3 ms·

Your physical analogy attempt is not merely incorrect but it doesn't support you even taken at face value. >If you go buy an apple at the grocery store you pic

by xoa 8y ago

Your physical analogy attempt is not merely incorrect but it doesn't support you even taken at face value. >If you go buy an apple at the grocery store you pick it out of a hundred others but that does not mean there is anything special about that particular apple. It is a well known fact of marketing that much of the population absolutely will look carefully even at something like a crate of apples and try to pick "the best" one as well as they can, something which has resulted in unfortunate phenomena like supermarket fruits and vegetables being bred for appearance and resilience against shipping rather then taste such as the infamous Red "Delicious" (of course people specifically choosing against appearance for flavor aren't selecting at random either). Also compared to IP where there is infinite reproducibility the more apt analogy to choosing between various photos would be choosing between varieties of apples. Or one kind of apple, but some are organic and some conventional. They're all apples, and you can acquire as many as you wish to pay for, but they aren't all the same nor will their pricing be the same. >And I'm sure we'd all be equally annoyed if some apple picker e-mailed us saying they normally charge 500 per apple picked but they'll settle for a 100 dollar donation in this case. Sorry but not all of us would think picking an apple at random would entitle us to walk out of the store with it without paying for it. If after we took $500 worth of apples without paying the actual legal owner emailed us and stated that normally they'd call the police but would settle for a donation of 1/5 normal price to a charity yeah, that'd be pretty decent deal. It's genuinely kind of weird how you seem to think that you not caring would mean you can have whatever you want on whatever terms you want.

treis 8y ago
>It is a well known fact of marketing that much of the population absolutely will look carefully even at something like a crate of apples and try to pick "the best" one Even if they spend a bunch of time picking one that doesn't mean there's anything special about the one they do pick. If you had magical foresight and removed their most preferred one before they began their search they'd just pick a different one and be none the wiser. >It's genuinely kind of weird how you seem to think that you not caring would mean you can have whatever you want on whatever terms you want. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
- xoa 8y ago
  >Even if they spend a bunch of time picking one that doesn't mean there's anything special about the one they do pick. It does, it means it was the one they considered the highest value of what was on hand and sufficient value vs the price and whatever other internal criteria they held. That is literally the foundation of our entire modern economy. >If you had magical foresight and removed their most preferred one before they began their search they'd just pick a different one and be none the wiser. Yes, if you took their first pick (or if someone else had come first and chosen it) they'd be left with a reduced pool, which would then be evaluated independently, and they'd choose the "second best" pick, aka, the new first pick. And if the pool was reduced even farther, they'd be forced into further reduced choice, which might still lead to new choices unless all the remaining ones fell below their floor level criteria (perhaps the final apples nobody else would pick were all shriveled and bruised looking), in which case they might choose nothing. Or maybe they desperately want an apple even if normally they wouldn't, and settle but are angry and do not patronize that store in the future. Or maybe they're desperate but willing to travel and just leave and go to a different store. And on and on. This is weird. Why am I having to explain such fundamental basic decision processes to somebody on HN? >I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. This entire discussion is about a commercial entity taking somebody else's work for profit use and not paying or even asking permission. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft, but you're the one who created a real world apple analogy, and by referencing the 500/100 money thing you're clearly cognizant of that aspect. For your analogy to have any connection it has to be somebody taking the apples for free, under the justification that "all apples are the same so if somebody is asking anything I'm justified in just taking it rather then acquiring one elsewhere at a price I feel is acceptable". How can you argue it both ways? Either all photographs are equivalent in which case there is no reason not to choose one that is free, or there was something better about that one in particular which is why it specifically was highlighted amongst all the others.
  - treis 8y ago
    >This is weird. Why am I having to explain such fundamental basic decision processes to somebody on HN? I don't know, but you clearly explained my (and others) point and then go on some bizarre tangent about the foundation of our modern economy. To wit: >Yes, if you took their first pick (or if someone else had come first and chosen it) they'd be left with a reduced pool, which would then be evaluated independently, and they'd choose the "second best" pick, aka, the new first pick Exactly. And with photographers, like with apples, you have to go through a lot of apples before it matters. Which is why when you say things like this: >Yet in actual fact they (and more to the point a clothing sponsor engaging in commercial advertising use) did not do that, they chose his. However many hundreds/thousands of people with cellphones and other cameras, however many hundreds of thousands of random people in the country they could have just given a camera and had a specific official hired "photographer" to take photos that they'd own the copyright to, and yet they didn't and just took someone else's without asking instead. You're wrong. There's nothing special about this guy or the photograph he took. >Either all photographs are equivalent in which case there is no reason not to choose one that is free, or there was something better about that one in particular which is why it specifically was highlighted amongst all the others. They chose it before they knew it wasn't free. Five posts into the thread and that never occurred to you?

by xoa 8y ago

treis 8y ago

>It is a well known fact of marketing that much of the population absolutely will look carefully even at something like a crate of apples and try to pick "the best" one Even if they spend a bunch of time picking one that doesn't mean there's anything special about the one they do pick. If you had magical foresight and removed their most preferred one before they began their search they'd just pick a different one and be none the wiser. >It's genuinely kind of weird how you seem to think that you not caring would mean you can have whatever you want on whatever terms you want. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

xoa 8y ago
>Even if they spend a bunch of time picking one that doesn't mean there's anything special about the one they do pick. It does, it means it was the one they considered the highest value of what was on hand and sufficient value vs the price and whatever other internal criteria they held. That is literally the foundation of our entire modern economy. >If you had magical foresight and removed their most preferred one before they began their search they'd just pick a different one and be none the wiser. Yes, if you took their first pick (or if someone else had come first and chosen it) they'd be left with a reduced pool, which would then be evaluated independently, and they'd choose the "second best" pick, aka, the new first pick. And if the pool was reduced even farther, they'd be forced into further reduced choice, which might still lead to new choices unless all the remaining ones fell below their floor level criteria (perhaps the final apples nobody else would pick were all shriveled and bruised looking), in which case they might choose nothing. Or maybe they desperately want an apple even if normally they wouldn't, and settle but are angry and do not patronize that store in the future. Or maybe they're desperate but willing to travel and just leave and go to a different store. And on and on. This is weird. Why am I having to explain such fundamental basic decision processes to somebody on HN? >I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. This entire discussion is about a commercial entity taking somebody else's work for profit use and not paying or even asking permission. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft, but you're the one who created a real world apple analogy, and by referencing the 500/100 money thing you're clearly cognizant of that aspect. For your analogy to have any connection it has to be somebody taking the apples for free, under the justification that "all apples are the same so if somebody is asking anything I'm justified in just taking it rather then acquiring one elsewhere at a price I feel is acceptable". How can you argue it both ways? Either all photographs are equivalent in which case there is no reason not to choose one that is free, or there was something better about that one in particular which is why it specifically was highlighted amongst all the others.
- treis 8y ago
  >This is weird. Why am I having to explain such fundamental basic decision processes to somebody on HN? I don't know, but you clearly explained my (and others) point and then go on some bizarre tangent about the foundation of our modern economy. To wit: >Yes, if you took their first pick (or if someone else had come first and chosen it) they'd be left with a reduced pool, which would then be evaluated independently, and they'd choose the "second best" pick, aka, the new first pick Exactly. And with photographers, like with apples, you have to go through a lot of apples before it matters. Which is why when you say things like this: >Yet in actual fact they (and more to the point a clothing sponsor engaging in commercial advertising use) did not do that, they chose his. However many hundreds/thousands of people with cellphones and other cameras, however many hundreds of thousands of random people in the country they could have just given a camera and had a specific official hired "photographer" to take photos that they'd own the copyright to, and yet they didn't and just took someone else's without asking instead. You're wrong. There's nothing special about this guy or the photograph he took. >Either all photographs are equivalent in which case there is no reason not to choose one that is free, or there was something better about that one in particular which is why it specifically was highlighted amongst all the others. They chose it before they knew it wasn't free. Five posts into the thread and that never occurred to you?