5 ms·

I assume that once you pitch designs to one of your clients, it's fine with you if they photograph it, copy it, and never pay you a dime? People love design, a

I assume that once you pitch designs to one of your clients, it's fine with you if they photograph it, copy it, and never pay you a dime? People love design, and do great design without making a single dime on it. The rich designers are rich because professional networking, big companies and IP laws make them big. Not because they were the best of the crop. Boo Freaking Hoo. Real designers do it for love. Only phonies want to get paid.

ThomPete 15y ago
First of all I have had plenty of my ideas, designs etc. copied. I don't care cause at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I don't know why you guys keep arguing the same misguided argument. Here is the difference. When I design for a client I put in the work and design specifically to to them. I am in other words a performing artist. I don't just send them a CD with the same design I did for all my other clients. Are you really telling me that you can't see the difference here? I am not saying artists shouldn't make money so there is no need to repeat the same tired claim. This is about whether it's a right to make money on mass-producing CDs?
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Part of the reason you are paid so much as a designer who works "for hire" either employed or as a freelancer is that your client wants something unique. Let's assume that there is no copyright. You get a contract from a client to design them a logo , website and smartphone app to promote their business. However your client knows that if a competitor wishes to copy their entire website including logo and app etc they can do so with impunity so all that they will get from whatever sum they invest in your work is a slight first mover advantage and probably the better the work you do the more likely someone else is to copy it. How much do you think they are willing to pay you for your work now?
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    A competitor can do that today. In fact that happens all the time, even among creatives. Do you know how many songs are stealing of each other? Should we tell musicians to pay for the licks and riffs they takes from someone else music and incorporate into his how?
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      Of course people create cover versions of songs or re-use a good riff, there is always an element of copying ideas but I think this is different to completely ripping something off 100% since you must still create the rest of the body of work around the original idea. Of course you could argue how much imitation should be allowed before it is considered a copyright or patent violation.
      - ThomPete 15y ago
        But the argument is that it takes something away from the artiste. That it's not only like stealing but that it is actually stealing. So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        I think the legal system deals with that. If you believe that you are losing money due to somebody else stealing your intellectual property then you can sue. I would not equate copying necessarily with stealing but each copy that is made of your software/music whatever will dilute it's value to an extent unless there is some compensation. Commercial software hopes you will compensate by paying money, OSS hopes you will compensate by providing code or some other service.
        ThomPete 15y ago
        But it's not the actual copy but the ip. So it's not really any different, besides of course that transcribing someone's licks and incorporating it into your own style isn't going to get exposed.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    Ever walked into a department store like Macy's? It's all ripoff from designers. There is no copyright on clothe design yet that hasn't killed the designer clothing market. Counterfeit goods to my knowledge fall under trademark laws.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      I think this is why people have such high regard for labels in fashion. Fashion is also a very visible way to display wealth whilst software is not, "aaah but was your copy of Office 2010 compiled by Steve Ballmer himself".. just doesn't happen. If we got rid of software copyright what would actually happen would be that all commercial software would be moved into a SaaS model and companies would keep their servers and code under lock and key so that nobody could get physical access to it. This would probably give you less freedom rather than more. Perhaps some movies would also be screened only at cinemas so that nobody ended up with a DVD that they could copy.
      - ThomPete 15y ago
        Why would it give you less freedom? Software will turn into SaaS anyway or to onLive types of constructions.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        If all my software is only available via a cloud service then it would restrict my freedom compared to having a local copy to the extent that I have no control over any changes to the software. If they release an update that I don't like for example then it will not be possible for me to retain the older version. If they decide to discontinue the software or go bust etc then I will lose access to it, this would not happen if I had my own copy. If I have all my data saved on their servers then I am at their whim as I don't have the files myself so that makes it harder to move to another piece of software should they change their ToS in a way I do not agree with. If I have confidential data stored with them and their servers are broken into then this causes issues that could be avoided by holding it on my own computer firewalled away from the internet. And crucially I will not be able to access it without a working internet connection. This may be the way of the future whether I like it or not but I wouldn't hail it completely as a good thing in terms of freedom or digital rights etc. I actually find it somewhat ironic that a lot of the best FOSS work (Linux , Apache , Python etc) that was intended to create a software freedom utopia is actually being used primarily to build walled gardens where you have no control over the software.
- troll24601 15y ago
  So to clarify: if you do work with the intent of selling it to one buyer it should be protected, but if you do work with the intent of selling it to two or more buyers it should not?
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    No there is no hope here. It's like being asked to do a painting. You do it once and sell it.
  - tikhonj 15y ago
    No. Rather, the point is that you are paid for your work rather than a copy of the result of your work. This is just like a software developer working for a salary rather than somebody eking out an existence in an app store.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      But who will pay me for my work if it is not some bespoke contract thing? Will you ask for donations? What happens if you announce you will work on something and take a bunch of donations in the first couple of months (enough to live off). What happens if the donations then dry up and you run out of money so you can't continue to work on the program full time but it is not finished? Do you have to go into debt to repay the people who donated or do they have to take a gamble that your program will get finished and be good enough? Or do you only start work when you have sufficient donations to finish development? What happens if you misjudge this?
      - ZenPsycho 15y ago
        you adapt, or you die.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        Not really a helpful answer, doesn't address any of my points. I think "adapt or die" has the risk of killing a lot of good business models that have so far provided us with some great content/software etc. I have yet to be provided with a good business model for content in a post copyright world that can be made to work for every type of content that we currently enjoy.
peterhost 15y ago
Come on ! That's exactly what happens everyday. When you pitch some creative work, you know you're throwing it to the winds and hope the pitched guy will see more benefit in hiring you than in copying it. You cannot protect art in general. I've worked for very decent folks (google in Dublin to name one) and very undecent ones. When you are not a mainstream artist, when you are part of the profesional artists crowd (people who live from it but don't make millions) which is the overwhelming majority of artists, you don't give a damn about all this bullshit on piracy. But you do pay attention on the fact that anything that further strenghtens big corporations will in turn make your situation more fragile.

ThomPete 15y ago

First of all I have had plenty of my ideas, designs etc. copied. I don't care cause at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I don't know why you guys keep arguing the same misguided argument. Here is the difference. When I design for a client I put in the work and design specifically to to them. I am in other words a performing artist. I don't just send them a CD with the same design I did for all my other clients. Are you really telling me that you can't see the difference here? I am not saying artists shouldn't make money so there is no need to repeat the same tired claim. This is about whether it's a right to make money on mass-producing CDs?

jiggy2011 15y ago
Part of the reason you are paid so much as a designer who works "for hire" either employed or as a freelancer is that your client wants something unique. Let's assume that there is no copyright. You get a contract from a client to design them a logo , website and smartphone app to promote their business. However your client knows that if a competitor wishes to copy their entire website including logo and app etc they can do so with impunity so all that they will get from whatever sum they invest in your work is a slight first mover advantage and probably the better the work you do the more likely someone else is to copy it. How much do you think they are willing to pay you for your work now?
- ThomPete 15y ago
  A competitor can do that today. In fact that happens all the time, even among creatives. Do you know how many songs are stealing of each other? Should we tell musicians to pay for the licks and riffs they takes from someone else music and incorporate into his how?
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Of course people create cover versions of songs or re-use a good riff, there is always an element of copying ideas but I think this is different to completely ripping something off 100% since you must still create the rest of the body of work around the original idea. Of course you could argue how much imitation should be allowed before it is considered a copyright or patent violation.
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      But the argument is that it takes something away from the artiste. That it's not only like stealing but that it is actually stealing. So what is it? Is it taking something away from the original creator (and the creator before him/her) or is it not.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        I think the legal system deals with that. If you believe that you are losing money due to somebody else stealing your intellectual property then you can sue. I would not equate copying necessarily with stealing but each copy that is made of your software/music whatever will dilute it's value to an extent unless there is some compensation. Commercial software hopes you will compensate by paying money, OSS hopes you will compensate by providing code or some other service.
        ThomPete 15y ago
        But it's not the actual copy but the ip. So it's not really any different, besides of course that transcribing someone's licks and incorporating it into your own style isn't going to get exposed.
- nkassis 15y ago
  Ever walked into a department store like Macy's? It's all ripoff from designers. There is no copyright on clothe design yet that hasn't killed the designer clothing market. Counterfeit goods to my knowledge fall under trademark laws.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    I think this is why people have such high regard for labels in fashion. Fashion is also a very visible way to display wealth whilst software is not, "aaah but was your copy of Office 2010 compiled by Steve Ballmer himself".. just doesn't happen. If we got rid of software copyright what would actually happen would be that all commercial software would be moved into a SaaS model and companies would keep their servers and code under lock and key so that nobody could get physical access to it. This would probably give you less freedom rather than more. Perhaps some movies would also be screened only at cinemas so that nobody ended up with a DVD that they could copy.
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      Why would it give you less freedom? Software will turn into SaaS anyway or to onLive types of constructions.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        If all my software is only available via a cloud service then it would restrict my freedom compared to having a local copy to the extent that I have no control over any changes to the software. If they release an update that I don't like for example then it will not be possible for me to retain the older version. If they decide to discontinue the software or go bust etc then I will lose access to it, this would not happen if I had my own copy. If I have all my data saved on their servers then I am at their whim as I don't have the files myself so that makes it harder to move to another piece of software should they change their ToS in a way I do not agree with. If I have confidential data stored with them and their servers are broken into then this causes issues that could be avoided by holding it on my own computer firewalled away from the internet. And crucially I will not be able to access it without a working internet connection. This may be the way of the future whether I like it or not but I wouldn't hail it completely as a good thing in terms of freedom or digital rights etc. I actually find it somewhat ironic that a lot of the best FOSS work (Linux , Apache , Python etc) that was intended to create a software freedom utopia is actually being used primarily to build walled gardens where you have no control over the software.
troll24601 15y ago
So to clarify: if you do work with the intent of selling it to one buyer it should be protected, but if you do work with the intent of selling it to two or more buyers it should not?
- ThomPete 15y ago
  No there is no hope here. It's like being asked to do a painting. You do it once and sell it.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  No. Rather, the point is that you are paid for your work rather than a copy of the result of your work. This is just like a software developer working for a salary rather than somebody eking out an existence in an app store.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    But who will pay me for my work if it is not some bespoke contract thing? Will you ask for donations? What happens if you announce you will work on something and take a bunch of donations in the first couple of months (enough to live off). What happens if the donations then dry up and you run out of money so you can't continue to work on the program full time but it is not finished? Do you have to go into debt to repay the people who donated or do they have to take a gamble that your program will get finished and be good enough? Or do you only start work when you have sufficient donations to finish development? What happens if you misjudge this?
    - ZenPsycho 15y ago
      you adapt, or you die.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        Not really a helpful answer, doesn't address any of my points. I think "adapt or die" has the risk of killing a lot of good business models that have so far provided us with some great content/software etc. I have yet to be provided with a good business model for content in a post copyright world that can be made to work for every type of content that we currently enjoy.

peterhost 15y ago

Come on ! That's exactly what happens everyday. When you pitch some creative work, you know you're throwing it to the winds and hope the pitched guy will see more benefit in hiring you than in copying it. You cannot protect art in general. I've worked for very decent folks (google in Dublin to name one) and very undecent ones. When you are not a mainstream artist, when you are part of the profesional artists crowd (people who live from it but don't make millions) which is the overwhelming majority of artists, you don't give a damn about all this bullshit on piracy. But you do pay attention on the fact that anything that further strenghtens big corporations will in turn make your situation more fragile.