8 ms·

Sure, I'll expand on my reasoning, but only since you ask. :) I don't and won't debate IP here, but I'll try to give more details behind that short post. Inte

Sure, I'll expand on my reasoning, but only since you ask. :) I don't and won't debate IP here, but I'll try to give more details behind that short post. Intellectual property rights, themselves, are more important than the monetary gain. The right to own the product of your work is incredibly important to the creator's life. If you make something, whether it be a wood carving, a sandwich, or even a computer program or piece of music, that thing is yours. To take that something from someone without consent is theft. When it comes to intellectual property, the only way to control the thing is to control its distribution. If the creator has no ability to set the terms by which the book, song, software program, etc. can be used, then there's no such thing as ownership of the created work. I think that's a worse loss than any temporary financial gain that could be had by the loss of IP rights, as those IP rights are everything to the creator. If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it? Imagine a situation where an accomplished, proud artist spends years painting what he considers his life's masterpiece. Then the next evening, a thief runs off with painting, but leaves a stack of $100 million in cash with a note that says "SOLD!". Was the artist justly compensated? Would there be articles written about how art theft could leave artists with more money than on the market?

icebraining 14y ago
But nobody stoled anything. The author voluntarily sold a copy of the work, which the buyer then proceed to use as he pleased, including sharing it with others. If the painter wants to control his painting, he has to give up on selling it, yet somehow authors of digital works get to control the stuff after they sold it.
- millstone 14y ago
  The author voluntarily sold a copy of his work, but with strings attached. The buyer accepted those limitations as a condition of the sale, and when he duplicated and distributed the contents, he violated the mutually agreed upon terms of the sale, and can be sued. The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.
  - Drakim 14y ago
    > The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist. I'm not with you on that one. "distribution rights" in this context would have to be artificially enforced by government, since it doesn't exist naturally in a market place. I'm not saying that government shouldn't enforce these distribution rights (I don't think anybody should for instance burn pirated movies to blank DVDs and sell them on the street). But to call it "anti-capitalist" because of lack of law and regulation on the governments side strikes me as kinda ironic. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite, more capitalistic if every individual can sell and buy without interference?
    - millstone 14y ago
      Distribution rights can arise naturally as a contract or condition of sale. I will sell you this data if you agree that you will never give a copy to someone else. The government's role is limited to enforcing contracts, and government interference is in limiting what contracts can be established between parties.
timClicks 14y ago
If you are arguing that IPRs matter more than money, read up on moral rights. Most USA-centric copyright discourse seems to act like the don't exist.
derleth 14y ago
Is this why the most pro-IP people conflate copyright violation with plagiarism? In my experience, pirates don't plagiarize. They simply don't do it. Attribution is always preserved. However, I've heard many times on HN that piracy means stealing a work and not giving credit. They rattle on about how terrible it is to have people out there removing your name from your work. I know plagiarism does happen, but I've never seen a plagiarized work on the Pirate Bay, or Usenet, or any of the other places where you can download copyrighted material for free.
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
    - millstone 14y ago
      Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
      - icebraining 14y ago
        I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > Do you just accept GPL violations? It's hard to violate the GPL without plagiarizing.
vidarh 14y ago
> To take that something from someone without consent is theft. But it has not been taken. Hence the reason why a whole new category of law was invented to restrict copying, as it was specifically not covered by property law (and still isn't). > If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? The vast majority of people who create copyrighted works never make any money from it, much less make enough to live off. Being able to live of the revenue from works you created is something only a tiny little sliver of those who create can do. So your claim is hyperbole at best. Some people depend on copyright for their success and income, but most do not. Arguably most works are never even widely distributed. But even if we accepted this claim, it is irrelevant: Society does not owe you a guarantee of success. Copyright is a restriction added largely for the purpose of promoting creation by offering the governments support in the creation of an artificial monopoly. It is a grant by society for the gain of society, not to guarantee you success. And it is ours to take away. > Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it? Why do you need control to be able to be proud of what you created? There's no connection.

icebraining 14y ago

But nobody stoled anything. The author voluntarily sold a copy of the work, which the buyer then proceed to use as he pleased, including sharing it with others. If the painter wants to control his painting, he has to give up on selling it, yet somehow authors of digital works get to control the stuff after they sold it.

millstone 14y ago
The author voluntarily sold a copy of his work, but with strings attached. The buyer accepted those limitations as a condition of the sale, and when he duplicated and distributed the contents, he violated the mutually agreed upon terms of the sale, and can be sued. The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.
- Drakim 14y ago
  > The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist. I'm not with you on that one. "distribution rights" in this context would have to be artificially enforced by government, since it doesn't exist naturally in a market place. I'm not saying that government shouldn't enforce these distribution rights (I don't think anybody should for instance burn pirated movies to blank DVDs and sell them on the street). But to call it "anti-capitalist" because of lack of law and regulation on the governments side strikes me as kinda ironic. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite, more capitalistic if every individual can sell and buy without interference?
  - millstone 14y ago
    Distribution rights can arise naturally as a contract or condition of sale. I will sell you this data if you agree that you will never give a copy to someone else. The government's role is limited to enforcing contracts, and government interference is in limiting what contracts can be established between parties.

timClicks 14y ago

If you are arguing that IPRs matter more than money, read up on moral rights. Most USA-centric copyright discourse seems to act like the don't exist.

derleth 14y ago

Is this why the most pro-IP people conflate copyright violation with plagiarism? In my experience, pirates don't plagiarize. They simply don't do it. Attribution is always preserved. However, I've heard many times on HN that piracy means stealing a work and not giving credit. They rattle on about how terrible it is to have people out there removing your name from your work. I know plagiarism does happen, but I've never seen a plagiarized work on the Pirate Bay, or Usenet, or any of the other places where you can download copyrighted material for free.

res0nat0r 14y ago
So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?
- icebraining 14y ago
  No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
  - millstone 14y ago
    Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Do you just accept GPL violations? It's hard to violate the GPL without plagiarizing.

vidarh 14y ago

> To take that something from someone without consent is theft. But it has not been taken. Hence the reason why a whole new category of law was invented to restrict copying, as it was specifically not covered by property law (and still isn't). > If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? The vast majority of people who create copyrighted works never make any money from it, much less make enough to live off. Being able to live of the revenue from works you created is something only a tiny little sliver of those who create can do. So your claim is hyperbole at best. Some people depend on copyright for their success and income, but most do not. Arguably most works are never even widely distributed. But even if we accepted this claim, it is irrelevant: Society does not owe you a guarantee of success. Copyright is a restriction added largely for the purpose of promoting creation by offering the governments support in the creation of an artificial monopoly. It is a grant by society for the gain of society, not to guarantee you success. And it is ours to take away. > Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it? Why do you need control to be able to be proud of what you created? There's no connection.