So basically Spike Lee doesn't do the right thing?
Have you actually seen the film? Doesn't really fit this pun.
Dear Spike Lee
121–130 of 165 posts
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did I agree to that?
Who do you think you're kidding? You obviously know about the obligation to pay; you've just decided that if the product you want access to has been laundered through at least one 3rd party, you've never had to look any of the producers in the eye, and therefore you have no obligation to them. If anything, you're even worse than the person who originally published the content you're taking: they're at least accountab…
It feels exactly the same arguing from the other side. I think that means we're working with fundamentally different premises.
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if they believe that, it doesn't make plagiarism and breech of contract okay.
Sophomoric semantic rationalization. Two different settings for copyright violation, but sure, just use synonyms and related concepts to make one seem bad and the other OK; gullible message board nerds ravenous for validation for pirating movies, music, and software will lap it up.
No. If you have a contract to get paid for work, it really doesn't matter whether you "own" the end product in any meaningful way. You should get paid according to the terms of the contract, even if it was just a verbal contract.
And taking credit for someone's work is not remotely the same as copying it without their permission, attribution intact. Can you not tell the difference?
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#124I usually have very little sympathy designer complaints around spec work, pay and "borrowing" but this is totally messed up.
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it is in substantial dispute. Can you cite a case of someone in the US being successfully prosecuted for downloading? Note that this precludes bittorrent, gnutella, etc situations where downloading means simultaneously uploading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fastlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Site_Down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Buccaneer Note: Just because I don't have an…
Note: Just because I don't have any cases offhand of my friends fined for jaywalking, doesn't mean it isn't against the law. That's putting your arguments into the realm of faith. If those three citations are any indication, your faith is misplaced. All of those were for people doing distribution (e.g. uploading). None of them were for downloading. I don't think it is much to ask for you to have just one definite cas…
Somehow there's this weird gap where people completely freak out over the difference between stealing and copying, but the difference between uploading and downloading just slides right by.
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's was an implied agreement. There is also an implied agreement that when an artist asks you to pay $12 for a CD, that you pay for it. This isn't very hard to understand.
And so I ask again, when did I agree to that, in an explicit or implicit way? And you yourself answered, "you didn't if you downloaded it without paying". So no, there isn't.
When did you agree to let the police protect you if they encounter you being mugged?
Some things are just part of societal existence. You can't opt out of them any more than you can opt out of paying your taxes on profits you make.
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believing that copyright shouldn't exist or should be limited from it's current status but contracts should be enforced is a completely valid position.
You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright. Otherwise there is nothing of value upon which to base the contract. That is where copyright came from in the first place.
>You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright.
Yes you can. The value is in the time and creative process that went into creating the creative work.
A contract that says I will pay you $1000 to create a piece of open source software, is still a valid and enforceable contract, even though I won't own the software in the end.
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#128[deleted]
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#129As Richard Pryor once said "don't be messing wit dem Jews if you ain't got no money". Welcome to the world of people who give you praise and acolades but give you nothing in return. They are consumate smoke blowing up your ass thieves. Contract in hand and no matter what you should own all intelectual property rights. The reason they chose you was because they thought you would roll over for a belly rub and instead a…
Did you really ned to bring Jews into this?
Re: Dear Spike Lee
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Producers want to pay as little as possible, for obvious economic reasons. Freelancers want to be paid as much as possible, likewise. If you're not operating under a union or guild contract of some sort (and paying part of your income in dues for the privilege of outsourcing and standardizing your rates and working conditions), then it's up to you to make the best deal you can for your services, and and part of that…
No, I don't agree with that. It's a dog-eat-dog world if you make it. But world is so far and wide that you can bypass all that crap for the most part. I am not (well, trying not too when I'm zen enough, unlike now with all this ranting) taking up working with anyone who doesn't see our collaboration as pure win-win situation, and will provide me with more than I ask for, and I provide him with more than he bargained…
That's the ideal way to work, but it doesn't always pan out - and relationships with heightened expectations but no formalities often make for the worst conflicts if they go south.