4 ms·

>How about someone steals your business' source code [...] Not a proper analogy. You don't sell software because of source code, you sell it based on what user

by strict9 13y ago

>How about someone steals your business' source code [...] Not a proper analogy. You don't sell software because of source code, you sell it based on what users see. Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing. >[...] you don't qualify. Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours. >Thanks for pissing all over my profession. Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them? Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible. Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA. A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale. Photography is similar to music, so I'll quote from the article 'Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy': >Several studies have shown that most artists actually profit from unauthorized sharing of files. They sell more albums because people have the opportunity to download songs and entire albums for free. A study by Blackburn (2004), a PhD student from Harvard, found that the 75% of the artist actually profit from piracy. Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing. Source: http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/ http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/

CaveTech 13y ago
Users are seeing your source code, whether directly or indirectly. Your source is your product.
dannowatts 13y ago
> Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing. it can be, but that's a pretty large blanket statement. first, it's not free. it costs me something when a photo is used without an exchange of payment for a license to use that photo. but even playing devil's advocate: marketing doesn't pay our mortgage. publicity doesn't put food on the table for my family. :)
- strict9 13y ago
  Yes, you are correct. But going to college, or learning to code nights and weekends, or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either. It's an investment. You do it in hopes that current work will yield a larger future gain, be it through experience, wisdom, exposure, or something else.
  - dannowatts 13y ago
    > ... or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either. and there is the distinction: you are choosing to contribute. when a photo of mine is used without my consent, approval or of my choosing to have it be used, it has been stolen.
coldtea 13y ago
>Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing. And not all people want fucking "free marketing" (ie. let me use your stuff for free, devaluing it as a salable item, and conpensate with "exposure"). That's like the oldest slimmest trick in the book anyway, from people who don't want to pay: and it amounts to "You should be thanking US for using your work". >>[...] you don't qualify. Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours. No, if you're on one of those cases describes, then your business model is different. >Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them? That's not the definition of "sacred object". That's the definition of something you sell. And yes, a photograph can be something one sells. If you want to give your photographs for free, have a blast. Others wish to sell theirs for use should be respected from people wanting to use them. >Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible. That's your choice and more power to you. I, and others, don't want and don't value business and "exposure" gained by such use. That should be my choice. >Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA. So what? I don't disagree with all of their arguments. It's 2013. We don't only sell tables and cars, we also sell intagible objects like intellectual property. We've been doing it for centuries. Easy zero-cost copying doesn't mean you can't have an economy of intangibles. I'm only against part of the current situation, like crazy long copyright times (should be way shorter), obvious patents (should only exist for non obvious inventions), etc. >A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale. Besides the point. I don't want unathorized use of my WORK, regardless of if it represents a lost sale or not. >Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing. Yay, a study published in Torrentfreak.

by strict9 13y ago

CaveTech 13y ago

Users are seeing your source code, whether directly or indirectly. Your source is your product.

dannowatts 13y ago

> Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing. it can be, but that's a pretty large blanket statement. first, it's not free. it costs me something when a photo is used without an exchange of payment for a license to use that photo. but even playing devil's advocate: marketing doesn't pay our mortgage. publicity doesn't put food on the table for my family. :)

strict9 13y ago
Yes, you are correct. But going to college, or learning to code nights and weekends, or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either. It's an investment. You do it in hopes that current work will yield a larger future gain, be it through experience, wisdom, exposure, or something else.
- dannowatts 13y ago
  > ... or contributing to OSS projects doesn't pay the mortgage either. and there is the distinction: you are choosing to contribute. when a photo of mine is used without my consent, approval or of my choosing to have it be used, it has been stolen.

coldtea 13y ago

>Sharing photographs (with proper attribution) is free marketing. And not all people want fucking "free marketing" (ie. let me use your stuff for free, devaluing it as a salable item, and conpensate with "exposure"). That's like the oldest slimmest trick in the book anyway, from people who don't want to pay: and it amounts to "You should be thanking US for using your work". >>[...] you don't qualify. Why not? I'm paid to press a button on a camera. My product is the same as yours. No, if you're on one of those cases describes, then your business model is different. >Why? Because I disagree with the prevailing view that photographs are sacred objects that should be locked in a vault available only to those who pay for them? That's not the definition of "sacred object". That's the definition of something you sell. And yes, a photograph can be something one sells. If you want to give your photographs for free, have a blast. Others wish to sell theirs for use should be respected from people wanting to use them. >Yes, I get annoyed when I see my photos elsewhere used without permission/attribution. But have I lost money because of it? I've gained much more business by trying to see that my photos are seen by as many people as possible. That's your choice and more power to you. I, and others, don't want and don't value business and "exposure" gained by such use. That should be my choice. >Your arguments are one in the same as the ones used by the RIAA and MPAA. So what? I don't disagree with all of their arguments. It's 2013. We don't only sell tables and cars, we also sell intagible objects like intellectual property. We've been doing it for centuries. Easy zero-cost copying doesn't mean you can't have an economy of intangibles. I'm only against part of the current situation, like crazy long copyright times (should be way shorter), obvious patents (should only exist for non obvious inventions), etc. >A stolen MP3 or photograph is not a direct negative sale. Besides the point. I don't want unathorized use of my WORK, regardless of if it represents a lost sale or not. >Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing. Yay, a study published in Torrentfreak.