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.
[ERB claims that the manner in which Dynamite uses the mark, and specifically some of the covers which feature partial nudity, are damaging to the reputation and good will of ERB and the business it has built up around Tarzan and John Carter.]
I don't know about that for sure, though it could be, because I will say that when I see books with any of the character names from the Martian stories written by ERB (books which I actually own, c. 1963 printing) like Dejah Thorus or Tars Tarkas, I would immediately assume they were ERBs books/stories as written, so if other fans of those series assumed the same thing, then the comics might in fact be an "annoyance". I haven't much studied TM law or regulations so make that a personal feeling I suppose.
I'm definitely not a fan of the new covers either. The original stories weren't based on anything terribly sexual - they were sci-fi with a touch of romance. Not having looked at the comics, I don't know if they twisted the stories, but they sure have the cover art.
That being said, young people today would probably find the covers, er "interesting", while old fogies like me find them lewd - particularly when someone like me views the covers in light of the stories they've read, rather than the stories contained in the comics. The current covers would not be a good fit to the original books/stories.
At least one of the books I own has a publishers note in it, whereby ERB "renewed" their copyright...but no note about how long for.
Oddly enough, a few days ago I had made a recent post on Google+ looking for three of the original stories, but the reprints from 1963, not the original print. I had photographed the covers from those I had, to be sure people trying to sell me a book, had the right printing. While you can buy reprints on demands, they don't have the right covers. Weird timing that another story about this series has popped up.
I want to protect only my rights in my actual work. A digital copy of my work is still sort of my work. Getting a digital copy of my work makes the digital copy of the work the "holder's", but it still doesn't make it "their work". So, if someone obtained a digital copy of my work and posted it for sale on a stock site, you bet I'll complain.
If someone buys a couple of prints and wants to sell them for more somewhere else...more power to them if they can. They own the print, they can sell it if they want.
However, if someone takes a copy of my photo and creates their own painting, drawing, or other artwork from that photo...great. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's actually pretty cool - I've had a lot of artists ask to use my work for their painting and I always say yes.
Don't have a problem with someone copying my style, my setup or layout for a photo shoot...unlike some other photographers. I actually teach people how to do it if they ask.
In truth, I'm not horrible protective of my rights and don't waste a lot of time trolling around looking for unauthorized copies. Wastes my time and there's little value in it, for me, or anyone else.
That came from experience. I've had many "demands" (yes, demands) for some of my paid work to be issued freely.
Why? Because someone wanted it. That's why.
Seriously. I am not a great artist by any means. Nor do I think I'm the world's best photographer, but I am certainly annoyed when I get an email demanding that I should give away stuff I reserve only for prints.
As they say, beauty in art is in the eye of the beholder. I'd admit to actually not liking some of my completed work, but that stuff appears to sell. Go figure.
[he had to prove he was worth paying before people did so. And even then, they paid not for what he had done, but what he would do -- just as you pay a plumber or train driver.]
Do you pay your plumber or electrician before the job is done? We certainly don't. When the work is completed satisfactorily, they get paid. They don't get paid first.
I actually do tend to agree with the article, and with the fact that you have to work you way up to the paid market. I simply don't agree with paying anyone for work that has yet to be done.
When I do a portrait job, I don't ask for money first. I ask for payment when I finish the completed work and the client is happy with it.
And yes, artists do have to pay their bills just like everyone else.
While I give away the vast majority of my work for free (so I am on the freetard side I guess), I am also on the side where you get paid for the job you do. And because I create whatever it is I create, I get to choose which pieces I will give away or share for free, and what pieces I will sell.
Not you. Not the guy down the street, not an militant copyright OR copyleft group. I get to decide. For the most part, I'm fairly benevolent and tend to say yes pretty easily when people ask for something that isn't free but I have harder time when people DEMAND that I give away everything for free because it's expected.
Why is it so hard to understand for some people? Your plumber doesn't work for free. You can't board the train or bus without paying for it. The electrician will not come free of charge.
Why is it okay that artists and writers should be expected to give away what they work at, for free?
Sharing work for free gives me more pleasure than creating a fine art print for $300, but I do have to pay rent, and buy groceries, and all the other things families need to pay for.
I guess for me it's about choice. I am not anti-copyright, and I am not pro-copyright. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I simply want the same rights others have - to choose what I do with my own things. I don't expect to be paid for everything as evident by the number of sites where I post work for others to use, but when I do ask for payment, I shouldn't have to fight for it because half the world thinks it should be free.
The colours of the flag ... that is probably further reaching than just about any other of the requests they made.
I mean really ... shall someone register a domain with the colours of the flag, and then perhaps associate it with porn? I don't see how mentioning a flag with those particular colours is going to automatically be associated with Brazil.
Maybe they actually meant the flag design, as opposed to the colours?
Seriously ... photographer's the world over think this is ridiculous. Nobody needs to get paid to write about it - for the most part part, it's beyond intellectual comprehension why anyone can actually consider these or any "similarly composed" images "infringement".
They are not. And no amount of someone else telling a seasoned photographer they are is going to make that stick.
You are either a supporter of the complainant, the lawyer or, maybe the complainant.