2 votes

Video: Copying Is Not Theft



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The only way to violate ones right to ideas they create,

The only way to violate ones right to ideas they create, is to somehow take the idea out of the inventors mind so that they can no longer think on it, or utilize it, basically wipe their memory of it.

IP laws are simply protectionism in the form of government monopoly grants, if you support them, you might as well just cut your empty, liberty, B.S. rhetoric, go all the way, advocate total central planning of the economy, and start voting for Obama.

IP is not a part of a free market.

Ridiculously complex law

Some of the folks replying here have incredibly nuanced arguments on this issue, and it's amazing to me the extent of knowledge and the differences of opinion on this issue. But one thing that I have not seen mentioned is the undeniable fact that this law (or should I say BODY of laws) is so incredibly complex that people can take any position on it that they please and make sense of it. But the arguments of this particular instance being legal and that particular instance being illegal is just patently stupid. What all these hundreds of comments and arguments ultimately mean is that this is just one more segment of legal mumbo-jumbo that cannot possibly be understood by the average person who is expected to abide by all this crap. My opinion is this: If you can't understand it then you have no obligation to follow it. Follow your conscience. I, for one, do not intend to spend the rest of my life trying to ferret out the labyrinthine corridors of copyright law, and barring that, I must merely fall back on my own instincts and let the chips fall where they may.

double

sorry. double post

I saw that video on their

I saw that video on their youtube channel. What they are showing is art is derivative of the human form. Not really that it is derivative of other artists. Especially historic art where cultures weren't exposed to one another thousands of years ago. While most art can come about through inspiration, you would expect an artist to make similar shapes when it comes to the human body.

Yes, I can see how that might be misinterpreted.

And I suppose they should have used a wide range of art to make the point better, instead of just humanoid forms.

But the main point really is that all art is derivative, because it is based upon culture.

The video may not make that point well by only focusing on one type of art form rather than very different types which borrow from, and expand upon each other.

Watch this.... We Are Creators Too: Nina Paley

Here is Nina talking about her "free" movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uN7upUXSFk&NR=1

Here is the Free Movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfS2p1vFics&feature=related

In peace & liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

It is all about

intent. Copying for no monetery gain is permissable.
Without a gain involved there is nothimg to steal. You have aleready given the release of your idea.

DP does not receive compensation for the comments left on this site. The comments are freewill offerings.

We are talking about already used intellectual property. The gain has already been realized in the original issuence.
Each copy is then become it's own original,as it is the first. If I make a copy, then my copy is an original, you may not copy MY original copyrighted copy, you must make your own legal copy. If you copy "my" original copyrighted copy, illegally, that is an infringement. A "copyright disclosure" must accompany MY original copy, or I am not protected.

If a person used a copyrighted product and did not provided a copy of the "Copyright Disclosure", Michael is not at fault. The person copying and not disclosing the 'copyright disclosure" is at fault.

The content of videos usually cannot be copyright infringed because you are "not there" to make a copy of the original performance. They make copies for release to the public, which copies carry a Copyright Disclosure. To be fully protected from ALL copy, you the originator, would have to make sure YOUR copyrighted copy could not possibly lose the copyright disclosure to another copyer.

People think this but it is a mistake

Fair Use is about use not intent. Fair use is an exception. CR notice has not been relevant for some time because it is no longer required by statute.

There is no mens rea in copy right law.

Some people believe that IP rules should be relaxed for noncommercial use. Lawrence Lessig believes this and established the creative commons which Is a license that precludes commercial use.

He and others suffer from a moral bias against commerce and don't quite get all of the cultural and liberty interests that this approach still does not address.

My arguement

You cannot copy what is not original.
If I was not there to copy the ORIGIONAL, I am not in violation of Copyright because I could not copy. As a second hand user to any origional, I can only violate a copy of the origional. If a copy exists then the origional has been perpitrated and used for release. Any copy must notify me of use intent or that the copy is Copyrighted. If no notice of copyright is forwarded on any copy I cannot assume it is copyrighted. End agruement.

ANY writting posted anywhere is no longer origional, it has been disclosed and used. A posting must have a notice of copyright to be legal and all subsequent copy must also maintain the notice of copyright or I must at least be given notice in some way.

I cannot comply with what I do not notice exists.
Once I notice , then I can comply.
There exists TOO much copy, to assume that there is a copyright on all articles.

Protection is the origionators responsibility.

Intellectual property

is absurd. Intellectual property exists in almost unlimited supply and the price should reflect that on the market. The outrageous prices that are being charged could not exist without government force. Nothing is more dangerous than laws regulating the exchange of ideas and the free flow of these ideas. Only the creator should have the ability to control the information WHILE IT EXISTS IN HIS POSSESSION (his mind, his private writings, etc). If he chooses to release that idea to others, he should arrange payment at the time of release to the other party. If the idea is figured out by others, or created elsewhere by chance, that person has the freedom to release it in his area if so inclined and for the rate he and the buyer determines. If each buyer carefully chooses how the information is used, then they are free to control the price by controlling the supply AS INDIVIDUALS. No government force or artificial pricing. If someone digitally protects a song to control it's supply that is their right. If the protection is broken and the supply increases substantially the price should reflect that and the seller of the original song will have to adjust his price or innovate once again. He must continue to produce and compete and not lock down an artificial monopoly via force of government.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Intellectual property is

Intellectual property is absurd only to those without intellect or property.

Well said

!

The thing is the laws are pretty cut and dried.

If Mr. Nystrom himself took content from another site and posted it himself to make a buck as income it would be wrong,Out of the mouth of babes,He should not be personally responsible for what we imbeciles choose to post without his knowledge,The man has to sleep at some point in his life even though the site is 24-7.Notice I included myself in the accusations.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Reality Check

If you hum a song in front of another person and that song is not in the public domain then you are performing the underlying composition and if you do not pay the copyright holder...You are infringing.

There is just SOOO much

There is just SOOO much misunderstanding about copyright here. The people against it, seem to think that copyright protects ideas. It does NOT! You CANNOT copyright an idea. You can only copyright the EXPRESSION of the idea.

And there are still a few exceptions, such as merger, scene-de-faire, fair use, etc. These laws (Copyright) deal with extreme cases, not the de minimus.

If you want to give away your book, CD, movie or whatever is in a tangible form, which is the only thing tat can be copyrighted, that is your right. But not everyone wants their work copied without permission.

It is just stunning to me some of the comments here. Its probably people who grew up on the web who is used to getting things for free who argue for it.

I control MY original work, and without MY permission you cannot do with it as you please. You can buy my book, but you cannot copy and distribute it. That right belongs to me.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

But I can copy it for no gain.

I cannot steal something that has already been released for public consumption. A relaease is to the general public and copying is the same as everyone reading the original release.

If I try to profit from copying, that is a legal infringement on use.
Copyright protects from the use of. We cannot copyright a mind, ideas come and go. To use something it was not intended for certainly cannot be considered infringement as it has become a new use.

Yes Brian under the current IP system, you are correct. However

you fail to make a reasoned argument. Your comments boil down to explaining the system we now have. Mostly you described the definitions of what IP is, without really making an argument, an argument that it is indeed, property and not a Monopoly Grant. Your task is to explain how and why IP is indeed property. Do you see that by stating "you CANNOT" you have merely referred to the system we have, you have not made a reasoned argument. Do you see that? Yet it is the rightness or wrongness of the IP system itself that is under challenge here. Yes Brian, you control YOUR orignial work. The fact that it is YOURS in not under debate, we are all down with private property. The argument is that IP is missnamed, it is not "property", it is a monopoly grant. Yes you understand what Copyright is, but that understanding leads you to miss the mark. It also blinds you as to how you would, under a Free Market system, sell YOUR book and profit from that sale. I have tried to explain here and there in this thread. I have explained, and I have have not taken any mean spirited jabs or slams in my writing to believers in the copyright government monopoly grant system. It is not a misunderstanding. Get it? You are being asked to rethink what IS property and what is NOT property. Hence the Candle vs the Flame analogy. Hence what Thomas J himself thought of property and what the IP system he helped to create was (hint: a monopoly grant).

You wrote, "Copyright does NOT allow for an idea to be copyrighted. Only the EXPRESSION of the idea is copyrightable". The idea in one of David Bowie's melody was "stolen" by Vanilla Ice. There are countless examples where your above statement is factually not true. We can go there if, create a thread just for those examples and discuss that if you wish. The worst effect of this is (in my opinion) is DNA research. BTW, I have been looking for this "60 Minutes II-Covers the Gene-Food Debate" to give you a link Brain, but so far I cannot find it, perhaps in the spirit of trying to understand the other side, you can find it yourself and watch it? In that video, you will see how genes are being patented/copyrighted as property, and the dilemmas and problems this is causing and will cause in the future. Shelly Roche, above video, brings up how government-expanding its IP power-is essentially threatening free speech on the internet. There are cases all over the place, where IP power is harmful, not helpful for Liberty.

Please go to page 3 or 4 below to see my comments on your last reply to me.

In peace and liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

All Property Rights are a "Monopoly Grant"

pretty much by definition. If you own something, you have a monopoly on its control. Whether that's "real property" or IP.

Certainly there are abuses like your gene example, and patent law is so broken, we'd be better off without patents entirely, but that still doesn't invalidate the concept of IP. Much "real property" law is broken as well, but we don't advocate that "real property" can't be owned (well, my socialist friends do, and not too surprisingly, their arguments are almost identical to the anti-IP crowd).

not true

property is land or chattel. It has to exist in the physical world. If you hold chattel that is not a monopoly in a market, it is simply holding something in each instance of ownership you can only hold one. This not the case with IP.

That is what the video is saying.

IP is not created by the State,

anymore than ownership of a house you build is created by the State.

IP is a natural right, in that a person has the right to own the fruits of his labor - in this case, his intellectual labor.

If you create something, you own it, period. All the State can do is uphold or interfere with that natural right.

My favorite people in the world: Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr, and John Stossel

OK I have a thought in my head

It is my creation, my mind is laboring over it right now.

Do you want me to share it with you?

If you think it after I do you owe me compensation for use of my property. That is my natural right to my labor and my creation.

Are you OK with that relationship? (Does not natter b/c it is a natural right. The state morally should protect it as against you.)

Actually this concept is my idea. You are on notice. If you think about the ownership of thoughts you are thinking my thought.

So I suggest you quit thinking about it.

If you think about this concept you are stealing. You are a thief.

(BTW if you respond to this post, you are thinking about it. If you criticize or deconstruct it--that is a derivative work. You still rob me, unless I give you permission.)

Now. Did you think it? If so my price is $5 per incident. (I suppose I could charge more)

my sentaments exactly

but I want nothing $ for my comment.

Unless you use my comment for monetary gain.
I want my comment copyrighted.

OH , did I steal your sentaments ? No, because I could not have commented unless you already released the use of it. there is nothing to steal it's "used".It can never be reissued as original.

For the record ...

While I understand what the law is ...

I disagree with it ...

But ...

I also choose to abide by the law.

I have never violated a single copyright that I am aware of and go out of my way not to do so. I consider it an implied contract.

You lie!

:)

If you have ever sang "Happy Birthday to You" to a loved one and did not render a performance royalty to Warner Chappell then you stole!

You are a thief inviting anarchy!

Period.

LOL ...

Is that true?

Do you mean when I sing "Bye Bye Miss American Pie ..."

to myself, that is a copyright infringement?

What about listening to a song my friend may have copied?

Is watching YouTube clips of news shows infringement?

This can't be right.

yep

watching is not infringing

copying or performing is

If you sing to yourself it may not be performing but if someone hears you, then you are just as much in violation as if you sang it at a concert and charged entry fees.

LOL ...

Well I still stand by my statement, "I have never knowingly infringed."

Of course I can't say that anymore.

I was referring to copying music or software.

Hell its probably been 20 years since I have bought any music. The last one I think was The Cult when their second CD came out around 1988. I wouldn't know how to download a song or even know where to go to download a song, or how to pay for the downloaded song.

LOL.

yep...

If you sing one of those Cult songs, better keep it to yourself.

You can make copies for personal use (ie you can make an audio tape from an lp) statute provides for this.

You can also record a television show because you are engaging in "time shifting."

But these are different rights than the performance right. That right you do not have.

The digital age has erased this distinction

We communicate in tangible media, thus speech and copyright are merging....enforcement equals surveillance.