3 ms·

You're talking about the control of information, of which privacy is just another facet. Hence I asked. But you also seem to be treating copyright (rights) and

by GHFigs 15y ago

You're talking about the control of information, of which privacy is just another facet. Hence I asked. But you also seem to be treating copyright (rights) and publication (intentions) as synonymous, which is confusing. Suppose I create a film. I screen the film in the privacy of my own home to anybody that gives me a hug. One day, somebody brings a video camera. They record the whole thing and puts it on the Internet for all to see. At what point would you say my actions indicated a desire to contribute to the public debate?

bambax 15y ago
The US Copyright Law comes to the rescue; it defines public performance thusly: > To perform or display a work “publicly” means (...) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf, middle of page 5. "Any place open to the public" includes your home if anyone can come in and watch your movie in exchange for a hug. So I would argue that the difference between "private" and "public" is well established, by copyright law itself. Now for my opinion: if any and all public performances end up on the Internet, it's a good thing. (It's a good thing for "information" in general, and it's also a good thing for the economy. The economy benefits from goods being cheaper.) You may want to argue that posting the video on Youtube deprives you of many hugs, and that you should be compensated for that fact; or maybe you'll ask for Youtube to be simply taken down, to avoid such problems in the future. But society doesn't owe you the ability to get hugs in exchange for the screening of movies. (What if you decided to provide services for the blind. Then, after an initial success, you come to the conclusion that the only way to grow your business further is if there are more blind people. Should the US Government help you poke the eyes of your neighbors?)
- GHFigs 15y ago
  I believe you greatly misunderstood what I was getting at. I only said "hugs" because I'm tired of people assuming it's all and always about money whenever anybody says anything short of stern opposition to copyright, because that leads to infectiously stupid comments about the government poking people in the eyes, etc. It's not about the hugs, or money or compensation of any kind. If it were about compensation, then under your scheme[1], I would be better off screening films that other people made. (Profiting from other people's work you seem to have no issue with.) But that's not what I want. I want to be able to share things I created, where I want to share it, with the people I want to share it with. Again, it's not about the hugs. It's about your claim of public ownership extending into my private life because I didn't adequately secure my creative work against that kind of intrusion. It's about having to treat my work like a secret if I don't want someone else's hand in it or name on it. [1] To be explicit: I presume a world in which you're allowed to own a theater you did not create yourself but where the public owns a film you did create yourself.

by GHFigs 15y ago

bambax 15y ago

The US Copyright Law comes to the rescue; it defines public performance thusly: > To perform or display a work “publicly” means (...) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf, middle of page 5. "Any place open to the public" includes your home if anyone can come in and watch your movie in exchange for a hug. So I would argue that the difference between "private" and "public" is well established, by copyright law itself. Now for my opinion: if any and all public performances end up on the Internet, it's a good thing. (It's a good thing for "information" in general, and it's also a good thing for the economy. The economy benefits from goods being cheaper.) You may want to argue that posting the video on Youtube deprives you of many hugs, and that you should be compensated for that fact; or maybe you'll ask for Youtube to be simply taken down, to avoid such problems in the future. But society doesn't owe you the ability to get hugs in exchange for the screening of movies. (What if you decided to provide services for the blind. Then, after an initial success, you come to the conclusion that the only way to grow your business further is if there are more blind people. Should the US Government help you poke the eyes of your neighbors?)

GHFigs 15y ago
I believe you greatly misunderstood what I was getting at. I only said "hugs" because I'm tired of people assuming it's all and always about money whenever anybody says anything short of stern opposition to copyright, because that leads to infectiously stupid comments about the government poking people in the eyes, etc. It's not about the hugs, or money or compensation of any kind. If it were about compensation, then under your scheme[1], I would be better off screening films that other people made. (Profiting from other people's work you seem to have no issue with.) But that's not what I want. I want to be able to share things I created, where I want to share it, with the people I want to share it with. Again, it's not about the hugs. It's about your claim of public ownership extending into my private life because I didn't adequately secure my creative work against that kind of intrusion. It's about having to treat my work like a secret if I don't want someone else's hand in it or name on it. [1] To be explicit: I presume a world in which you're allowed to own a theater you did not create yourself but where the public owns a film you did create yourself.