4 ms·

Feel like taking off the tail-end of the post's name hurts it a lot. Because I came here ready to argue that while copying isn't theft, it definitely hurts the

Feel like taking off the tail-end of the post's name hurts it a lot. Because I came here ready to argue that while copying isn't theft, it definitely hurts the bottom line of indie musicians, writers, moviemakers, etc. But, in the case presented in the article, I 100% agree with the author. Claiming covers, interpretation videos, etc as "copyright infringement" is, to put it mildly, a stretch. I like the sentiment that censorship robs people, it's nicely spun and true, by and large. But that mostly applies to the kind of 'censorship' described in the post which, if I'm being honest, I'm not even sure I'd call censorship. Feels a bit of a reach, semantically speaking.

nordsieck 6y ago
> Claiming covers, interpretation videos, etc as "copyright infringement" is, to put it mildly, a stretch. I don't know what an "interpretation video" is, but covers are clearly copyright infringement. The first question to ask is: does audio deserve copyright at all? I think the answer to most people is yes: audio is just as valid a medium for fixation [1] as writing. In that case, it's pretty obvious that a cover violates the copyright of the song writer. ___ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fixing
- bluecalm 6y ago
  Just because audio deserves copyright protection doesn't mean every element of it does (like melody or information presented). I think it's immoral and should be illegal to distribute others people work without permission but I think it should be perfectly legal to make art based on work of others as long as you don't use original samples (it's fine to make a cover, not fine to use original soundtrack). The same goes for software: distributing what others make is wrong and should be illegal. Making something similar yourself? Fine, go ahead with it.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > I think it should be perfectly legal to make art based on work of others as long as you don't use original samples (it's fine to make a cover, not fine to use original soundtrack). Why do you think the soundtrack should be protected, but the lyrics shouldn't be?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > The same goes for software: distributing what others make is wrong and should be illegal. Making something similar yourself? Fine, go ahead with it. If you're doing it "similarly" after knowing the original, isn't that just "copy my homework, but change it a bit so the teacher won't notice"? In that case, why provide copyright in the first place? The same goes for audio, I guess. If my (potentially perfect) recreation of your song is allowed, why bother protecting it in the first place?
- PrettyPastry 6y ago
  Interpretation as in a sign language interpretation.
csallen 6y ago
> it definitely hurts the bottom line of indie musicians, writers, moviemakers, etc. One could argue that open-source hurts the bottom line of plenty of people building similar things that aren't free. And that if we'd spent hundreds of years making open-source illegal, there would by now exist many industries and professionals whose jobs are only possible due to that fact, and who would therefore suffer financially if we removed that artificial protection. Ofc this analogy isn't perfect, but you get the idea: "People relying on business model X will make less money if you do Y" isn't on its own a strong moral argument against Y. Why does X warrant unique protection? Sure, we've all gotten used to X, and we enjoy the creations of many who make their living that way, but who's to say the world wouldn't be better and more creative without it? Again, in a world without open source, I think it'd be tough to guess that millions of developers could come together to share massive amounts of code and work for free.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  I think the essential distinction that your analogy doesn't include is that the independents making and releasing new works under copyright did so with the prior promise that they would be protected against someone copying their work and distributing it without compensating them, as the law states. There is no law, nor any reasonable expectation, that just because you wrote a piece of software to do something then no-one else can ever independently create other software that competes with you, open source or otherwise. There is also no law that just because an independent made a song or a film about a love story, no-one else can make another (original) song or movie about a love story in a similar style that the same listeners or viewers might also like. That seems like a fairer analogy between your open source scenario and works from small, independent creators.
  - csallen 6y ago
    You're right, which makes this situation tricky to reverse. But the least we could do is stop continually extending and strengthening copyright terms, which at this point are encouraging loads of rent-seeking behavior and quite possibly disincentivizing innovation and creativity on the whole. And culturally, imo we should fight against propaganda like "intellectual property" and the equating of copyright violations to theft. The moral argument against theft exists because it only applies to rivalrous goods.
ngold 6y ago
Always reminds me of pirate party political party. Great ideas, awful name. Or the church of Satan people that really like science. Provoking names hide great ideas.
- elcomet 6y ago
  > church of Satan I think you're talking about the Satanic Temple. The church of Satan is a very different organization (not particularly scientifically inclined).
- chrisweekly 6y ago
  or cockroachdb
umvi 6y ago
Censorship is not theft, either. It's extremely entitled to claim that you are being "robbed" if you are blocked from viewing someone's art. If I write a book, but then don't publish it, have I stolen from you? If someone breaks into my house, steals my unpublished book, publishes, then I issue a C&D and take it down, have I "robbed" the public?
- joshspankit 6y ago
  If you did publish that book, then it was widely received, touched people’s lives, and changed them, then theoretically had every copy taken away from them, would you agree then that it might be robbing those people?
fnord123 6y ago
>it definitely hurts the bottom line of indie musicians, writers, moviemakers, etc. This is the excuse that multinational corporations use to protect themselves: using independent artists as hostages. Using access to Zalem/Tiphares as a carrot to get independent artists protect the industry as it exists today. This is a really effective strategy. Like cigarette companies saying smoking bans affect you freedom despite addiction being slavery to the product. Like how raising the minimum wage would mean less jobs because companies could not longer hire people for subsistence wages. Like zero hour contracts.
- WilTimSon 6y ago
  Oh, I didn't mean those signed to huge corporations, I'm talking more like someone who works a regular job and does writing as a hobby. I wouldn't feel bad downloading a book from Stephen King or an album by some new NME-supported band that's filling up stadiums. But music that gets put on Bandcamp or self-published books - I have to buy. If only to support artists. I'm not a fan of being forced to shell out money, yeah, I think copyright laws are in a horrible state. But when the choice is mine to make, I'll gladly financially support works that I like.
dang 6y ago
Ok, we've put theft in the title above.

nordsieck 6y ago

> Claiming covers, interpretation videos, etc as "copyright infringement" is, to put it mildly, a stretch. I don't know what an "interpretation video" is, but covers are clearly copyright infringement. The first question to ask is: does audio deserve copyright at all? I think the answer to most people is yes: audio is just as valid a medium for fixation [1] as writing. In that case, it's pretty obvious that a cover violates the copyright of the song writer. ___ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fixing

bluecalm 6y ago
Just because audio deserves copyright protection doesn't mean every element of it does (like melody or information presented). I think it's immoral and should be illegal to distribute others people work without permission but I think it should be perfectly legal to make art based on work of others as long as you don't use original samples (it's fine to make a cover, not fine to use original soundtrack). The same goes for software: distributing what others make is wrong and should be illegal. Making something similar yourself? Fine, go ahead with it.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > I think it should be perfectly legal to make art based on work of others as long as you don't use original samples (it's fine to make a cover, not fine to use original soundtrack). Why do you think the soundtrack should be protected, but the lyrics shouldn't be?
- luckylion 6y ago
  > The same goes for software: distributing what others make is wrong and should be illegal. Making something similar yourself? Fine, go ahead with it. If you're doing it "similarly" after knowing the original, isn't that just "copy my homework, but change it a bit so the teacher won't notice"? In that case, why provide copyright in the first place? The same goes for audio, I guess. If my (potentially perfect) recreation of your song is allowed, why bother protecting it in the first place?
PrettyPastry 6y ago
Interpretation as in a sign language interpretation.

csallen 6y ago

> it definitely hurts the bottom line of indie musicians, writers, moviemakers, etc. One could argue that open-source hurts the bottom line of plenty of people building similar things that aren't free. And that if we'd spent hundreds of years making open-source illegal, there would by now exist many industries and professionals whose jobs are only possible due to that fact, and who would therefore suffer financially if we removed that artificial protection. Ofc this analogy isn't perfect, but you get the idea: "People relying on business model X will make less money if you do Y" isn't on its own a strong moral argument against Y. Why does X warrant unique protection? Sure, we've all gotten used to X, and we enjoy the creations of many who make their living that way, but who's to say the world wouldn't be better and more creative without it? Again, in a world without open source, I think it'd be tough to guess that millions of developers could come together to share massive amounts of code and work for free.

Silhouette 6y ago
I think the essential distinction that your analogy doesn't include is that the independents making and releasing new works under copyright did so with the prior promise that they would be protected against someone copying their work and distributing it without compensating them, as the law states. There is no law, nor any reasonable expectation, that just because you wrote a piece of software to do something then no-one else can ever independently create other software that competes with you, open source or otherwise. There is also no law that just because an independent made a song or a film about a love story, no-one else can make another (original) song or movie about a love story in a similar style that the same listeners or viewers might also like. That seems like a fairer analogy between your open source scenario and works from small, independent creators.
- csallen 6y ago
  You're right, which makes this situation tricky to reverse. But the least we could do is stop continually extending and strengthening copyright terms, which at this point are encouraging loads of rent-seeking behavior and quite possibly disincentivizing innovation and creativity on the whole. And culturally, imo we should fight against propaganda like "intellectual property" and the equating of copyright violations to theft. The moral argument against theft exists because it only applies to rivalrous goods.

ngold 6y ago

Always reminds me of pirate party political party. Great ideas, awful name. Or the church of Satan people that really like science. Provoking names hide great ideas.

elcomet 6y ago
> church of Satan I think you're talking about the Satanic Temple. The church of Satan is a very different organization (not particularly scientifically inclined).
chrisweekly 6y ago
or cockroachdb

umvi 6y ago

Censorship is not theft, either. It's extremely entitled to claim that you are being "robbed" if you are blocked from viewing someone's art. If I write a book, but then don't publish it, have I stolen from you? If someone breaks into my house, steals my unpublished book, publishes, then I issue a C&D and take it down, have I "robbed" the public?

joshspankit 6y ago
If you did publish that book, then it was widely received, touched people’s lives, and changed them, then theoretically had every copy taken away from them, would you agree then that it might be robbing those people?

fnord123 6y ago

>it definitely hurts the bottom line of indie musicians, writers, moviemakers, etc. This is the excuse that multinational corporations use to protect themselves: using independent artists as hostages. Using access to Zalem/Tiphares as a carrot to get independent artists protect the industry as it exists today. This is a really effective strategy. Like cigarette companies saying smoking bans affect you freedom despite addiction being slavery to the product. Like how raising the minimum wage would mean less jobs because companies could not longer hire people for subsistence wages. Like zero hour contracts.

WilTimSon 6y ago
Oh, I didn't mean those signed to huge corporations, I'm talking more like someone who works a regular job and does writing as a hobby. I wouldn't feel bad downloading a book from Stephen King or an album by some new NME-supported band that's filling up stadiums. But music that gets put on Bandcamp or self-published books - I have to buy. If only to support artists. I'm not a fan of being forced to shell out money, yeah, I think copyright laws are in a horrible state. But when the choice is mine to make, I'll gladly financially support works that I like.

dang 6y ago

Ok, we've put theft in the title above.