5 ms·
The only distinction I can think of is that in this case, copyright claimant is the original artist, and not a corporation. In cases of movie & music piracy, t
by MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
The only distinction I can think of is that in this case, copyright claimant is the original artist, and not a corporation.
In cases of movie & music piracy, the copyright claimant is a corporation. I suspect that copyright violators will rationalize the act as something that has negligible effect on the artist.
- MartinCron 14y agoSo, the distinction is self-serving and intellectually dishonest rationalization? Not exactly surprising.
- fleitz 14y agoI believe this is the same distinction the movie/music industry uses between what they rip off and what their potential customers use. I mean I'm sure right now the RIAA is taking down most of their electronic back catalog until they figure out how to compensate the original artists behind the Amen Break sample.
- MiguelHudnandez 14y agoFor anyone with 20 minutes to spare, here is a great video explaining the prevalence of the "Amen Break" sample. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Goladus 14y agoIt's a rebuttal to an argument with flawed assumptions anyway. "Internet vigilante" is a stereotype and we have no way of knowing that the people supporting Inman are the same people who complain about unspecified copyright holders taking down unspecified content from unspecified sites under unspecified conditions.
- derleth 14y agoI notice you're ignoring most of the other explanations of this behavior, and instead picking on this one. Why?
- MartinCron 14y agoIf there's one thing that the study of ethics has consistently proven is that people will rationalize and bend their ethical code to fit their behavior and not change their behavior to live up to their ethical code. There are notable exceptions, but I'm generalizing on purpose. So, when the same people get upset about FunnyJunk "stealing" content from TheOatmeal and then torrent Game of Thrones, they have to adapt their ethical code from "copyright infringement is bad" to "infringing upon an individual's copyright is different from infringing upon a corporation's copyright" or "HBO won't let me consume their media in the way that I want when I want it, so I'm just going to torrent it"
- derleth 14y ago> they have to adapt their ethical code from "copyright infringement is bad" How about "plagiarism is bad" and/or "monetarily profiting off the work of others is bad"? Both of those are self-consistent in this context.
- joelthelion 14y agoOther very big distinction: the unauthorized user of the copyrighted work is making money out of it. Most "internet vigilantes" support free exchange of copyrighted works between individuals, not companies taking your stuff and making money with it.
- Kell 14y agoWhat about torrent trackers making money showing ads ? Or sites like Megaupload who made loads of money from ads ? It's right that the final pirate is not making money... but the pirate in the middle is.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThis is backwards. There is no "copyright claimant". Inman is complaining about having his works reproduced to push ad revenue without his permission but all he's doing is saying "bad on you, please stop". He's not filing a lawsuit. It's the copyright violator in this case who is making use of legal threats. Trying to map this onto the standard narrative of a copyright owner making a claim against a "pirate" or "sharer" is a mistake that will only lead to incorrect conclusions.
- dllthomas 14y agoThere's also the fact that the artist didn't sue, he just said "please stop" and made a funny comic about it. And the fact that the attribution was being removed. I don't think very many people would be hating on the Hollywood studios if they were just saying, "Hey, man, if you're going to be putting up a torrent of our movie, please link back to us" without even getting the lawyers involved.