61–70 of 165 posts
Where are the internet hippies saying everything should be free?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also an agreement between you and artists that if you want to watch a movie or listen to a music cd you also pay for it.
When did I agree to that?
So yes, you didn't. But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. It's a simple deal, regardless of whether or not technology means you could.
Otherwise you can turn it around and ask "when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying" which is pretty similar to the case described here, just replace watching with using.
Seems weird he mentioned Spike Lee (who did nothing wrong, as far as I can tell) so many times, but didn't name the agency. Seems to hurt the wrong party's reputation. Additionally, he has no apparent way to contact him. EDIT: I really don't want to point fingers with 0 proof, but Spike Lee happens to be CEO of an ad agency named Spike DDB. https://twitter.com/SpikeDDB
Presumably his contract prevents him from discussing internal issues with any outside party. (Knowledge source: Got totally screwed by a business partner via legalese and had all my work stolen, ended up doing half a year of work uncompensated, can't legally talk about it or the partner, and loss < cost of litigation. Ah well, water under bridge.)
That aside, he works as a freelancer in an industry where naming and shaming specific agencies could very well hinder his ability to get future work, so I don't blame him for not doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question as well. I'd love to hear from the advocates of "It's digital, there is no cost to the content producer for others to make copies."
Even if they believe that, it doesn't make plagiarism and breech of contract okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also an agreement between you and artists that if you want to watch a movie or listen to a music cd you also pay for it.
When did I agree to that?
That first sentence sounds outraged and pointed, but it's not; it's a serious question. Every time this issue comes up, I feel like I read people making similar points, as if they were remotely convincing. I really want to know who, among all the people who are not already on your side on this issue, you think would be persuaded by the logic that "I didn't have a contract with the producer of _Wall-E_, and so I'm not obligated to pay them before downloading and watching their movie." It seems to me that a child can see where the obligation to pay comes from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also an agreement between you and artists that if you want to watch a movie or listen to a music cd you also pay for it.
When did I agree to that?
The law defines property. Just because IP has different traits then physical property does not make it more real; they are both useful fictions that form the foundation of a functional society. The laws encode our social norms and ideas about property. There is an entirely different set of laws which encodes acceptable behaviors in business practices, such as contract law, which is somewhat of a different area.
There is some very good arguments to be made that the current definitions of intellectual property are severely flawed, and haven't been updated to reflect our social perception or technical needs about what should or shouldn't be property. But there is no reason why "no IP enforcement" is inherently the right solution.
Seems weird he mentioned Spike Lee (who did nothing wrong, as far as I can tell) so many times, but didn't name the agency. Seems to hurt the wrong party's reputation. Additionally, he has no apparent way to contact him. EDIT: I really don't want to point fingers with 0 proof, but Spike Lee happens to be CEO of an ad agency named Spike DDB. https://twitter.com/SpikeDDB
Presumably his contract prevents him from discussing internal issues with any outside party. (Knowledge source: Got totally screwed by a business partner via legalese and had all my work stolen, ended up doing half a year of work uncompensated, can't legally talk about it or the partner, and loss < cost of litigation. Ah well, water under bridge.)
There are perhaps caveats that I've not considered, but this idea comes to me again and again when I hear this kind of story (again).
Edit: Guess I also have to throw in here that I am continually amazed at the number of people who are afraid to do the dirty work of being in business (drawing up contacts, negotiating, calculating margin, saying NO, etc).
I have heard/experienced a dozen similar stories recently. I have a friend who left a huge agency to freelance–only to have another small agency work him to the bone and take advantage of him almost exactly like the story here.
YES I ABSOLUTELY GET THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE FREELANCER/SUB TO GET THEIR CONTRACTS IN PLACE ...
But, seriously, these people are ridiculous. A bunch of salespeople in suits tossing around buzzwords so they can land a job taking advantage of a big company's big budget. Everything is a pitch or a comp or a big lead.
My advice to all freelance hackers and designers: if you meet someone who says they work at an agency, (a) tell them you're a janitor and (b) run away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did I agree to that?
You agreed to it when you paid in order to watch it. So yes, you didn't. But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. It's a simple deal, regardless of whether or not technology means you could . Otherwise you can turn it around and ask "when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying" which is pretty similar to the case described here, just replace watching with using.
Why?
when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying
If I own a car made by Toyota, should I need their agreement to offer rides to people?