Comment on Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"

• Katana314@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This feels like an easy statement to make when it applies to Disney putting out new Avatar movies. Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took, instead of re-printing it without your permission.

  “InfORMaTioN wANts tO Be FrEe, yO.”

  source

  • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Then, suddenly, you realize how extensively it causes problems when you’re a photographer trying to get magazines to pay for copies of the once-in-a-lifetime photo you took

    That’s a pretty specific example. Probably because in many cases photographers are paid in advance. A wedding photographer doesn’t show up at the wedding, take a lot of pictures, then try to work out a deal with the couple getting married. They negotiate a fee before the wedding, and when the wedding is over they turn over the pictures in exchange for the money. Other photographers work on a salary.

    Besides, even with your convoluted, overly-specific example, even without a copyright, a magazine would probably pay for the photo. Even if they didn’t get to control the copying of the photo, they could still get the scoop and have the picture out before other people. In your world, how would they “reprint” it without your permission? Would they break into your house and sneakily download it from your phone or camera?

    source

    • Katana314@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This is the kind of situation I’m citing:

      arstechnica.com/…/one-mans-endless-hopeless-strug…

      A lot of photography is not based on planning ahead before being paid (a person requests Photo X, and then pays on delivery). Nature photographers, and in fact many other forms of artists, produce a work before people know/feel they want it, and then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website, and then requests use of that work themselves.

      The struggles of the above insect photographer are even with the existing IP laws - they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into, and VERY MANY media outlets don’t bother; to say nothing of giving a charitable donation.

      source

      • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        then sell it based on demonstration - a media outlet notices their work in a gallery or on their website

        So, they choose to rely on copyright, when they could do work for hire instead.

        they only ask for fair compensation from what they’ve put so much effort into

        No, they ask for unfair compensation based on copyrights.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That is absolutely 100% a completely insane position. The fact that you feel entitled to literally everything someone else creates it’s fucking horrific and you are a sad person.

  source

  • TootGuitar@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    For someone who bitches all over this thread about people strawmanning their position, this is a pretty fucking great reply.

    Hint: one can be pissed about people throwing around the not-based-in-legal-reality term “intellectual property.” One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft, a strategy which has apparently worked mightily well on you. One can be all of those things, and yet still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”

    What you posted was a textbook definition of a straw man.

    source

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”

      But they don’t feel that copyright infringement is wrong. How closely did you read the previous statements?

      source

      • TootGuitar@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?

        source

        • -> View More Comments