Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This Photograph Is Not Free

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–257 of 257 posts

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#251

Post by smokeyj »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #242
smokeyj wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm a programmer, and I let my customers download my program for free and include a crack -- who's fault is it if someone doesn't pay up for the program? This is the internet. I had to download a copy the photograph just to view the image. It's stored in my cache right now. You have an unlicensed copy as well. Do I feel like a murdering thief? No, I don't. If you run a bike-shop, don't leave the bikes out front wi…

The belief that morality and practicability are the same thing just scares me, really. Individual humans become more powerful all the time. We need to respect arbitrary, consentual rules to keep the world going instead of going back to "strong eats weak, bad luck".

> We need to respect arbitrary, consentual rules to keep the world going

Such as PIPA and SOPA?

Believing that a concept such as a digital pattern or an idea is property that belongs to someone is borderline religious -- because I'm sure you fervently believe it without any supporting evidence. Just because you can monetize something doesn't mean you own it. If I discovered the wheel first, does that mean society owes me money bags for stealing my invention?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#252

Post by Suncho »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #240
Suncho wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. If everyone could copy whatever car they wanted for free, that would be a good thing. Since everyone would already have a car, car salesmen would go out of business. That's exactly what should happen.

Again, you are not looking at the big picture. If you physically stole cars but left the complete per-unit cost in cash there, then you wouldn't have done anything wrong, right? Alternatively, you have a machine that makes perfect copies. Both work the same for this purpose. Because you only focus on the per-unit cost. But even cars have fixed, one-time R&D costs that are distributed on each sold car totally arbitrar…

Yes. Cars do have fixed one-time R&D costs. If you can freely copy all cars, the incentive to design/produce a better car would then have to be something other than money. As an example, Greenpeace might want to cut vehicle emissions in half, so they'd research and develop a way to do it.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#253

Post by smokeyj »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #225
smokeyj wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm a programmer, and I let my customers download my program for free and include a crack -- who's fault is it if someone doesn't pay up for the program? This is the internet. I had to download a copy the photograph just to view the image. It's stored in my cache right now. You have an unlicensed copy as well. Do I feel like a murdering thief? No, I don't. If you run a bike-shop, don't leave the bikes out front wi…

"If I'm a programmer, and I let my customers download my program for free and include a crack -- who's fault is it if someone doesn't pay up for the program? This is the internet." It's called trust, it's why we've been lauding Louis CK's latest effort. Also, Apple used to distribute their OS software that way, it didn't require a serial number or online validation. "If you run a bike-shop, don't leave the bikes out…

Slap your website name across the whole image. I don't think anyone here is against DRM -- just shitty DRM that dilutes the user experience. Steam is an example of DRM done right IMO.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#254

Post by gurkendoktor »

smokeyj wrote: post #251
gurkendoktor wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The belief that morality and practicability are the same thing just scares me, really. Individual humans become more powerful all the time. We need to respect arbitrary, consentual rules to keep the world going instead of going back to "strong eats weak, bad luck".

> We need to respect arbitrary, consentual rules to keep the world going Such as PIPA and SOPA? Believing that a concept such as a digital pattern or an idea is property that belongs to someone is borderline religious -- because I'm sure you fervently believe it without any supporting evidence. Just because you can monetize something doesn't mean you own it. If I discovered the wheel first, does that mean society owe…

> Such as PIPA and SOPA?

Bad legislation and lobbyism are no reasons for or against anything.

> Believing that a concept such as a digital pattern or an idea is property that belongs to someone is borderline religious -- because I'm sure you fervently believe it without any supporting evidence.

That is arbitrary from an objective point of view. Now name me a law or human concept that is not.

Thank you for your assumptions about SOPA and fervent religiousness in a thread that has to do with neither.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#255

Post by gurkendoktor »

Suncho wrote: post #250
gurkendoktor wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should probably point out that 50% was just a random, badly chosen constant. It's not a zero-sum game anyway. But fact is that thanks to copyright laws, one can save some money from copyright-unrelated work, take a break to invest in a game, album or movie; and if people like it, one can make money with it, for which others agree to do a little more copyright-unrelated work on their part. The alternative is that ev…

You bring up an interesting point. I think it is indeed a great thing that people can be paid even when they are just producing digital, intangible goods. What I don't think is great is when they are paid for having produced intangible goods. The difference is between "when" and "for." People should be paid simply for being human, and then on top of that, they should be paid for anything they sell that has value, whe…

But as long as the economic system as a whole does not work as you describe it, isn't it unproductive to strip artists of their rights in the current system before we implement a new one?

--

And there are many people with free time already (me included). The whole free market argument goes both ways. Right now we allow both copyrighted and "free" content on the market. Why can't copyleft content just win out in the market of consumption if the existence copyright doesn't have a conceptual advantage?

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#256

Post by tete »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #96
tete wrote: post #92

If he doesn't want his photo to be seen then why does he put it online?

How would you propose he advertise his photos? With really good descriptions?

Sorry, I still don't get it. I mean if I want people to see it (advertising), but then write I already have exposure then I'd feel really weird.

Showing (be it advertisement or whatever), but not allowing it to be seen by others is (for the lack of another word) strange. At least it sounds pretty weird to me. I don't get what's wrong by getting this version he published and for example put it on a blog saying. Hey look, what I found on the bog/website of this guy. Isn't it awesome?

I mean in a way it is like taking a photo of his work and show it to others. It's not like I'd be taking it away from him.

I'd respect it, if the author doesn't want more exposure. It's his choice, but then I'd even feel bad to link his blog posts, website or even mention his name.

Maybe I miss something, but I don't understand why a photo of nature, published freely on the internet has to be kept like a secret.

I mean what if we put this to other stuff, like when I make my money selling text, knowledge or thoughts in general. Does this mean everyone is supposed to not share the thought, quote or recite it. It also costs me time and sometimes money (education).

Again, I am not taking anything away. After all it's just data. Should I ever draw a painting or describe a scene in a book. I may even base my work on his, without noticing. Still some people don't want anything based on their work.

If I'd have to ask about everything I copy and share with others I wouldn't dare to do anything.

What I also don't get is the asking thing. What's so bad about people asking whether they are allowed to use the photo?

The argument about the dinner is also flawed. In fact there are lots of businesses giving stuff away for free, to get more exposure. Also the dinner means that the restaurant will actually loose something.

And then there are these companies that even give you a free dinner in order to show you something/get exposure. Advertising also isn't free.

Re: This Photograph Is Not Free

#257

Post by Suncho »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #255
Suncho wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring up an interesting point. I think it is indeed a great thing that people can be paid even when they are just producing digital, intangible goods. What I don't think is great is when they are paid for having produced intangible goods. The difference is between "when" and "for." People should be paid simply for being human, and then on top of that, they should be paid for anything they sell that has value, whe…

But as long as the economic system as a whole does not work as you describe it, isn't it unproductive to strip artists of their rights in the current system before we implement a new one? -- And there are many people with free time already (me included). The whole free market argument goes both ways. Right now we allow both copyrighted and "free" content on the market. Why can't copyleft content just win out in the m…

That's a very good question, but my answer is no for a few reasons.

1. Change is gradual. Copyright exclusivity can slowly be ramped down at the same time the government gradually provides more and more services for its citizens. One doesn't have to come before the other. Meanwhile, there certainly shouldn't be any new enforcement of copyright (or patent) exclusivity where none existed before.

2. Copyrights aren't rights. They're tradable monopolies upheld by the government. You'd actually be giving artists more rights by removing exclusivity. No longer would be able to take away their right to do whatever they want with their own work. The artists who are in it for the money are doing it for the wrong reasons.

3. The economy will never work as I describe it as long as copyright exclusivity enforced. I don't believe in copyleft. It still involves keeping track of licenses on everything, which can get very out of hand. Big corporations should be able to use free software too.

Copyright exclusivity is the only reason an intellectual property market exists today. The law can affect the economy and vice versa. We can bootstrap ourselves out of this mess.

Post reply on HN