|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2006 : 15:06:09 [Permalink]
|
You are right. Calling a thief a thief isn't an ad hominem attack.
However, I am not a thief. I admit I am fairly lazy, but lots of people are. I am not unwilling to work, I do not have the "moral integrity of a thief", nor am I "unable or unwilling to work for what you get". Nor am I "dead weight", nor a "lazy dependent leach".
Calling me these things however, is an ad hominem attack. It is also defamation of character. I would be happy to continue this debate with anyone who wants to, but not with someone who calls me, or anyone else for that matter, names. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 15:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
quote:
For copyright infringement, however, the copyright owner is the one which has to sue. The government doesn't help us protect our intellectual property, except by providing judges to hear the suits. And they generally toss out copyright cases in which the monetary value of the infringed copyright(s) is low or zero. Some of the pages of my psoriasis Web site, for example, have been illegally copied, but since I make no profit from them, were I to bring suit it would likely be thrown out. Owning a copyright here in the US isn't exactly full protection, anyway.
Unless the police stumble on evidence of illegal copyright infringment as a part of another investigation, someone has to file a report to the police for them to take action. The term "sue" however, doesn't really apply. Anyone can file such a report, not only the copyright holder, and the police will be equally obligated to investigate.
There are judicial discussions about copyright violations in Sweden, it may potentially result in jail-time, as if it was a criminal case in the US.
To my knowledge, none has gone to jail yet, but a recent law against downloading may eventually result in a sentence with time to serve.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/14/2006 15:54:55 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 16:07:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by me...
If that describes you, you're dead weight, not willing to take care of yourself, a lazy dependent leach.
If it doesn't describe you, don't be so sensitive. And how else would you describe someone who believes he has some right to the advantages of the work done by others?
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 16:36:50 [Permalink]
|
You are correct Mab. No one in Sweden has gone to jail for downloading since the new law came into power July 1st 2005. However, that law only affects the downloading of music, video, text, images or programs from the internet. Recording music from the radio or copying books from the library or recording tapes from TV for personal use is still perfectly legal.
Precisely how that works when people get their TV over internet cables, I have no idea.
Everyone I know believes that he or she has a right to the advantages of the work done by others. When someone builds a building, no one I know feels that he or she doesn't have the right to enjoy the view. No one I know switches of the radio every time it plays music; or shuts his eyes when he walks past a person selling artwork on the streets. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 18:46:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Everyone I know believes that he or she has a right to the advantages of the work done by others. When someone builds a building, no one I know feels that he or she doesn't have the right to enjoy the view.
Do they have a right to enjoy the view if they refuse to pay their rent?quote:
No one I know switches of the radio every time it plays music...
We've been through this already: the radio station pays for the music, and it gets paid by the advertisers, and the advertisers get paid by you when you buy their products.quote:
...or shuts his eyes when he walks past a person selling artwork on the streets.
You only have to pay to keep an actual copy of the artwork. Memories being as malleable as they are, your recollection of the art is unlikely to match reality after some time. In other words, your "copy" of it is temporary and fleeting, the original (and hard copies of it) you'd have to pay for. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 20:39:09 [Permalink]
|
| I meant the view of the building, not the view from the building. From the context, I thought it obvious I was talking about the building as a work of art. On a side note, most radio over here is advert-free. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 02:34:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I meant the view of the building, not the view from the building. From the context, I thought it obvious I was talking about the building as a work of art.
My mistake, but in that case I know of no intellectual property law which protects the "look" of a building from being copied. Buildings aren't copyrightable, and the shape of a building isn't patentable. Now, the AT&T headquarters not 30 minutes from my home is in the shape of an old AT&T logo (when viewed from the air), so it is, actually, trademarked, but the purpose of a trademark is to get it into your head. It's those who would copy the trademark in order to confuse the public who are banned from doing so.quote:
On a side note, most radio over here is advert-free.
The only advertising-free "regular" radio I know of is subsidized by the government, so instead of advertisers paying for the music indirectly, the musicians are getting paid from the tax dollars you fork over. In other words, the music you hear still isn't free for you, you're paying to hear it, just not directly out of your wallet on a per-song basis. (I put "regular" in quotes to distinguish it from subscriber radio like XM, in which case the musicians would be paid directly from your subscription fees.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 03:32:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
My mistake, but in that case I know of no intellectual property law which protects the "look" of a building from being copied. Buildings aren't copyrightable, and the shape of a building isn't patentable.
I am again struck by the disparate nature of the different types of intellectual property legislation there is in different parts of the world.
1 § Den som har skapat ett litterärt eller konstnärligt verk har upphovsrätt till verket oavsett om det är
1. skönlitterär eller beskrivande framställning i skrift eller tal,
2. datorprogram,
3. musikaliskt eller sceniskt verk,
4. filmverk,
5. fotografiskt verk eller något annat alster av bildkonst,
6. alster av byggnadskonst eller brukskonst, eller
7. verk som har kommit till uttryck på något annat sätt.
Edit: This is from Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk, the applicable Swedish copyright law.
Buildings can certainly be copyrighted. They cannot, of course, be patented. But patents and copyright are two very different things.
quote:
quote:
On a side note, most radio over here is advert-free.
The only advertising-free "regular" radio I know of is subsidized by the government, so instead of advertisers paying for the music indirectly, the musicians are getting paid from the tax dollars you fork over. In other words, the music you hear still isn't free for you, you're paying to hear it, just not directly out of your wallet on a per-song basis. (I put "regular" in quotes to distinguish it from subscriber radio like XM, in which case the musicians would be paid directly from your subscription fees.)
This is also an interesting debate, but I think it should be persued in a different thread. Since I pay the exact same amount of tax wether I listen to the radio or not, it could be argued that the radio is made available to me free of charge. In the same way you get a "free" toy when buying a Happy Meal from McDonalds, or those CDs which computer magazines often include.
After all, the only service the government is bound to give us in return for our taxes according to the so-called "social contract", is to be the government. |
| Edited by - Bunga on 01/15/2006 03:42:55 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 18:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I meant the view of the building, not the view from the building. From the context, I thought it obvious I was talking about the building as a work of art. On a side note, most radio over here is advert-free.
That is the state sponsored radio, which you pay for by taxes and radio/TV license. And they pay STIM as well. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 18:37:37 [Permalink]
|
Bunga posted some Swedish law.
But since few of you actually read Swedish, here's a quick translation:
1 § Den som har skapat ett litterärt eller konstnärligt verk har upphovsrätt till verket oavsett om det är
Whosoever created a litterary or artistic "product" has the copyright to such regardless of if it is:
1. skönlitterär eller beskrivande framställning i skrift eller tal,
Litterary work or descriptive presentation in writing or speach
2. datorprogram,
Computer program
3. musikaliskt eller sceniskt verk,
Musical or theatrical work
4. filmverk,
Movie, or piece of film
5. fotografiskt verk eller något annat alster av bildkonst,
Photography or other kind of "image-related art" (images, paintings, drawings, sketches etc.)
6. alster av byggnadskonst eller brukskonst, eller
Damn, I can't find my dictionary when I need it. It says
"pieces of constructional art architecture", or "artful design of various objects (by wood, cloth, clay, glass, and other materials)".
Not explicitly buildings, but artistical designs in construction is implied.
7. verk som har kommit till uttryck på något annat sätt.
works that has been expressed in other ways
Edit: This is from
Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk,
Law about copyrights of litterary and artistic work
the applicable Swedish copyright law.
Edited: suggestions by Hawks |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/15/2006 19:08:03 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 19:25:07 [Permalink]
|
I am an artist, including being a digital artist, and I support the decriminalization of Internet piracy. So do many artists and so do the programmers involved in the free software movement.
This conversation has gotten rather nasty at times, with some people accusing others of not valuing the work of artists. But the disagreement has nothing to do with appreciating artists, writers and musicians. If it did, then I and people like Richard Stallman could be said to not value our own work, which is just silly.
Ads claiming that Internet piracy is akin to stealing someone's car are also silly. If someone wants piracy to be considered wrong by social norms and to be illegal, fine. But they shouldn't use arguments that are plainly ridiculous. The reason this is an issue in the first place, the reason otherwise law-abiding citizens become Internet pirates, is because copying someone's book or song is fundamentally different from taking someone's hard copy of a book or CD.
Maybe I'm on the side of this debate that I'm on because I'm not a commercial artist, and so I don't make a living off my art anyway. The whole purpose of the type of art I do is to question social conventions for the purpose of promoting progress, and so it tends not to be marketable. It is not that I think people shouldn't be compensated for their work. I just think that copyright laws are impractical with today's level of technology. Enforsing them consistently would interfer with privacy too much to be worth it. Therefore society needs to find another way of compensating artists, musicians, programmers, etc, who are economically hurt by Internet piracy.
I imagine the other side claims that copyright laws can be enforsed consistantly without infringing too much on people's privacy? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/15/2006 19:39:37 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 20:07:09 [Permalink]
|
To Ricky's hypothetical:
FIRST PROBLEM: There is already a terrible glut of artists. My goodness, just look at Brazilian graffiti artists who are poor and yet scrape together the money to do huge, beautiful murals on the sides of abandoned buildings. People don't become artists because they expect a lucrative career. On the contrary, we usually meet resistance from family and friends at every turn. We do it because we love it. Anyone who does it for the money produces mediocre work: poor in craft, or trite in meaning, or both.
SECOND PROBLEM: If a shortage of music/art/software/writing did occur, it would only be a short-term shortage during a dark, transitional period while the system adjusted to alleviate that problem. That's always what happens when a technological development alters the nature of the economy. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/15/2006 20:08:08 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 20:19:38 [Permalink]
|
I strongly encourage those interested in this topic to familiarize themselves with the Free Software Movement and its argument. Even though it pertains to software, many of the fundamental rationals relate to other create products that can be copyrighted and copied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
GeeMack wrote: And how else would you describe someone who believes he has some right to the advantages of the work done by others?
How about a socialist?
I really do think - even though no one has said it so far - that this debate largely falls along lines of socialism vs. capitalism. Copyright laws are necessary in a pure capitalist economic system. But because of the drawbacks of pure capitalism, today western nations all incorporate varying degrees of socialistic elements into their economic systems. There's no reason to get hostile about this and throw around labels like "thief" and "lazy". Most of us would agree that neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist state is the answer. So why not confine the discussion to the practical possible effects of different politicies in regards to copyright laws, and back those claims up with evidence and reasoning. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2006 : 21:42:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...So why not confine the discussion to the practical possible effects of different politicies in regards to copyright laws, and back those claims up with evidence and reasoning.
Because laws aren't intended as subject to the philisophical leisures and interpretive whims of the public- they're made for reasons, and intended to be mandatorily followed. These questions are specific enough to answer "legal" or "illegal" (and "right" or "wrong," too... in my opinion, "It's wrong".) As far as I'm concerned, unless an artist, musician or author specifies- in writing, verbally, or otherwise- "copy away" as opposed to similarly stating "I'm doing this for profit" the same applies as with software... unless it's specified as being "freeware," it's theft of information, paintings, books, songs etc. being simply other varieties of information- which must hold some kind of inherent value, else one wouldn't want to copy them. It's taking unfair advantage of the fruit of people's labors.
The arguments "It's already been paid for once," "I otherwise wouldn't buy it anyway" don't hold water. If a guy who works construction "borrows" his bosses' crane at 2 AM and uses it to "moonlight" jobs and make a few extra bucks, he's stealing... saying "It would just be sitting there otherwise, anyway" doesn't hold water as a rationalization, either.
BTW marfknox hey, you outta scan or shoot some of that mural art or other and give a link (the one on your homepage on portraits, figured didn't work, at least not just now)... I'd be interested in seeing.
Edited to add that and correct bad grammerz N spellin errers. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/15/2006 22:40:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
