3 ms·

It is a physical property manifested from a collection of thoughts. Much like anything else we create. You wrote a lot but you accept and reject my premise in t

It is a physical property manifested from a collection of thoughts. Much like anything else we create. You wrote a lot but you accept and reject my premise in the same breath because goalposts and personal agenda. You also seem to miss the fact that I have no concern over thoughts. My concern is over property and military use. I absolutely hope once copyright expires, and my ability to create more based on the sale of previous runs its course, the work should benefit the public. My distinction is that benefiting the public/society at large is an acceptable argument. But it is not the same as benefiting a military. That is not benefiting a greater good, it benefits the good of the group who wish to exploit it. I argue there should be a distinction... but only for long enough that I have a pulse. Beyond that, I'm dead. Also, I ask you this. At what point in your mind does something created go from 'manifested thought' to 'physical'. Why is a bolt physical but a painting not? Why is a roll of film nothing more than thoughts but a car wheel is property?

elmerfud 3y ago
I have done neither but you are being mentally obtuse in thinking physical property and intellectual property are the same thing. You seem to be missing the basic idea that has permeated all of history physical property and this concept of intellectual property are different. Physical property rights have been a thing since the beginning of time and all societies at some level have understood and respected physical property rights. Intellectual property rights are a modern legal fiction. These two things are fundamentally different. 500 years ago no one would have thought that if they sang a song that somehow they are the exclusive owners of that song and no one can ever repeat it. It is a fundamentally bizarre concept. Creative works as in the intellectual property are intended to enrich a society as a whole because there is zero cost to sharing a concept and resharing a concept over and over and over. And as that concept is shared it grows and it is enriched by every person it passes through. This is not the same for physical property the fact you're trying to relate these two things as being the same shows a fundamental lack of understanding around what property rights are. I suggest you study and review history and understand why societies have decided that it is okay to have intellectual property rights for a limited time. Because you're assertion seems to be to exert orwellian control in the minds of others. That has nothing to do with it. It is solely about allowing people who are creative and thinkers to realize a profit so they can create and think more. It is not about producers because producers of physical things already have the self-limiting of the thing that they produced can be sold and cannot be easily reproduced. Because as a society having creative works be part of the society in riches the culture as a whole and so it is necessary to encourage this. So answer this for me how many years after Martin Luther King's death has he continued to provide us with inspirational great works? Yet the copyright and the ownership remain. This fundamentally breaks the bargain of saying we want you to realize a profit so you can give us more. Your attitude of trying to control something after the fact is the same because we want you to give us more. We don't want you to try and dictate how we consume it what we think about it or where it's used after we purchased it.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  I appreciate you arguing so far past me that you fail to see we agree on half of your points. I'll leave it there. Suggest less, empathise more -- you might find a halfway point where both people have valid points. > We don't want you to try and dictate how we consume it what we think about it or where it's used after we purchased it. I didn't sell it to you. That's the whole point. Buy it? Take it. But you've so far missed my argument that you should start again. Art doesn't exist in a 'purchased' state by the entire world. Otherwise, Netflix is free. Please, stop trying to school me.
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    Your original post was asking how an artist can avoid his work being weaponized. That's your words that's what you. If I purchase your work I should be able to do with it what I want short of duplicating it and passing it off as my own or otherwise during a limited copyright window. But after I purchased your work you don't have any control nor should you and if I decide to weaponize it or not. That's the point you're missing your original statement is what I'm arguing against that you're not getting you don't get to exercise orwellian control over my thoughts on something I've purchased. Because I'm not arguing for piracy as a blanket thing I'm arguing for limited copyright control but not for this idea you have in your head which is I want to prevent consumers from doing what they want with things that they purchased from you. There is no halfway point when you're trying to willfully exercise control of what someone else purchased. If you don't want someone to do with what they want with something you created and they bought from you don't sell it. But when you don't tell me what to do with it. I know this is very difficult concept in the age of iPhone and this weird belief in intellectual property. But no one would think twice if someone decided they wanted to take a book cut up the pages and rearrange the sentences and paste them back inside that same book and then sell that book to a friend. The author might get pissed but this is settled case law that this is totally normal and allowed to do. And the author doesn't have any control over that. Somehow you seem to be arguing for the point that whatever your media is someone can't buy it cut it up repaste it back together and then redistribute that singular thing. Because they're using it in a way that you and your hubris don't like as in weaponizing it.

elmerfud 3y ago

I have done neither but you are being mentally obtuse in thinking physical property and intellectual property are the same thing. You seem to be missing the basic idea that has permeated all of history physical property and this concept of intellectual property are different. Physical property rights have been a thing since the beginning of time and all societies at some level have understood and respected physical property rights. Intellectual property rights are a modern legal fiction. These two things are fundamentally different. 500 years ago no one would have thought that if they sang a song that somehow they are the exclusive owners of that song and no one can ever repeat it. It is a fundamentally bizarre concept. Creative works as in the intellectual property are intended to enrich a society as a whole because there is zero cost to sharing a concept and resharing a concept over and over and over. And as that concept is shared it grows and it is enriched by every person it passes through. This is not the same for physical property the fact you're trying to relate these two things as being the same shows a fundamental lack of understanding around what property rights are. I suggest you study and review history and understand why societies have decided that it is okay to have intellectual property rights for a limited time. Because you're assertion seems to be to exert orwellian control in the minds of others. That has nothing to do with it. It is solely about allowing people who are creative and thinkers to realize a profit so they can create and think more. It is not about producers because producers of physical things already have the self-limiting of the thing that they produced can be sold and cannot be easily reproduced. Because as a society having creative works be part of the society in riches the culture as a whole and so it is necessary to encourage this. So answer this for me how many years after Martin Luther King's death has he continued to provide us with inspirational great works? Yet the copyright and the ownership remain. This fundamentally breaks the bargain of saying we want you to realize a profit so you can give us more. Your attitude of trying to control something after the fact is the same because we want you to give us more. We don't want you to try and dictate how we consume it what we think about it or where it's used after we purchased it.

photoGrant 3y ago
I appreciate you arguing so far past me that you fail to see we agree on half of your points. I'll leave it there. Suggest less, empathise more -- you might find a halfway point where both people have valid points. > We don't want you to try and dictate how we consume it what we think about it or where it's used after we purchased it. I didn't sell it to you. That's the whole point. Buy it? Take it. But you've so far missed my argument that you should start again. Art doesn't exist in a 'purchased' state by the entire world. Otherwise, Netflix is free. Please, stop trying to school me.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  Your original post was asking how an artist can avoid his work being weaponized. That's your words that's what you. If I purchase your work I should be able to do with it what I want short of duplicating it and passing it off as my own or otherwise during a limited copyright window. But after I purchased your work you don't have any control nor should you and if I decide to weaponize it or not. That's the point you're missing your original statement is what I'm arguing against that you're not getting you don't get to exercise orwellian control over my thoughts on something I've purchased. Because I'm not arguing for piracy as a blanket thing I'm arguing for limited copyright control but not for this idea you have in your head which is I want to prevent consumers from doing what they want with things that they purchased from you. There is no halfway point when you're trying to willfully exercise control of what someone else purchased. If you don't want someone to do with what they want with something you created and they bought from you don't sell it. But when you don't tell me what to do with it. I know this is very difficult concept in the age of iPhone and this weird belief in intellectual property. But no one would think twice if someone decided they wanted to take a book cut up the pages and rearrange the sentences and paste them back inside that same book and then sell that book to a friend. The author might get pissed but this is settled case law that this is totally normal and allowed to do. And the author doesn't have any control over that. Somehow you seem to be arguing for the point that whatever your media is someone can't buy it cut it up repaste it back together and then redistribute that singular thing. Because they're using it in a way that you and your hubris don't like as in weaponizing it.