3 ms·

Then kill the content providers dead for all I care; let's talk about content creators instead. I mean, just consider the evil record companies: for every artis

Then kill the content providers dead for all I care; let's talk about content creators instead. I mean, just consider the evil record companies: for every artist they exploited, there was an artist signing a contract. Are they just that stupid, do they feel forced by the uncertainty of their profession? Etc. But to just pretend content providers are sitting on something that ought to be free is bullshit. And I say this as someone who never took a cent for a photo or song I made. That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting.

icebraining 14y ago
That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting. s/choice/privilege/g
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  And what is that even supposed to mean? Even if you had a point, and it was a privilege and not a right [1], that would simply mean I made a choice based on that privilege, it doesn't mean "that choice wasn't actually a choice, it was a privilege". You know, just because you can feed something into a computer doesn't mean a thinking human would buy it.. I might as well quote you and prepend "if (1 == 2)", there is endless derpy fun to be had there, but I'll pass. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. You might point out that those rights seem to contradict each other, and of course it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. But privilege? Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I didn't say it wasn't a choice; but it's also a privilege, and I find that important to point out. As for the UN declaration, it's a nice document, but it's also very inconsistent, as most declarations which include positive rights usually are. Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off. It's not your stuff; nobody hacked into your computer to get it. You gave or sold it to someone else. Besides, property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things. It makes no sense when applied to effectively unlimited elements.
    - PavlovsCat 14y ago
      Inconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default, have all rights to it, then it's also my right to give those up, and giving the things away -- which is an explicit decision, not determined by "can it be copied" -- then if anything it's a privilege to peruse them, since contrary to the copyright protection, nobody is entitled to me giving it up upon creation. property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things No. Copyright includes things such as me having a say wether my photo will be used to advertise rat poison or neonazis, or someone else claiming they made them etc. (if I can prove I am the author, they at least have to cease from that claim). I guess that's covered with "moral interests", not sure; but my point was simply this: that I give stuff away is a free choice. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone no matter how they got at it to do whatever they want with it, I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        I, by default, have all rights to it That's the UN's opinion, not divine law. But in any case, the article doesn't say we have the right copying. A system with attribution protection and mandatory profit sharing - but no copyright - would be enough. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone It doesn't belong to anyone. A copy can be owned (by you, until you sell it or give it away); a photograph is a concept, an idea. I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point. That's absolutely the point. The only reasonable justification for granting a monopoly over copying is because of the benefits to society. But the context has changed and deal stopped being fair a long time ago - if it ever was.

icebraining 14y ago

That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting. s/choice/privilege/g

PavlovsCat 14y ago
And what is that even supposed to mean? Even if you had a point, and it was a privilege and not a right [1], that would simply mean I made a choice based on that privilege, it doesn't mean "that choice wasn't actually a choice, it was a privilege". You know, just because you can feed something into a computer doesn't mean a thinking human would buy it.. I might as well quote you and prepend "if (1 == 2)", there is endless derpy fun to be had there, but I'll pass. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. You might point out that those rights seem to contradict each other, and of course it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. But privilege? Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I didn't say it wasn't a choice; but it's also a privilege, and I find that important to point out. As for the UN declaration, it's a nice document, but it's also very inconsistent, as most declarations which include positive rights usually are. Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off. It's not your stuff; nobody hacked into your computer to get it. You gave or sold it to someone else. Besides, property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things. It makes no sense when applied to effectively unlimited elements.
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    Inconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default, have all rights to it, then it's also my right to give those up, and giving the things away -- which is an explicit decision, not determined by "can it be copied" -- then if anything it's a privilege to peruse them, since contrary to the copyright protection, nobody is entitled to me giving it up upon creation. property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things No. Copyright includes things such as me having a say wether my photo will be used to advertise rat poison or neonazis, or someone else claiming they made them etc. (if I can prove I am the author, they at least have to cease from that claim). I guess that's covered with "moral interests", not sure; but my point was simply this: that I give stuff away is a free choice. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone no matter how they got at it to do whatever they want with it, I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I, by default, have all rights to it That's the UN's opinion, not divine law. But in any case, the article doesn't say we have the right copying. A system with attribution protection and mandatory profit sharing - but no copyright - would be enough. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone It doesn't belong to anyone. A copy can be owned (by you, until you sell it or give it away); a photograph is a concept, an idea. I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point. That's absolutely the point. The only reasonable justification for granting a monopoly over copying is because of the benefits to society. But the context has changed and deal stopped being fair a long time ago - if it ever was.