to a web version of your entire book would you delete it immediately or would you wait for your publisher to complain and then delete it? I'm no fan of our current copyright law, but allowing a link to a scan of an entire comic just seems wrong.
posted by gwint at 2:52 PM on August 23, 2005
posted by gwint at 2:52 PM on August 23, 2005
George_Spiggott : "How does it being a 'teeny tiny niche thing' make it okay? It just means that the living the author makes from selling his work is smaller."
IANMathowie, but I can take a guess: Posting entire 50 Cent or Jessica Simpson (er, yes, I'm out of touch with pop culture) would have an extremely low chance of increasing the revenue of 50 Cent or Jessica Simpson, as the advertising effect would be minimal (everybody pretty much already knows them). Probably, more money would be lost in people who had planned to buy but downloaded instead than would be gained in people who had not planned to buy, but downloaded, listened, liked, and subsequently bought.
Posting something incredibly unkown would have a higher chance of increasing their revenue, as more money would be gained by the new audience than lost by existing audience downloading instead of purchasing.
To make an extreme example: If I make a kickass album, and only my friend Bob knows about it, and he buys a copy (lets say I sell direct), I make $15. If Bob then puts it online, perhaps 50 people download it, and 10 people buy it. I now make $165 instead of $15.
I am not one of the people who thinks all exposure is necessarily financially beneficial to IP holders, nor am I one of the people who seem to live pre-internet-crash and believe "it doesn't matter if you lose money hand over fist, as long as you get exposure!" I personally believe that on one far, far end, it is clear that posting IP results in a decrease in income, and that on the other far, far end it results in an increase of income, and the issue is where the turning point is. I don't know. And, in any case, this is all just a proxy guess for Matt. I may be wrong in my guessing, and he may have had a different reason for finding the teeny tiny niche thing ok.
gwint : "if someone posted a FPP to a web version of your entire book would you delete it immediately or would you wait for your publisher to complain and then delete it?"
IANMatt nor a lawyer, but I wonder if one could get into additional trouble for enabling ones own work to be pilfered. That is, if I'm a company, and I make lousy decisions that affect some other company's profits, I may get in some sort of legal trouble. If I'm a company, and I make lousy decisions that affect my own profits, I would get into the same legal trouble, plus get in trouble for not exercising "due dilligence".
So your analogue, "Would you wait to delete it if your book was posted as an FPP?" isn't a fair comparison. He might not wait, but that doesn't indicate that he is being hypocritical or unfair, just that the situation is different. A better question would be "if someone posted a FPP on your best friend's side to an unauthorized web version of your entire book, would you get him/her to delete it immediately or would you wait for your publisher to complain and then get him/her to delete it?" (best friend chosen because, unlike boing-boing, etc., if it were Matt's best friend, he could probably convince them to delete it). Judging, then, from what mathowie has said so far, he has already answered: "I would totally support that kind of infringement and not say a word"
posted by Bugbread at 4:13 PM on August 23, 2005
IANMathowie, but I can take a guess: Posting entire 50 Cent or Jessica Simpson (er, yes, I'm out of touch with pop culture) would have an extremely low chance of increasing the revenue of 50 Cent or Jessica Simpson, as the advertising effect would be minimal (everybody pretty much already knows them). Probably, more money would be lost in people who had planned to buy but downloaded instead than would be gained in people who had not planned to buy, but downloaded, listened, liked, and subsequently bought.
Posting something incredibly unkown would have a higher chance of increasing their revenue, as more money would be gained by the new audience than lost by existing audience downloading instead of purchasing.
To make an extreme example: If I make a kickass album, and only my friend Bob knows about it, and he buys a copy (lets say I sell direct), I make $15. If Bob then puts it online, perhaps 50 people download it, and 10 people buy it. I now make $165 instead of $15.
I am not one of the people who thinks all exposure is necessarily financially beneficial to IP holders, nor am I one of the people who seem to live pre-internet-crash and believe "it doesn't matter if you lose money hand over fist, as long as you get exposure!" I personally believe that on one far, far end, it is clear that posting IP results in a decrease in income, and that on the other far, far end it results in an increase of income, and the issue is where the turning point is. I don't know. And, in any case, this is all just a proxy guess for Matt. I may be wrong in my guessing, and he may have had a different reason for finding the teeny tiny niche thing ok.
gwint : "if someone posted a FPP to a web version of your entire book would you delete it immediately or would you wait for your publisher to complain and then delete it?"
IANMatt nor a lawyer, but I wonder if one could get into additional trouble for enabling ones own work to be pilfered. That is, if I'm a company, and I make lousy decisions that affect some other company's profits, I may get in some sort of legal trouble. If I'm a company, and I make lousy decisions that affect my own profits, I would get into the same legal trouble, plus get in trouble for not exercising "due dilligence".
So your analogue, "Would you wait to delete it if your book was posted as an FPP?" isn't a fair comparison. He might not wait, but that doesn't indicate that he is being hypocritical or unfair, just that the situation is different. A better question would be "if someone posted a FPP on your best friend's side to an unauthorized web version of your entire book, would you get him/her to delete it immediately or would you wait for your publisher to complain and then get him/her to delete it?" (best friend chosen because, unlike boing-boing, etc., if it were Matt's best friend, he could probably convince them to delete it). Judging, then, from what mathowie has said so far, he has already answered: "I would totally support that kind of infringement and not say a word"
posted by Bugbread at 4:13 PM on August 23, 2005
There's an enormous difference between infringing copyright of material that is out of print, and rather rare, as opposed to currently available, and heavily marketed.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:12 PM on August 23, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:12 PM on August 23, 2005
Explain why a creator should be given legal protection over their creation for a limited period of time if they choose not allow the public to benefit from it (i.e., by purchasing it).
Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes fought long and hard to prevent licensing of his characters for other uses. That's why you can't buy stuffed Hobbes dolls and don't see Calvin on TV shilling for Wal-Mart.
Would you be happier in a world in which Wal-Mart could use Calvin for advertising without Watterson's permission, just by paying him a few bucks? (If you object that Watterson did make money off of Calvin and Hobbes, then as a thought experiment imagine a web comic which the creator provides for free.)
Also, under a model like yours, how do you propose the authorities differentiate between someone who is not allowing the public to benefit from their creation now (but is working on a distribution model for the future) and someone who plans on never allowing the public to benefit?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:57 PM on August 23, 2005
Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes fought long and hard to prevent licensing of his characters for other uses. That's why you can't buy stuffed Hobbes dolls and don't see Calvin on TV shilling for Wal-Mart.
Would you be happier in a world in which Wal-Mart could use Calvin for advertising without Watterson's permission, just by paying him a few bucks? (If you object that Watterson did make money off of Calvin and Hobbes, then as a thought experiment imagine a web comic which the creator provides for free.)
Also, under a model like yours, how do you propose the authorities differentiate between someone who is not allowing the public to benefit from their creation now (but is working on a distribution model for the future) and someone who plans on never allowing the public to benefit?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:57 PM on August 23, 2005
would you delete it immediately or would you wait for your publisher to complain and then delete it?
I would wait for the complaint then try to talk them out of making me do such a thing.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:31 PM on August 23, 2005
I would wait for the complaint then try to talk them out of making me do such a thing.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:31 PM on August 23, 2005
do you have a buyback of rights after a certain amount of time clause in your contract? (or whatever they're called)
posted by amberglow at 6:42 AM on August 24, 2005
posted by amberglow at 6:42 AM on August 24, 2005
Speaking as a writer and musician: I could give a fuck what y'all think about my income, my distribution, or how my work might most "benefit." I've performed concerts comprised of material composed specifically for one night, material which I would have written differently if I had intended to record it for posterity.
Copyright isn't about money. It's about control. I enjoy the control that allows me to decide whether a piece of music will exist only for that instant, then be gone forever. That's every bit as essential an artistic decision as which instruments to score, or which venue to book.
And speaking to fellow writers and musicians who say, "Well, I'd be OK with my work being passed around, so I'm gonna trade this other dude's stuff"...fuck you, too.
posted by cribcage at 10:15 PM on August 29, 2005
Copyright isn't about money. It's about control. I enjoy the control that allows me to decide whether a piece of music will exist only for that instant, then be gone forever. That's every bit as essential an artistic decision as which instruments to score, or which venue to book.
And speaking to fellow writers and musicians who say, "Well, I'd be OK with my work being passed around, so I'm gonna trade this other dude's stuff"...fuck you, too.
posted by cribcage at 10:15 PM on August 29, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by angry modem at 3:30 PM on August 22, 2005