Oh get a grip. I was not born into any sort of "riches", but I totally agree with the whining and silly aspects of this.
Just because these bloggers can't deal with the fact that they agreed to the terms when they signed up isn't HuffPo's fault, nor should the courts have to deal with it wasting tax payers time and money.
They aren't now and never were entitled to any share of the profits of the site they wrote for, particularly when they agreed to blog for free.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
[but if you're suggesting that the tendency of the younger generations is "ignore laws and do whatever I want",]
I'm suggesting that ignoring laws can lead to anarchy. So right now, it's the red light and copyright?
Which both seem pretty minor, I agree.
But the concept of ignoring laws is not likely to stop there. The "we want what we want" mentality isn't confined to the younger set either, but they do embrace it a lot quicker than old fogies like me.
I'm saying that doing anything the wrong way (such as trying to get poorly written laws like copyright changed) can lead to chaos. It isn't about the fact that it's copyright laws, but more about choosing methods for change, or to try and bring about change.
You are mixing up physical and non-physical goods. Sure, I own the physical object that is the painting, if you sell it to me. I don't own the "art" though. I'm still not allowed to makes copies of it for my friends or to sell on eBay. You don't own it either. The law gives to a monopoly on that right for a limited time. Copyright is not ownership. You don't own the art, even as the artist. Society owns it. Yes, humanity IS entitled to it. It is OUR culture. Even the law says so!
So wrong as to be ridiculous.
The art is mine, the painting is mine, but, I sold it. I can place no restrictions at all on it, if I so choose. It's my creation. If you buy a painting from me, you can do what you want with it.
If I create a painting and hang it on my living room wall and do not sell it to anyone, then I own it. Period. No, humanity doesn't have a right to it. I do. Only me, if I want to be so selfish.
You don't get to tell me who has a right to something I created, neither does any law say that while I'm alive. After I die, do I really care what happens to it?
That's nuts. No. Make thousands of copies and do what you want them, I won't care at all. But while it's hanging in my home, on my wall, and I'm still living and breathing, I get to decide. As for the painting I sold you, you get to decide.
If you buy a painting from me, I don't care what you do with it (the painting).
I sold you the painting. I didn't sell you a copy of it, but if you want to paint one (a copy) of your own from it, then go for it.
If you run off 100 prints, call them yours and sell them, yeah, I'd care, but I'd care a lot less if they still had my copyright on them.
But in the case of the painting, you may be devaluing the thing YOU now own. If I sold you the painting, I don't own it anymore, you do. It's value is what you paid for it. More copies floating about could mean less value for the owner, not for the artist (in this case, me).
I'm not going to freak out a little unless what you do causes me or my business harm. I'm kind of lopsided about copyright I suppose.
[has the the artist/songwriter/whoever actually LOST any sales?]
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how good/bad the stuff is, I suppose. But people who can't buy, will never buy no matter whether they listen to it free on the web, or grab an unauthorized copy. No money, no sales. So the lost sale thing is a waste of time in some ways.
[That sale WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if I hadn't infringed in the first place.]
What is that old saying...the right results from the wrong actions? That's an excuse, and not a reason. I actually understand that there was an increase in "sales" but I'm not the one you have to convince. I give away stuff for free.
I think a lot of artists in all genres (not just music) seem to be stuck on the "lost a sale" thing. If someone isn't going to buy it, they aren't.
I agree that if you purchased the product and need it in a different format, you shouldn't have to use filesharing to get it or buy a different copy of it. The distributors (et al) should be offering it up in whatever format the purchaser of the CD wants in it. That could resolve a lot of nonsense for music and movie buyers.
Business models need to change, but I'm not too sure that using the wrong methods to force these guys to change their business models is the right way to do it.
And no, I've no idea what is the right way, but I'm almost sure this isn't it.
Nowhere in the laws I know (and yeah, we have cops and lawyers in our family) does it say that it is legal to run a red light just because no one sees you.
It is not legal. Period. It's a traffic violation. No, you won't get a ticket if no one's there, but that doesn't suddenly make it legal.
So choosing to ignore laws (of any kind) fits within the scope of anarchy. Chaos and disorder. Ignore the government laws and you have chaos. Anarchy.
So yeah, I can see anarchy in a simple statement like that. When people to decide to do whatever they want without giving some thought to regulations and laws, and deciding to think something is legal when it isn't...enough of that and you are going to have anarchy.
I'd agree the government is always right, and laws aren't always right and may need changed to keep up with the times. But ignoring them isn't the way to do it.
That doesn't even come close to being the same thing at all.
You owned the veggies, you do what you want. You have the right to share them.
However, if you went into a farmers field and tool the veggies and shared them...you'd likely be charged with theft, and the original owner of the veggies (the farmer) would have lost some sales. You devalued his earnings by taking the veggies and sharing them.
Whether it's a lost sale for the grocery store down the street or not is a little bit moot in a situation like this. You didn't appropriate any veggies from them in the first place.
It isn't shared unless the originator "shares" it. If the originator doesn't, then it certainly isn't shared.
It's acquired without permission.
More word games. Everyone can choose their own definition of words and the dictionary contains multiple definitions of some words, but getting or taking something you haven't received the permission to use or take (or without paying for it) wouldn't appear to be the correct behaviour, whether the creator still has the original or not.
Even "borrowing" isn't an apt fit ... to borrow something, you first ask permission.
Stealing? Perhaps not.
Shared? Definitely not. Not unless the person who has the authority to share it, shares it.
Copyright needs a serious overhaul, with both sides of the coin being able to participate in the discussions and be heard.
...not that I don't think sharing is perfectly fine if you do own the "thing", whatever it is. I'm happy to share my own stuff, happy to get free stuff from someone who wants to share it.