5 ms·

If this was true (and I'm dubious of the "find"), it should be something for movie makers to consider when it comes to distributing their movies. What this sho

If this was true (and I'm dubious of the "find"), it should be something for movie makers to consider when it comes to distributing their movies. What this shouldn't be used for, though, is the default excuse by pirates when stealing intellectual property. "My theft actually helps, see?!?!?" Even if there is some financial gain, more is lost when the fundamental IP rights are stolen.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>Even if there is some financial gain, more is lost when the fundamental IP rights are stolen. // Apart from your failure to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between unlicensed duplication and denial through theft this bit still doesn't quite make sense to me. Are you saying that the IPR are worth more than their direct fiscal benefit and that this benefit is some how reduced even if more money is made by the rights holders? Could you expand on your reasoning? If the findings are correct then for some tortuous infringer's then yes it would seem the most likely causality is that their unlicensed use of the material is of benefit [in promulgating the cultural worth¹ and] in bringing more financial benefit to the industry. If. - - - ¹ but who cares about that!
- darrencauthon 14y ago
  Sure, I'll expand on my reasoning, but only since you ask. :) I don't and won't debate IP here, but I'll try to give more details behind that short post. Intellectual property rights, themselves, are more important than the monetary gain. The right to own the product of your work is incredibly important to the creator's life. If you make something, whether it be a wood carving, a sandwich, or even a computer program or piece of music, that thing is yours. To take that something from someone without consent is theft. When it comes to intellectual property, the only way to control the thing is to control its distribution. If the creator has no ability to set the terms by which the book, song, software program, etc. can be used, then there's no such thing as ownership of the created work. I think that's a worse loss than any temporary financial gain that could be had by the loss of IP rights, as those IP rights are everything to the creator. If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it? Imagine a situation where an accomplished, proud artist spends years painting what he considers his life's masterpiece. Then the next evening, a thief runs off with painting, but leaves a stack of $100 million in cash with a note that says "SOLD!". Was the artist justly compensated? Would there be articles written about how art theft could leave artists with more money than on the market?
  - timClicks 14y ago
    If you are arguing that IPRs matter more than money, read up on moral rights. Most USA-centric copyright discourse seems to act like the don't exist.
  - derleth 14y ago
    Is this why the most pro-IP people conflate copyright violation with plagiarism? In my experience, pirates don't plagiarize. They simply don't do it. Attribution is always preserved. However, I've heard many times on HN that piracy means stealing a work and not giving credit. They rattle on about how terrible it is to have people out there removing your name from your work. I know plagiarism does happen, but I've never seen a plagiarized work on the Pirate Bay, or Usenet, or any of the other places where you can download copyrighted material for free.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?
      - icebraining 14y ago
        No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
        millstone 14y ago
        Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
        icebraining 14y ago
        I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.
klibertp 14y ago
I refuse to acknowledge the word "steal" as appropriate here. "Intellectual property" stealing was known for ages and described the process of depriving someone of attribution of his work. I can steal a poem if I recite it as my own. This is stealing, theft, and was recognized as such since really long ago. OTOH, if I print, or make a handwritten copy of this same poem, preserving the name of the author, I'm not stealing. It may be debatable what I actually did, but I did not steal. Every time I see well defined concept being reused to mean something different than it meant for hundreds of years I'm cautious. I think everyone should be.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  "Stealing" still not be the proper term, but the grandparent posting was not talking about stealing IP, but about stealing fundamental IP rights.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  If one prints copy of "this same poem" and sells it or distribute if for free (and there is no free lunch) then one stole the printing rights that the author granted (for a sum of money or a regular paycheck) to the official printer (the one who has a contract with the author). Regarding books, ideas are more or less free, the materialization of that work of thought into our physical realm (be it dead pieces of cellulose or bits on magnetic support), however, is not. Kant wrote a bit about it.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>Even if there is some financial gain, more is lost when the fundamental IP rights are stolen. // Apart from your failure to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between unlicensed duplication and denial through theft this bit still doesn't quite make sense to me. Are you saying that the IPR are worth more than their direct fiscal benefit and that this benefit is some how reduced even if more money is made by the rights holders? Could you expand on your reasoning? If the findings are correct then for some tortuous infringer's then yes it would seem the most likely causality is that their unlicensed use of the material is of benefit [in promulgating the cultural worth¹ and] in bringing more financial benefit to the industry. If. - - - ¹ but who cares about that!

darrencauthon 14y ago
Sure, I'll expand on my reasoning, but only since you ask. :) I don't and won't debate IP here, but I'll try to give more details behind that short post. Intellectual property rights, themselves, are more important than the monetary gain. The right to own the product of your work is incredibly important to the creator's life. If you make something, whether it be a wood carving, a sandwich, or even a computer program or piece of music, that thing is yours. To take that something from someone without consent is theft. When it comes to intellectual property, the only way to control the thing is to control its distribution. If the creator has no ability to set the terms by which the book, song, software program, etc. can be used, then there's no such thing as ownership of the created work. I think that's a worse loss than any temporary financial gain that could be had by the loss of IP rights, as those IP rights are everything to the creator. If a creator doesn't own what he creates, and he can't trade his creation on his own terms, how can he succeed in life? Where's that pride of knowing that what you made is YOURS and you can control it? Imagine a situation where an accomplished, proud artist spends years painting what he considers his life's masterpiece. Then the next evening, a thief runs off with painting, but leaves a stack of $100 million in cash with a note that says "SOLD!". Was the artist justly compensated? Would there be articles written about how art theft could leave artists with more money than on the market?
- timClicks 14y ago
  If you are arguing that IPRs matter more than money, read up on moral rights. Most USA-centric copyright discourse seems to act like the don't exist.
- derleth 14y ago
  Is this why the most pro-IP people conflate copyright violation with plagiarism? In my experience, pirates don't plagiarize. They simply don't do it. Attribution is always preserved. However, I've heard many times on HN that piracy means stealing a work and not giving credit. They rattle on about how terrible it is to have people out there removing your name from your work. I know plagiarism does happen, but I've never seen a plagiarized work on the Pirate Bay, or Usenet, or any of the other places where you can download copyrighted material for free.
  - res0nat0r 14y ago
    So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
      - millstone 14y ago
        Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
        icebraining 14y ago
        I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.

klibertp 14y ago

I refuse to acknowledge the word "steal" as appropriate here. "Intellectual property" stealing was known for ages and described the process of depriving someone of attribution of his work. I can steal a poem if I recite it as my own. This is stealing, theft, and was recognized as such since really long ago. OTOH, if I print, or make a handwritten copy of this same poem, preserving the name of the author, I'm not stealing. It may be debatable what I actually did, but I did not steal. Every time I see well defined concept being reused to mean something different than it meant for hundreds of years I'm cautious. I think everyone should be.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
"Stealing" still not be the proper term, but the grandparent posting was not talking about stealing IP, but about stealing fundamental IP rights.
johnchristopher 14y ago
If one prints copy of "this same poem" and sells it or distribute if for free (and there is no free lunch) then one stole the printing rights that the author granted (for a sum of money or a regular paycheck) to the official printer (the one who has a contract with the author). Regarding books, ideas are more or less free, the materialization of that work of thought into our physical realm (be it dead pieces of cellulose or bits on magnetic support), however, is not. Kant wrote a bit about it.