31–40 of 105 posts
The credit thing seems like a red herring. Either you have the license to the photo or you don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who h…
"Theft" is the wrong word to use, because theft is fundamentally a different concept, and the use of that word draws a false equivalence. And I'm not arguing that copyright infringement is legitimate on the basis that "intellectual property is unjust" or anything like that; but there are explicit differences that must be taken into account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who h…
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The…
> Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
1.3 million followers, eh? Aaannd my headlines-from-1914 bot has 11 followers. tl;dr I suppose.
please post the links to the articles
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Theft plain and simple. Well, no, not plain and simple. At the worst, it's copyright infringement. You may think this is a pedantic correction, and from your point of view, maybe it is. But it isn't for people who see intellectual property as unjust.
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who h…
This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."
This: "The audiences that Di Petta and Cameron have built are created with the work of photographers who they don't pay or even credit . They don't provide sources for the photographs or the captions that accompany them. Sometimes they get stuff wrong and/or post copyrighted photographs. " Combined with this: "I'm sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives." Nothing 'new…
I can reverse-search for any picture on Google Images and, with extremely high accuracy, find a picture's origins.
If this is something we deem as problematic, why not solve it at the source by having the service (i.e. Twitter) identify the images that are posted and properly credit them?
That'd be a neat startup idea actually (and it probably already exists in some form?) A service to which you send a picture, and it returns to you its copyright information. You could market it by doing things like writing a Twitter bot (named "HistoryInPicsCredits" or something) that automatically tweets copyright information of images posted by HistoryInPics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it. Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The…
I'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly…
I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings.
But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important.
However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This trope is getting exceedingly tired, on par with the "taxation is theft", "atheism is a religion" and "Linux should be called GNU/Linux" brigades that often crop up in the appropriate discussions. Theft and "steal" have long been used outside of the OED definitions; I can be a "thief of time", "steal an idea", "steal a base" and so forth. "Theft" and "steal" are appropriate words for the behaviour of people who h…
> Otherwise, you're just an anarchist, burning the system down and denying any contribution to the people who have committed to a certain lifestyle on the guarantees currently provided by society. This is ridiculous. Believing that IP is unjust is not the same as "denying any contribution."