5 ms·

I'm a photographer, and I've encountered people who stole my pictures. Believe me, waking up at 5AM, staying up running around all day to take pictures, to then

by aspyct 4y ago

I'm a photographer, and I've encountered people who stole my pictures. Believe me, waking up at 5AM, staying up running around all day to take pictures, to then see some people not even pay the price of a lunch for them is... well, doesn't feel great. Thankfully that's a minority of people. What I mean to say is: f*ck people who make such "watermark removal" tools.

breck 4y ago
[flagged]
- aspyct 4y ago
  Well there's event and event. In my line of event, I sponsor the events so I can be there and sell pictures to the participants. It's just part of life that some people will steal pictures. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy that work though. After all, I'm out doing the thing I love doing. Otherwise yes, I would have stopped doing it. But you know, tradeoffs :) It just makes me quite unhappy that some a*hats on the internet would make stealing pictures easier. That's fully unethical work. It's like if I were selling copies of keys to people's homes and saying "but don't you use them to rob people, yo."
  - breck 4y ago
    It's literally not stealing though. You have been brainwashed. Stealing is a word that refers to taking physical molecules that have been assigned to one person from another, thus depriving that person of those physical molecules. What you are referring to is slavery: you want to exert control over another person in their own home. You want to prevent a person from sharing information to another person peacefully. That is not stealing, that is slavery, and you are trying to be the master. Those are the real physical terms, if you stop and think about it and do the math. I am not sure if you will understand this—if you are willing to take red pill—as I've found the saying "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" to be quite accurate. If your business model depends upon restricting the freedoms of other people, pivot until you have a better business model.
    - aspyct 4y ago
      What are you smoking, bro?
    - scolapato 4y ago
      This is one of the more unhinged takes I've seen on intellectual property.
      - breck 4y ago
        On New Year's eve I was holding a book in my hand written in 1927 that was someone else's "intellectual property", and when the clock struck midnight magically it wasn't! I'm the one with the unhinged take? My take is literally the only take grounded in reality. I will pay you ten thousand dollars if you can come up with a set of axioms that define 1) physical property rights 2) slavery 3) copyright and patent laws, where #3 are #1 but not #2.
        LocalPCGuy 4y ago
        There is a LOT of room for improvement on copyright and patent laws, no disagreement. But there is a lot of middle ground between where we are now and no laws at all around copyright/patents. In an increasingly digital society, creators should be able to exercise some level of control over what they create for some (relatively short) period of time. FWIW, I probably lean slightly closer to your side of the spectrum than most, and even I feel this take is extreme.
    - 13years 4y ago
      This take would require that all information and access to information must be free. Sure, take the red pill, but don't overdose.
      - breck 4y ago
        Not at all. It just says that Person B is free to share all the information in his possession with Person N. He absolutely has no right to break into Person A's home or force Person A to give him information. It just says that if Person A publishes information, Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit. Person A has no slaveholder rights over Person B.

by aspyct 4y ago

breck 4y ago

[flagged]

aspyct 4y ago
Well there's event and event. In my line of event, I sponsor the events so I can be there and sell pictures to the participants. It's just part of life that some people will steal pictures. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy that work though. After all, I'm out doing the thing I love doing. Otherwise yes, I would have stopped doing it. But you know, tradeoffs :) It just makes me quite unhappy that some a*hats on the internet would make stealing pictures easier. That's fully unethical work. It's like if I were selling copies of keys to people's homes and saying "but don't you use them to rob people, yo."
- breck 4y ago
  It's literally not stealing though. You have been brainwashed. Stealing is a word that refers to taking physical molecules that have been assigned to one person from another, thus depriving that person of those physical molecules. What you are referring to is slavery: you want to exert control over another person in their own home. You want to prevent a person from sharing information to another person peacefully. That is not stealing, that is slavery, and you are trying to be the master. Those are the real physical terms, if you stop and think about it and do the math. I am not sure if you will understand this—if you are willing to take red pill—as I've found the saying "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" to be quite accurate. If your business model depends upon restricting the freedoms of other people, pivot until you have a better business model.
  - aspyct 4y ago
    What are you smoking, bro?
  - scolapato 4y ago
    This is one of the more unhinged takes I've seen on intellectual property.
    - breck 4y ago
      On New Year's eve I was holding a book in my hand written in 1927 that was someone else's "intellectual property", and when the clock struck midnight magically it wasn't! I'm the one with the unhinged take? My take is literally the only take grounded in reality. I will pay you ten thousand dollars if you can come up with a set of axioms that define 1) physical property rights 2) slavery 3) copyright and patent laws, where #3 are #1 but not #2.
      - LocalPCGuy 4y ago
        There is a LOT of room for improvement on copyright and patent laws, no disagreement. But there is a lot of middle ground between where we are now and no laws at all around copyright/patents. In an increasingly digital society, creators should be able to exercise some level of control over what they create for some (relatively short) period of time. FWIW, I probably lean slightly closer to your side of the spectrum than most, and even I feel this take is extreme.
  - 13years 4y ago
    This take would require that all information and access to information must be free. Sure, take the red pill, but don't overdose.
    - breck 4y ago
      Not at all. It just says that Person B is free to share all the information in his possession with Person N. He absolutely has no right to break into Person A's home or force Person A to give him information. It just says that if Person A publishes information, Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit. Person A has no slaveholder rights over Person B.