Copying Isn't Theft video needs YOUR music!

Discuss

46 Responses to “Copying Isn't Theft video needs YOUR music!”

  1. Anonymous says:

    bobcatgoldfinger:

    Yes, the CC license is binding according to my understanding. Every eligible work is subject to copyright law, whether or not you slap a (c) symbol on it or not. By putting the CC license on a copyright work you are essentially issuing a public license that automatically grants permission for certain uses that copyright would usually restrict (without permission). A CC work is, then, still a copyright one, but one for which certain but not all permissions are automatically given, hence the slogan ‘Some rights reserved’

    Someone may feel free to correct me on this point.

  2. symbot says:

    So the answer to all the questions of “How do we protect industrial designs and allow people to keep profiting off them?” is simple — patent law. Us “creative freedom” people don’t really object to this concept… if you invent something, you should be able to profit from it for a specified length of time.

    “Copyright” takes the same concept and applies it to virtually all content for virtually unlimited time with virtually infinite consequence for infraction. This is a little silly when you consider that five, ten, or a hundred people may have the same idea, at the same time, and it’s just a matter of how fast it reaches the public eye, or how early the time-stamp on their computer was set, or much money they can pay a lawyer to defend it. It’s mega-silly when you consider that copyright now applies for lifetime of author plus 75 years! That’s an insane amount of time, and it ruthlessly dampens any derivative innovation.

    People don’t object to copyright because they want everything to be free, all the time, for anyone to sell or profit from. They object to copyright because it’s obviously turned into a corporate tool to place insane restrictions on distribution.

    The corporate POV is argued based on some idiotic claims… the claim that ideas can be “owned” is a big one. This video is arguing against that ridiculous premise. Kudos.

    Pro-copyright advocates need to realize that if they compromised… scale back the terms of copyright to 15 years, make infringement a minor civil crime punished by a sufficiently obnoxious fine (instead of the millions of speculative dollars that corporations currently sue for), and provide greater respect and wider recognition for public domain… we anti-copyright advocates would mostly be happy.

  3. misterfricative says:

    Here you go. Jazzy remix

  4. Anonymous says:

    If there’s no way to make a living from something because everyone just takes a copy for themselves for free (or worse, copies it and then sells it without having put any time or effort in themselves) then there is far less incentive to create the original…

    You could argue that if one person makes something quick, then the next person copies and makes a slight improvement, that overtime the original product would appear through crowdsourcing in the end – that’s the concept of open source after all, but if that was the best solution, we’d all be driving around in cars and flying in planes that were generated in that fashion.

    Sometimes an original requires a unified vision – while copying may not be theft, if it disincentivizes the undertaking of this sort of project, then it won’t be available to copy in the first place.

    Copying is shooting yourself in the foot with regards to the things you enjoy.

    , it does disincentivize the generation of the original work.

  5. Morgan says:

    Removing financial incentive from art is a GOOD thing, because it kills off the suits that leech onto the artist, drive up the costs, and cause the mass-market, focus-group tested garbage we see in music, film and television. (We’re not inundated by awful poetry because, thankfully, there’s no money in it.)

    Look at theater. Interesting, progressive work is being done all over the country right up until you get to where the money is (those 10 Broadway theaters) where it suddenly gets as boring as any tv show.

    Yeah, movies and music would be different if the only people who made them were those motivated purely by love of the craft, and not wealth, but I’d take that trade in a minute. (And I’m an indie filmmaker who still buys CDs, so don’t assume I’m arguing from self-interest. I stand on the dollar-losing end of this argument. I just think the work would be better if the suits died off.)

  6. LX says:

    The whole copying-thieves-argument we keep hearing from MPAA/RIAA goons is as wrong as the idea that we should stop rewarding artists.

    But let us delve into the idea of rewarding artists: by buying their media, we mainly reward the goons while the artists only get a minimum share. So what we need is not stricter copyright, but easier ways to reward the artists without rewarding the goons.

    Greetings, LX

    • teapot says:

      So what we need is not stricter copyright, but easier ways to reward the artists without rewarding the goons.

      It’s called paying for their live shows but downloading their CDs illegally :)

      If the artist gives enough of a shit to come to my city… I will go see. If they dont care enough to come here, then why should I give the record company any money? The artists generally get their biggest payout from the record companies in the form of contract payments, meaning a very small percentage of my $$ for a CD actually go to the artist.

      People are very confused here. There is no problem with copying something. The problem is in making a profit from, or reducing profit to the copyright holder by distributing copies. Or, as others have mentioned, passing the work off as your own.

      This is the amazing trick they are trying to pull: convince us that that act of copying is illegal. Why? Because it is much easier to prosecute and prove that someone copied something than it is to prove they profited from, or devalued the original via their actions.

      They can’t throw us all in jail, so we should all just copy to our hearts’ desire. Sorry big business – you are going to lose this battle, or lose and alienate your customers. Your choice.

      • LX says:

        Mostly the live concerts are also very, very expensive due to being organized by the goons. The downloads are mostly organized by goons with the added value that the musicians are only paid amounts that small the half the amount would be negative. Same goes for merchandising.

        I rest my case: we need to get rid of the goons.

        Greetings, LX

  7. jonboris says:

    Thank you Tollundmanden, the song is much more palatable with a nice soundtrack :)

    Now for my grinch-statement:

    The part where someone copies a bicycle is great. But someone spent time, money and man-hours designing that bicycle. If someone else wants to use that design (ie ‘copy’ it) shouldn’t some sort of trade take place?

    Capitalism, ladies and gentlemen.

  8. misterfricative says:

    And a punk mashup too. Because hey, why not?

  9. Anonymous says:

    @krischocula
    I see you really ond’t know how intellectual property works.
    It is an agreement between the society (yes alla of us, becuase we need intellectual property to be defended) and someone who got a great idea. The pact is that he will tell us everything about his idea (yes to have a patent you have to detail your idea so that everyone else can copy it) and we grant him the possibility to make money with it to support his efforts in developing his great idea. This possiblity is limited in time according to different regulations in different countries and in different typologies of the “idea”: it could be something between 15 years and 50 years. After that period it is free, the society can use it freely. You see? It is not eternal and we force the owner of the idea to tell us everything about it.

    Intellectual property is a big step forward in fostering the creation and sharing of great ideas. Pretendind that everyone should give you for free his great idea so that you can use it for free is a big step behind.

    @cymk you are forgetting that behind a product (or support of the idea how you call the boing aircraft) there:
    - the product
    - the project of the product
    - the project of the processes to produce it
    - everything else to make it real

    when you copy a product beeing it and airplane or a bycicle you are stealing the project of the product and that should be avoided.

    What the beginning of this video (that i really like and enjoyed watching) is showing is not copying. It is called cooperating to share competencies and experience and project a shared product in the end (and processes to produce it).

    With the two puppets that are better after the cooperative process both the actors (yes BOTH of them) added some value to the product. While with copyng you don’t add anything at all, you just copy it and take it for you. If the copying cost is very low than someone else did all the job and you are stealing it (indeed in those cases the value of the product is not in the support nor in the process to produce it since it’s cheap to copy it)

    In the end
    cooperating != theft
    copying = theft (if the owner doesn’t allow you to do so)

  10. zeepoli says:

    copying IS theft.
    it’s a far more complicated issue than this little video makes it seem.

    someone is feeding her hungry child by making and selling bikes and now the baby will starve and die because copying is fun and no one needs to buy the bike.

  11. Anonymous says:

    jonboris- You are correct, if you are copying the bike and distributing the copies. There is no law that says you cannot look at your friend’s bike and construct your own that is identical in every way, and there shouldn’t be. For those in the know, is there any law preventing me from borrowing a book from a library or friend, and hand copying every word? Unfortunately, with the DMCA, it seems we’ve created laws against almost any form of copying that circumvents copy protection.

  12. Relee says:

    See this is what I keep saying! We don’t criminalize bread machines to keep the bakeries in business, do we?

    If media industries can’t survive because it’s too easy to make your own copy without paying them, then that’s too bad. But you know what? Amazon.com is running just fine despite the fact that just about every city in North America has a public library.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Those who do not know Nina Paley’s work should go to the Sita Sings the Blues site. She knows of what she speaks….she has lived it as an artist.

  14. agreenster says:

    I think some of you are missing the point. Shes not talking about copying “ideas.” I think shes specifically talking about copying movies/media/data (thats the reason for the FBI warning as her opening image, the same warning on DVDs).

    While she’s correct in saying that copying doesnt steal from the “other,” I’d like to remind everyone that is DOES steal from a potential sale, and that is a real, tangible thing.

    I just wanted to chime in, that as an artist/animator for animated movies, I HATE hearing about people downloading movies. That is literally money out of our pockets, and our livlihood at stake. The stability of our jobs and the amount of salary or bonuses we get rely heavily on box office and DVD performance. Our families literally are affected by this theft.

    If you want to watch a movie or hear a song, go to a store, buy it online, or go to the library (the state govt. still pays for these copies too, you know). Please dont download it.

  15. Slicklines says:

    There is something about the “Amazon in business despite libraries” argument that smacks of glossing over reality. I suspect it’s that I can copy someone’s digital work within minutes, whereas copying a book is a far more difficult proposition. Relee tacitly admits this in saying “.. it’s too easy to make your own copy…” Not staying the argument is totally bogus, but I don’t think it’s very strong either.

    Staying with the library idea, consider that I can go down to the library and check out the newest DVDs. Well, I can certainly copy them, and I certainly could give away tons of these copies free on line. Maybe legally what I have done is not ‘theft’ but it is (on some level) hard to suggest that I haven’t done something basically shady. And not just against the media companies either. I suspect the monetary consequences of my act might drift all the way to the actual creative talent involved.

    All I’m suggesting is that the idea of “copying is not theft” is too simplistic. As an aside I note that even Lessig suggests that those willing to trounce all copyright protections are simply going too far.

  16. krischocula says:

    It’s sad to see so many people arguing for the horrible thoughtcrime concept of intellectual property here. You say that creators of intellectual property should have the right to control what people do with it, as if this is a right that is afforded to normal property. Does Volvo have the right to repossess your car if they see you driving it irresponsibly? I sure hope not. Yet you seem to be comfortable with Amazon repossessing the book 1984 from your e-book-reader, as if you hadn’t bought it in the first place. The way the argument is usually framed by the copyright lobby is that no, you didn’t buy it, you had a time-limited revokable license to one-person-at-a-time use (“use” as specified in the fore-mentioned agreement).

    I think “intellectual property”, just like the idea that algorithms are patentable, is a filthy, disgusting concept. Where would the world be if the mathematicians through the ages (and their descendants) had had exclusive rights to the mathematical principles they happened to be the first to formulate? Where would Disney be if they hadn’t been able to take the old folk-stories written by people like the Brothers Grimm and retell them in the shape of a cartoon mouse?

    What you are doing is crippling and disenfranchising the already suffering of this world – if there was a way of freely copying food, would you stop it from being sent to those starving in Africa, simply because the maker of the original copy “needs to be compensated”?

    And in fact, there doesn’t seem to be any such need. The movie industry is celebrating its best year ever, the music industry is far from starving (except from what damage they manage to do to themselves), and artists and creators have greater and greater possibilities of self-publication and self-funding than ever before.

    Shame on you, who argue for intellectual property! For shame.

  17. andydub says:

    Fun & thought-provoking, great combo.
    And Nina you actually have a lovely voice.

  18. billindetroit says:

    Fine, you want to copy? Sing the song yourself. There are a couple songs from Riverdance that I would bankrupt me if I had to pay royalties every time I sang them while driving down the road. And yet, the fine folks at Riverdance don’t mind at all … even if I can mimic their baritone passably well.

    Why? Because I have not stolen their right to earn money. They do not mind if I play the CD’s or show the DVD’s to guests in my home (although some of my guests HAVE let it be known that they DO mind!) … so long as I do not charge money. After all, there is a chance, however slim, that this free advertising might result in a sale and, since I certainly have the right to sit there and view the troupe again and again, there can be little objection if I allow others to sit in my living room while I watch the performance.

    Here’s where I run counter to most of the posts here: copying something, where there was no chance of a sale (my wife has copied some of my harmless slang) is not, to my mind, theft. Suppose I charge her a kiss each time she uses it: I’m in for a noticeable increase in lip time. But what happens when a male friend picks up on “cool dogs”? No … not gonna happen.

    When we copy and-it-prevents-a-sale, we steal the very bread due the performer. Even if the production studio was going to get all but 3 cents, that 3 cents belonged to the performer. The leads us into the judgment call of ‘what prevents a sale?’ and ‘when is the prevention of that sale morally justifiable?’ (for what law, absent a moral foundation, is worthy of our obedience?)

    Current laws, in large part, recognize the wholesale LACK of moral integrity first shown in the early days of computers when software was copied by the bushel. DAMHIKT … but I do. Sorry guys, but we shot ourselves in the foot by provoking a legal backlash when we, like the young boys that we in reality were, copied wholesale. At one point, I was seriously considering buying a couple automated duplicators. Others took the next step and actually did go into wholesale counterfeiting. Wholesale, people, wholesale. We’re not even talking about street corner stuff anymore.

    Look, Norah Jones does not mind if you make a copy of her CD for your car. What she objects to is your making a copy for everyone you know … and everyone they know, too. Or selling the copies on the street corner or in flea markets. Likewise ‘the piracy cops’ will neither know nor care if you share a few tracks, iPod to iPod with the handful of people that you know FTF. You turn them on to a tune, they turn you on to a tune, pretty soon the novelty wears off and, without illegal P2P trading, eventually someone has to go buy a CD to get the cycle started again. Voila! Sales.

    People are not getting busted for sharing one incredibly awesome song on P2P networks even though such sharing is to random strangers and is, like it or not, illegal. They ARE getting stung, HARD, for posting their entire collections in a swapping arrangement that leaves everyone EXCEPT the artist enriched. If I have 10,000 … 20,000 … 30,000 tunes in my library, I don’t even have to listen to the radio. So the artist doesn’t even get the pittance granted by the mandatory royalty agreements.

    Rethink this stuff. There has got to be a middle-ground, a place where reason and fairness prevails, in this matter. Neither extreme is right.

    You might try, the next time you copy a (fill in the blank) CD, at least slipping (him / her / them) a buck. The blank media was pretty worthless until you put a song on it, so why not slip (him / her / them) at least twice the cost of the blank media?

  19. marco antonio says:

    Copying AND selling it as yours is wrong. Copying AND not acknowledging sources is wrong. Copying AND use copies to undermine the original is wrong.

    But copying my music CD’s so I can listen to them at work or in the car is not theft. Copying the work i’ve put out as Creative Commons (to be copied by others) isn’t theft. Copying Public Domain information isn’t theft. Copying passages out of a book so I can discuss it in my University essay is not theft.

    The act of copying is not a crime, it’s why and how you do it. Let’s talk how the rights and the wrongs, not dismiss it immediately as crime.

  20. marco antonio says:

    For those with doubts about Creative Commons:

    Copyright establishes that ‘all rights are reserved’. Some people might prefer to give up those rights, or at least some of them. Creative Common licenses allow you to do that.

    And both Copyright and Creative Commons are just as enforceable (or not) as each other. Neither prevents disingenuous uses or avoids crime. They just give choice on how you want the rights of your work to be, where before there was no choice.

  21. jasonrobot says:

    #33 (anonymous), I don’t think one should assume the originator of a certain ‘bicycle’ design would have capabilities to mass produce the ‘bicycle’. There have been several instances when a big company has copied something originated by a little guy and the little guy is left with no chance to earn a living from having created the original.

  22. Anonymous says:

    For some reason this really cries out for some Django Reinhardt-style gypsy-jazz guitar in the background. Great video, really emphasizes the “using, not using up, taking, not taking away” point, though sadly I don’t think bobcatgoldfinger up there really gets it. Still, he provides an excellent example of the sort of information many of us assume others may have which is in fact missing, even for a demographic which we might expect to be informed on such things like readers of Boing Boing. Or perhaps he’s simply a devil’s advocate- either way it is clear that the argument presented by Nina and so many others is not sufficient.

    Still, any step in the right direction is a good one- love the video Nina. Perhaps by the time this anonymous, too lazy to log in post gets through someone will have helped out bobcatgoldfinger and we all may have a better idea of the sort of information we leave out of these sorts things.

  23. Anonymous says:

    “someone is feeding her hungry child by making and selling bikes and now the baby will starve and die because copying is fun and no one needs to buy the bike.”

    People who keep using this type of example fail at the logical follow-through. The simple fact that someone copies the bicycle design doesn’t automatically put the original designer out of business. The original producer has capabilities to mass-produce, market, and sell the bike, and they have resources on-hand, including parts and laborers. Any potential copier would have to come up with their own resources, which (per a main point of Nina’s thesis) aren’t simply “copyable”. Also the copier would have to give credit for the specific design to the original designer, or else it’s plagarism.

    Disturbingly, many of the people I see defending copyright here seem to be going so far as to suggest that I should have to pay money to the estate of the great-great-grandkids of the guy who invented the bicycle, simply because I buy the rough materials and build myself a bicycle from scratch.
    -Drakar

  24. cymk says:

    In the past, it was easy to define things like, “copy,” or “theft,” or “infringement” because we were talking about physical objects; to copy something you had to literally steal it (movies were on celluloid, music was on vinyl, books on paper). Now, because of new media things that once existed as hard physical objects are now intangible and only exist as 1′s and 0′s on a hard drive. Lawmakers and industry players still use the old definitions of those words (copy, theft, infringement) when they no longer apply, and need to be re-defined. Nina (love the animation btw) uses her video and song to illustrate this fact, that by the old definitions the industry uses, copy is not theft.

    Instead of innovating, the industry uses a new idea “intellectual property,” an idea which sounds completely ludicrous. Copyrighting an idea, a thought, and saying “no one else can use this idea or think this thought unless you pay me!” That is the idea behind IP and it sounds as dumb as it actually is. Copyright should only extend as far as the package which contains the idea, not the idea itself. Creative Commons I think is a big step in this direction.

    • RioMcT says:

      You think the idea of intellectual copyright sounds ludicrous but I wonder if you’ve ever thought about it in any context beyond movies and music. Intellectual copyright is the key component in incentivising not just artistic creations but industrial creations as well. Why would Boeing put money into researching it’s new 787 if any of their competitors could have access to their plans and build a copy? Why would pharmaceutical companies spend money to research new drugs if they didn’t have a window during which they could sell the drug as a proprietary product?

      and for the record the industry is not coming out with some new idea of “Intellectual property”. The concept has been around since the early 1800′s.

      • cymk says:

        I have thought about it, and my idea stands; Boeing can copyright the new 787, but they can’t copyright the ability to fly. Musicians can copyright a song, but they can’t copyright a riff or notes. The plane Boeing makes is the package they can protect, just like the movie Universal makes is the package they can copyright; they can’t copyright the moviemaking process or the use of actors or plot conventions.

        And yes, you are correct, IP has been around a while, my mistake.

        As I have stated in the past, I should be within my rights to make copies of copyrighted work I have purchased, as long as it is for my own use. If I buy a CD, I should be within my rights to make back up copies, and copies for my computer and mp3 player. If I buy a book, I should be able to make copies for my e-book reader, my computer as well as have an actual physical book on my shelf (yes, I think more authors should start offering digital copies of books along with the physical hard copies). Regardless of what media I buy, I should be able to choose how I consume said media. Yes, my arguments stay within the realm of digital media, because that is what this discussion is about.

        • RioMcT says:

          cymk, I think all of your examples of copying for personal use, back up copies and conversion copies for other formats, sound like a legitimate personal use of a work. I wouldn’t argue against those. Where I think copying equals infringement is where people start justifying the consumption of pirated books, music and movies because they believe just because they haven’t changed a physical scarcity they are entitled consume it.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Back in the day, (and I’m talking way back) a writer would publish a book. Then, some company would copy the book and sell it without compensating the author at all. To counter this, we created “The right to copy” laws, or simply put, “Copyright.”

    What plagues IP these days has nothing to do with the original notion that an author controls their work. The problem lies in corporations. These corporations want to do everything to kill any competitive work, even ones that are not truly “Copies.” They then want to control all IP.

    There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be paid for producing digital products. There is everything wrong with super corporations and betraying the intentions of the founding fathers.

    How could we have professional authors and editors who are not paid? If we have no professional authors and editors, who will make professional quality books?

  26. Anonymous says:

    The copying != stealing argument is really one about whether we have the proper metaphor with which to form a moral argument. It isn’t one about whether it is morally proper to copy without permission. Because stealing involves taking the property of another, and copying leaves the property of another intact and undamaged- copying is NOT the same as stealing. I think the above video illustrates very well the difference.

    Whether unlicensed copying should be legal, and how that should be regulated is a different matter. The RIAA would LIKE for unlicensed copying to be legally indistinguishable, despite the fact that stealing imposes material damages on the victim, whereas the damages incurred by being victim to unlicensed copying are theoretical losses.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Please people, I think we know what kinds of copying are good and which ones are bad like we know how some words are hurtfull and others are helpfull and like there are good people in this world and bad people… need i go on. I think that if you are just going to copy something but give full credit to that person and not use it to gain money from it then copying is all right but if you just take something and/or sell it as your own then copying goes over the line.

  28. Anonymous says:

    It seems the idea of copyleft/free culture doesn’t exactly make sense to some people. Let me clarify a few things:

    Copying is meant in the literal sense: to duplicate. Whether or not you tell people you created the work yourself (even if you didn’t make it) is up to you, and highly illegal. The video mentioned is under a CC BY-SA license, meaning you can do anything you please as long as you attribute the original author(s) and that all derivative works have to be under the same license (think that the video is required to “stay free”). There’s more to it than that, but you can go to creativecommons.org for more information.

    Second: it is not required to have it be free as in beer. Brad Sucks, a musician I enjoy listening to, has his music licensed under a Creative Commons license as well. However, on his website he sells his music. He makes quite a lot of money from it too! Same with somewhat popular musician Jonathan Coulton (ever hear of Still Alive or Code Monkey?) and comic artist Randall Munroe (XKCD). They all make lots of money from people willing to buy their merchandise as well as music/books/etc.

    Because Creative Commons allows our culture to be freely shared with one another, it creates whole new opportunities for people to make something out of it, or just to express their creativity.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Let me try and help you, bobcatgoldfinger.

    >Still, is it alright for me to “copy” the entire cartoon
    and claim that it is my own? Maybe turn it into
    a diatribe against downloaders?

    Claiming that it is your own, as mentioned previously, would be fraud, unless you are in fact its creator. A derivative work that gives credit to its creator would be fine, according to the copyright notice found on the site linked to from the video page. There are lots of ways to make things available for copying and retain rights to them. My personal favorite is the Creative Commons license, created by Larry Lessig. He has a great book about the idea you’ve mentioned, what he calls remixing, and it is available for you to make a copy of, for free, here: http://www.archive.org/details/LawrenceLessigRemix

    >If not, then copying IS theft – correct?

    No, incorrect. As the video explains, copying is not theft because nothing is missing, no one is being denied usage of anything, as happens in theft. thefreedictionary.com defines theft in a criminal law context as “the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession”- copying does meet these conditions.

    In short, as long as the owner retains possession, theft has not occurred.

  30. jasonrobot says:

    I’m assuming she doesn’t mean one should be able to copy anything for their own use. If I spend loads of man hours and money designing, building, refining, etc my new bicycle and she came along and copied it and her friends copied her copy because she thinks everyone should happily have bicycles.. That’s not what she’s singing about, right? Or if I create a painting and she makes a film intersplicing a copy of my painting with gruesome clips of death and dismemberment which might cause people to associate my painting with some sort of horribleness because of her use of my painting in her art… That’s not what she’s singing about, right?

  31. jhhl says:

    I’m a long time fan of Nina’s and as you can see, her financial struggles don’t keep her from making art.! There are a lot of things that wouldn’t happen without people being paid to do them, but art and music aren’t among these activities. Neither is posting on Boing Boing.

    That being said, there’s a problem here with basic principals. In truth, all human production properly belongs to nobody in particular. Protective measures such as copyrights and patents exist solely to create a monopoly on these creations for a limited time, which used to be a reasonable 14 years for copyright and now is much longer. These restrictions are clearly artificial and arbitrary (since their details can be tinkered with via legislation, and may not be respected in all pertinent legal jurisdictions) and they require special efforts to enforce them, and diligence on the part of the copyright holder to effect that enforcement.

    Copy protection schemes must also therefore be able to be rescinded when the terms of the copyright expire, otherwise they are not enforcers of copyright, but in fact will be “stealing” the expression of ideas from their proper public disposition once the copyright has expired.

  32. RioMcT says:

    Copying isn’t theft, it’s infringement.

    I like intellectual copyright. I think if someone creates something they should have the right to decide whether or not it is given away for free or not.

  33. octopod says:

    >Claiming that it is your own, as mentioned previously, would be fraud

    hmm, and it’s lame, at least by one old scene use of the word, and someone who does it is a lamer.

  34. marco antonio says:

    My take is that the mere act of copying should not be criminally prosecuted by default, as it is heading right now. There are many, many ways of copying in good ways: You can copy and give credit (CC), you can copy and pay for your copy (and keep it, not like the Kindle), you can copy for your personal use only or educational purposes, you can even copy without knowing (when viewing anything online, the contents are copied to your machine – albeit temporarily).

    I think this piece argues that we should explore all the ways in which copying (which ain’t gonna go away) can be used properly, instead of dismissing it as instantly criminal.

    She has my support, and I wish I had musical talent to contribute.

  35. pryce_d says:

    I am afraid I have to dis-agree. Very cute animation, but also massively out of context. I don’t think the animation really has anything to do with copyright and steers more in the direction of cloning and genetic enhancements. Copyright is more about ideas, not bikes and limbs. I think copying someones idea is very different to producing an identical copy from thin air, as this is not possible.

    Copying is more about laziness. If you don’t want to take the time to come up with your own idea then find someone who has put lots of time, effort, heart and soul into something, then copy their idea. I reckon that is bang out of order.

    If someone was to write a screenplay and someone else copied,took credit and made a hollywood blockbuster from it, this can be regarded as theft. From working in the promo industry, I think anyone will agree that it is a well known phrase to ‘copy with pride’. It is not on and it numbs up the creative world with unoriginal mindless rubbish that is polluting the minds of our generations and many to come.

    Here here to copyright laws.

  36. mjd says:

    She’s not saying there are no instances where copying isn’t morally wrong, or part of an act that is morally wrong, just that it isn’t theft.

    There’s nothing in there about passing off somebody else’s work as your own, although that’s not theft either, it’s fraud.

    You’ve either misunderstood the point entirely, or are being disingenuous.

  37. Antinous / Moderator says:

    bobcatgoldfinger,

    You’re repeating yourself.

  38. Antinous / Moderator says:

    am I not allowed to reply to a fellow writer?

    You are if you have something to add. You are not if you’re just repeating your previous comment.

  39. Anonymous says:

    I agree very strongly with the message that “copying is not theft”. However, I disagree with the tone of this video which *does* suggest that *all* copying is “fun”. (Well, it does to me anyway.)

Leave a Reply