'My Works Are Like My Children'

from the maximalist-maxims dept

Fri, Mar 18th 2011 6:34pm — Nina Paley

This week Mimi & Eunice address two popular copyright maxims:

The works-are-like-children metaphor is very apt for art, but it's an absurd argument for copyright.

And here we are "depriving the owner of potential income." Mimi & Eunice comics are Free/libre/open source, so if anyone wants to make a Copyright Maximalist bingo/drinking game out of them, feel free.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: children, copyright, culture

110 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:10pm

More strawmen by Nina. Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:14pm
  
  Re:
  You're so bored that you got here between the time it was posted and the time I did.
  
  That's a win, Nina.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 4:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Really? She censored 4 posts within hours.
    
    She's a thin-skinned talentless hypocrite.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cc (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They were not censored, merely hidden. It wasn't Nina's doing, but the result of a voting process. See Slashdot's "-1 Troll" moderation as an analogue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Personally, I think the "voting" system regarding opinions on an open discussion is a terrible one. It encourages a lowest common denominator mind-set. Dissenting voices can be downvoted, implying an inherent wrongness to the perspective.
        
        As example, the first post on this thread may not have been phrased in a constrictive manner, but the argument that Nina is making a strawman argument has a good deal of validity. Rather than let it stand on it's own as a comment, an extra step has been added for people to be able to read it along with a badge of dismissal to potentially help guide the opinions of any readers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That individual was trolling. We have a small group of organised (?) trolls who constantly post personal attacks on other people, aiming to either irritate or hijack the discussion. For some reason they seem to be here around the clock.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 6:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That individual was trolling. We have a small group of organised (?) trolls
        TD definition of troll: any non-freetard.
        
        IOW, the majority of world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 6:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "freetard"
        
        QED.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        a small group of organised (?) trolls
        
        I love TD. One person who disagrees is a troll, but two must be an organized conspiracy!
        
        For the docs in the readership: is that more narcissistic or paranoid?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You must be new to the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Their was an unnecessary edge to the tone they used, I certainly agree with that. But I'm not sure I would call it trolling specifically. Like I stated earlier, I do agree that Nina is making a strawman argument here. Not really the worst offense when you consider that a comic strip is not a formal debate, but the person had a valid point.
        
        But really, I was just making a comment about the practice in general. A tangent, more than any criticism of any action taken by you or anyone else here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 1:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think one of the things Nina wants to accomplish with her comic strips is to highlight things and spark debate, and while you cant really argue with the results ... we could hope for the debate being at least a few inches out of the gutter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They aren't really hidden from anyone, so they aren't silenced or anything. I usually read them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous a-hole, 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re:
  I thought it was a comic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:58pm
  
  Re:
  Nina thinks she is being oh-so-clever, but really it's all just koolaid spewing. Preaching to the choir, and not even all that amusing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - cc (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Comment reported. Have a nice day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2011 @ 9:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hi douche. How are you tonight? You don't respect people's right to an opinion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2011 @ 10:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't you hear? Copyright holders shouldn't have rights. Only content junkies should have rights.
        
        Btw, who pays Nina Paley's bills? She certainly isn't making a living doing art.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unlike you, she's probably useful enough to have a trade.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 4:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny thing about that... Her fans actually buy her work even though they can enjoy it without paying for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That sounds sweet, but we still have no explanation for how she makes a living.
        
        It's easy to say money doesn't matter when you don't have to worry about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nina Paley (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/11/15/frequently-asked-questions/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That explained how you're still in the red from making your film. And those figures are a year old.
        
        How do you make a living? How are you able to live in New York City?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By devouring M Night Shyamalan films. Well, what little souls they have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Eikinkloster (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 9:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, someone can't deal with criticism. Somebody call the whaambulance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kyle clements (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:17pm

My artworks are like my children; it might be emotionally hard, but you have to sell them to pay the bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:34pm

"The works-are-like-children metaphor is very apt for art, but it's an absurd argument for copyright."

Nah, it applies to copyright just fine.

Maybe I'm not reading that quite right, but can one use "birth" as a transitive verb, as in "to birth children"? "To bear children" sounds more correct. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- magecat (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re:
  Birth can be used as a transitive verb. Dictionary.com says the usage is found mostly in the South Midland and Southern U.S.. It sounds a bit archaic to me, but I know I've heard it before.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - cc (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "found mostly in the South Midland and Southern U.S."
    
    Ah, I should have known. It's "candy floss" not "cotton candy" you insensitive clods!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Memyself, 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:25pm

So if Nina had children, she would have no problem with me taking pictures of them in ways she would not approve and distributing them to anyone anywhere?

One strawman for another.

The "my art is like my child" comes from the artists very real personal connection to the art they produce. Nina is not required to feel this connection. But that does not mean the connection does not exist. Belittling this claim by attaching it to the separate issue of economic incentive for the creation of art is typically disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:30pm
  
  Re:
  "So if Nina had children, she would have no problem with me taking pictures of them in ways she would not approve and distributing them to anyone anywhere?"
  
  You mean she'd "birth" them, but in this case you'd be the one to "bear" them, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2011 @ 11:23pm
  
  Re:
  Artists who feel that kind of connection to their own art should be examined by a shrink because it's pathological.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, it's pretty absurd that anyone would feel any kind of emotional connection to something that they labor over for an extended period that comes from a very personal place. Why should a writer feel any attachment to a story that draws heavily on their own childhood, or a painter feel any connection to a painting inspired by the untimely death of their parents, or a musician fell any sentiment towards a piece of music they wrote for their estranged spouse?
    
    It's absolute madness that anyone feel anything for something they personally create. Or as you say: a sickness. No one should feel anything. Art should simply be this detached thing that holds no personal value.
    
    That sounds just great.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sounds abnormal to me. Hey, if artists want to feel that their art is similar to the same thing an actual parent feels about their actual children, then once again, pathological.
      
      Yeah, some artists feel such a connection that they sell their "children" to others for money.
      
      That sounds like child abuse to me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem is that you're attempting to take an analogy literally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the problem is attempting to analogize a situation that requires no analogy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Analogies help us understand perspectives that we may lack the proper experience or perspective to share. Pretending that a situation requires no analogy serves only to diminish said attempt at communication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stop diminishing my children.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Manokaran K, 19 Mar 2011 @ 1:24am
  
  Re:
  But children outgrow their parents and want to take wings in 16 years!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 1:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    16 years is an eternity. We should roll back the term of parenthood to what it was in caveman times - maybe 4 years with a renewable term of 4 more. Cavemen created children and they didn't need any of these artifically government-created phenomena like "adolescence!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The notion that rolling copyright terms back to even 16 years is one that very much serves corporate interests. As it stands right now, artists who create independent art have legal recourse against corporate exploitation.
      
      To be clear: Let's say I write a book. It's successful within the publishing world, which means I make enough to pay rent for a month or two. A corporation decides the want to make a film out of it so they can make millions of dollars. As it stands now, they have to get my cooperation and permission. Remove the protection of copyright and they can just take my work, without my involvement and reap rewards that can generally only be attained with deep investment pockets.
      
      I absolutely believe that copyright requires reform. But this "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality is a backwards step. In terms of project development, 16 years is NOTHING. It is a blink of an eye. The idea of 4 years... you might as well wrap up the works of artists in a neat little bow and give the rights away to corporate interests for Christmas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "To be clear: Let's say I write a book. It's successful within the publishing world, which means I make enough to pay rent for a month or two. A corporation decides the want to make a film out of it so they can make millions of dollars. As it stands now, they have to get my cooperation and permission. Remove the protection of copyright and they can just take my work, without my involvement and reap rewards that can generally only be attained with deep investment pockets."
        
        Two things:
        
        1- More publicity to you;
        2- You can do the same thing to them;
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1: Speaking from experience, the publicity is not worth what you think it might be. It adds a bit, sure. But in exchange for a minor amount of publicity I should fuel corporate interests with my creations?
        
        2: I can make a multi-million dollar feature based off of something a corporation owns? I can create a multi-million dollar ad campaign? How?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can make a multi-million dollar feature based off of something a corporation owns? I can create a multi-million dollar ad campaign? How?
        
        No, but you can make the equivalent of a multi-million dollar feature for a lot less these days. Thanks to advances in computing and the magic of the Internet, you could make Jurassic Park or Transformers today for $1200 and two cases of beer. You can easily raise that much selling lunch dates to strangers. Advertising it is extremely easy since the Internet is a magic marketing machine. If you put something out there on the Internet and it doesn't basically market itself, it's because it sucks, and you deserve to be poor and homeless.
        
        Honestly, troll, try pulling your head out of the sand sometime. Nobody OWES you a living.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll tell you what, you make Jurassic Park or Transformers today for $1200 and two cases of beer and we'll talk. Because empty claims of what you could do are just that. Empty.
        
        As for advertising, your claim is equally empty. There are a great many voices clamoring for attention on the internet. Simply putting something out there and expecting it to succeed is foolish.
        
        And as to your absurd claim that successful things will succeed and if they don't, it's because they "suck": Welcome to the world of the lowest common denominator. That's what you will receive with that attitude. Crap often succeed while great works pass comparatively unnoticed. Laboring to create an even playing field between those with billions of dollars to spend and those with only hundreds is a worthwhile endeavor.
        
        "Honestly", You don't seem to understand what a "troll" is. It isn't simply someone forwarding a contrary point of view. And attempting to attach the argument of being "owed a living"? Pathetic. I'm arguing against allowing corporate exploitation via a complete deconstruction of copyright. If you're in favor of granting corporations an easier path towards exploiting artists, that's fine. Your priorities are clear, even if you seem blind to them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 2:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice try, Shilly von Trollendorf.
        
        The Internet has shown that if you just download a copy of Blender and the Dinosaurs expansion pack, movies like Jurassic Park practically make themselves.
        
        Spielberg makes, what, one movie a year? I make five or ten blog posts EVERY SINGLE DAY. And I don't need copyright to do it. If you are at all concerned with the true purpose of copyright, which is promoting the progress of science and useful arts, you will see that my superior productivity, accomplished with a distinct lack of copyright, is preferable.
        
        Eliminating copyright is the true way to establish equity between the rich and poor creators. After all, just because Michael Bay made Transformers, why should he get to reap all the positive externalities? If you can market the movie better than he can, you should profit. This is more efficient for everyone. Ultimately, it's execution--not ideas--that matter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 3:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then make a Jurassic Park. With the same level of market penetration that the original had. Stop SAYING that anyone can do it, Just prove it.
        
        Blog posts do not equal mainstream films. False analogy.
        
        Eliminating copyright simply puts more power in the hands of the wealthy. Those with deeper pockets can oversaturate the market and dominate those with little money to invest.
        
        Without ideas, execution is meaningless. Regardless, as stated above, those with more money will generally execute a more successful marketing campaign.
        
        I'm sorry, but you still do not know what a "troll" is, and you very clearly do not know what a "shill" is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If shorter (or no) copyright terms would be a boon to corporate interests, why do they always want more of it instead of less?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They would be a boon to corporations in the sense that they could exploit the creative works of artists without credit or compensation or permission. They would hurt corporate interests in other, significant, ways.
        
        Just because one aspect is good for corporations doesn't mean that all aspects are. I have already stated that I believe copyright needs reform, but not in such a way that it allows those with deep resources the ability to exploit the works of individual artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Interesting. Would you object to a system where the rules for non-commercial copying are relaxed, but commercial actors are still bound by law to answer to rights-holders?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I understand correctly, no I would not object.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 6:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I mean, things like file-sharing and streaming are left alone (so no dangerous and draconian enforcement laws are needed), but creators still hold a monopoly on how their work is used commercially (for a reasonable duration).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More or less, yes. I'm not a fan of file-sharing when it involves circumventing an asked for price that is within acceptable norms. But I'm also not automatically in favor of punitive measures against those who choose to engage in such practices. People who monetize infringement, such as selling bootlegs in the street or monetizing pirate sites through advertisement, I feel less charitable towards.
        
        To clarify: I am a believer in legally available free content. I have worked within my industry (publishing) for a decade trying to get people on board with adapting to the newer business models. Even five years ago, the idea that digital content would replace printed content would get me laughed out of a room. Now, not so much.
        
        But though I believe that this is a model that must be adopted out of necessity, I am firmly (on a personal level) against piracy. I agree with what Justice Breyer stated once: That unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than is garden variety theft.
        
        Anyway: The biggest offense to me is the one I outlined earlier. When corporations appropriate for commercial use. I may dislike personal violations, but the fact is, they pale in comparison to what corporations might do unchecked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not a fan of file-sharing when it involves circumventing an asked for price that is within acceptable norms. But I'm also not automatically in favor of punitive measures against those who choose to engage in such practices. People who monetize infringement, such as selling bootlegs in the street or monetizing pirate sites through advertisement, I feel less charitable towards.
        
        I'm not a copyright abolitionist either, and I agree with this sentiment... more or less.
        
        I would not lump in people who are "monetizing pirate sites through advertisement" with people who are selling bootlegs in the street. There's often no difference between a "pirate site" and a "fan site," and more than one person has claimed Google is a "pirate site" as well. Plus, even sites that are fundamentally non-commercial (like a guy writing a blog about music) have advertising on them.
        
        I release some of my music through a CC license, and the license is not particularly clear on this distinction. So, I clarified my own definition of "commercial use" on my website:
        http://www.khznoise.com/karlheinz/content/what-constitutes-commercial-use
        
        There's also a very real question of whether copyright prevents your scenario in any case. The answer, unfortunately, is usually "no." Copyright is essentially a publishing right, which means the power ends up being centralized in the hands of the publishers. When the number of publishers is small, and they act as a cabal rather than competition, it essentially reduces the power of the artist to almost nothing. See e.g. the music industry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 12:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There's often no difference between a "pirate site" and a "fan site"
        
        I disagree. Many fan sites exist quite fine without advertising or the inclusion of materials protected by copyright. Most blogs have little to do with piracy in any active way. Discussion about music can be held on any forum without direct access to the music, and advertising is a choice made on many websites designed for individual use. I pay a small fee to keep my blogs advertising free. It can be done.
        
        There is a line of course. I'm clearly not talking about someone's blog that happens to have an embedded bit of music or video and that happens to have advertising that brings in a dollar or two. I'm talking about crafting a website for the sole purpose of the distribution of pirated materials with clear monetization of heavy adverting.
        
        To be clear: No one would mistake thepiratebayay for a fansite, and it's unlikely anyone would mistake the average blog for a warez site.
        
        Personally, I think freely sharing something with a friend is one thing. Drawing traffic to your site with the intellectual works of others while taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars without offering any form of compensation is morally bankrupt.
        
        "The answer, unfortunately, is usually "no."
        
        Not by my experience. As we have discussed before, I have had my work appropriated by corporations and the protection offered by copyright gave me an avenue stop unauthorized corporate exploitation of my work. Amongst my peers, I can think of at least one comparable instance.
        
        I will concede that it may not be a scenario that comes up often. But it DOES come up, and it is an aspect of copyright protection that should be considered whenever reform is discussed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Many fan sites exist quite fine without advertising or the inclusion of materials protected by copyright. Most blogs have little to do with piracy in any active way.
        
        Most of the music blogs I've seen are hosted on sites like Blogger, Wordpress, or LiveJournal. These give you a free website, in exchange for hosting ads on the site. (Years ago, it was Angelfire or Geocities.) So, advertisements are more likely on fan blogs than on "pro" music sites.
        
        The blogs are typically posts about a specific album, reviewing it and giving the history of the band or whatever, and include a link to a file locker with the album itself. Blogs like this are the most common fan blog on the internet. Are all of them "pirate sites?"
        
        I'm talking about crafting a website for the sole purpose of the distribution of pirated materials with clear monetization of heavy adverting.
        
        You'd be surprised how little this actually happens. For example, Peter Sunde claims the Pirate Bay actually operates at a loss. I find this believable; in general, internet ad revenue simply doesn't bring in very much money to websites. All of the file locker sites, for example, make their money by "upselling" customers on greater download speeds and so forth.
        
        And it would be a real stretch to claim that sites like Rapidshare or Megaupload have the "sole purpose of the distribution of pirated materials." They sell a service to users; what those users do with that service is up to them.
        
        it's unlikely anyone would mistake the average blog for a warez site.
        
        From what I understand, dajaz1 was the kind of site I described above. Their domain was siezed, ex parte, for criminal copyright infringement. That "mistake" has already been made.
        
        I will concede that it may not be a scenario that comes up often. But it DOES come up, and it is an aspect of copyright protection that should be considered whenever reform is discussed.
        
        I agree completely that it should be considered. The question is whether copyright law, as written, helps or hinders artistic production. Frankly, I've seen more harm than good.
        
        Two examples. First, I have a bunch of friends who do music in the indusrial genre. They sometimes include very short samples from documentaries, news reports, or what have you; a few include short samples of other types of music (e.g. classical). Recently, an underground label tried to get one of their records pressed at United Record Pressing. They went through the whole process, got master plates made, paid the deposit - and URP refused to press the record because of the samples. (Also refused to return the deposit or the master plates.)
        
        Now, these samples were transformative, a very minor part of the overall work, and couldn't possibly affect the market for the original. So, they were almost certainly fair use, and legal. Does URP care? Nope. They're afraid of getting sued, so they go above and beyond what copyright law actually allows. It's a classic chilling effect.
        
        Another example: the Timbaland/Suni case, where Timbaland copied the entire song "Acidjazz Evening" without permission or credit, added a drum beat and Nelly's vocals, and released it on a major label. He had earlier released the song, verbatim, as a ring tone. Suni sued, but two courts in Europe dismissed the cases entirely. (Suni is suing in Florida as well, but the case hasn't started.) This isn't the first time Timbaland did this, either, but he has yet to be found guilty of copyright infringement at all.
        
        The effects of copyright law seem pretty clear. It's infringement if the public "steals" from a major label; but if a major label "steals" from an artist, it's perfectly OK. Combine that with the uneven costs of litigation, and you have a one-sided law that benefits labels, but not the artists they rip off.
        
        If your experience is different, then more power to you. But whether the trade-off is worth it, is not something that can be easily brushed aside.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By the way: If you want to see how bad the Timbaland/Nelly version actually is, here's a link to a YouTube video with a side-by-side comparison:
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEijimuzr8
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 10:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Most of the music blogs I've seen are hosted on sites like Blogger, Wordpress, or LiveJournal. These give you a free website, in exchange for hosting ads on the site. (Years ago, it was Angelfire or Geocities.) So, advertisements are more likely on fan blogs than on "pro" music sites."
        
        One: We're not just talking about music. Books, movies, TV shows, comics, games, ect... Just to make sure we're on the same page. Many fan sites or blogs are not structured the way you describe. Frankly, there is little reason for a music blog to contain a link to a pirated copy of the music.
        
        Two: Most (if not all) of those sites have a "no ads" option. I use them. Anyone can.
        
        "Blogs like this are the most common fan blog on the internet. Are all of them "pirate sites?""
        
        They're not the most common fan blog. Many fan blogs for non-music type works do not contain pirated material or links to pirated material. Many of the larger discussion boards will work with guidelines to avoid infringement.
        
        Again, we're talking about all art forms here. Not just music.
        
        Also: I think I already made it clear my opinion between a blog and a typical pirate site.
        
        "You'd be surprised how little this actually happens. For example, Peter Sunde claims the Pirate Bay actually operates at a loss. I find this believable; in general, internet ad revenue simply doesn't bring in very much money to websites. All of the file locker sites, for example, make their money by "upselling" customers on greater download speeds and so forth."
        
        I find this unlikely.
        
        "I agree completely that it should be considered. The question is whether copyright law, as written, helps or hinders artistic production. Frankly, I've seen more harm than good."
        
        I've stated repeatedly that copyright requires reform. I'm simply pointing out a benefit of longer copyright terms. These benefits do not exist in a vacuum and I think it goes without saying that I would favor reform that protect even further against corporate exploitation of independent artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 11:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        I've stated repeatedly that copyright requires reform. I'm simply pointing out a benefit of longer copyright terms. These benefits do not exist in a vacuum and I think it goes without saying that I would favor reform that protect even further against corporate exploitation of independent artists.
        
        The best protection against corporate exploitation is light and not ridiculous laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        One: We're not just talking about music.
        
        Fair point, but most of the fan sites of, say, TV shows work pretty much the same way. I often check out one such site dedicated to the new Doctor Who. They update daily, with various miscellanea - ongoing news items, old articles, fan-made jigsaw puzzles, the author's latest Who-related flea market finds, etc. And, every time an episode airs on BBC, there's usually a link to a stream of the episode (put up by someone else), often followed by download links (also put up by someone else). After a lengthy review of the episode, of course.
        
        This is absolutely typical of most fan blogs. Apparently, it's also typical of a site that ICE wants to shut down for criminal infringement.
        
        Two: Most (if not all) of those sites have a "no ads" option. I use them. Anyone can.
        
        But they cost money, so the less commercial a fan site is, the less likely they'll use that option. That was the point, really. Most fan sites do not, in fact, pay extra for the removal of ads.
        
        They're not the most common fan blog.
        
        That has not been my experience at all. Unless you count "official fan sites," but those are far outnumbered by blogs run by individual fans, most of which are what I described.
        
        Frankly, there is little reason for a music blog to contain a link to a pirated copy of the music.
        
        There is no reason for a music blog to do anything. That's part of the point I'm making. What makes a person a "fan" is the fact that they are passionate about something, and want to share that passion. From a (cynical) marketing standpoint, the desire to share is actually more valuable than the passion itself. It's what turns passive consumers into active street teams.
        
        So of course they're going to share a pirated copy of the music. They're going to share everything they're passionate about. That's what makes them fans.
        
        Also: I think I already made it clear my opinion between a blog and a typical pirate site.
        
        I'm not quite sure you did, which is why we're still talking.
        
        I find this unlikely.
        
        The lack of ad revenue on the internet was part of what caused the "dot-com bust." I've personally looked into what I would get if I put ads on my websites (past and present). It's pitiful. Thousands of page views will net you, say, twenty cents - if the ad reseller even pays for page views at all. Most pay you for "clickthroughs," which is where a user actually clicks on an advertisement. A thousand page views will probably net you ten or fifteen clickthroughs. Those net you a fraction of a penny per clickthrough.
        
        I've stated repeatedly that copyright requires reform. I'm simply pointing out a benefit of longer copyright terms.
        
        Whoa, hold on. You think making copyright terms longer would help artists? That's simply nonsensical. Artists already have copyright protection long after they're dead, and can no longer be exploited.
        
        I think we may have a different understanding of what it means to exploit artists. Whether companies (or anyone else) exploit artists' works is immaterial, as long as the artists themselves aren't exploited.
        
        As long as we disagree on this point, we're going to have a fundamental difference about how copyright laws should be reformed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Whoa, hold on. You think making copyright terms longer would help artists?"
        
        You're losing the context. "Longer" is in terms to the original statement that sparked my involvement in this discussion. Which was a declaration that terms should be set at 4 years, if not at zero.
        
        "I'm not quite sure you did, which is why we're still talking."
        
        As I already said in response to you "To be clear: No one would mistake thepiratebayay for a fansite, and it's unlikely anyone would mistake the average blog for a warez site."
        
        "This is absolutely typical of most fan blogs."
        
        Not in my experience. I assume we will simply have to disagree on this point.
        
        "Most fan sites do not, in fact, pay extra for the removal of ads."
        
        And I'm saying that if a site is going to engage in re-distribution of protected works, the site owner should bite the bullet and pay a marginal fee so that they are not collecting ad revenue based on traffic garned by pirated material. Remember, this is my personal opinion about what is "right" that you have been challenging. Not my argument about what is or should be legal and not my argument regarding what is practical.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 11:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're losing the context. "Longer" is in terms to the original statement that sparked my involvement in this discussion. Which was a declaration that terms should be set at 4 years, if not at zero.
        
        Ah, OK then. I have no problem with this. Four years is about the length recommended by the FSF for software, and I don't have a problem with it being longer for artistic (i.e. not-primarily-functional) works. (Even the FSF recognizes this distinction.)
        
        Unless you're a copyright abolitionist, zero is simply not an option. On the other hand, life + 90 years is also not an option.
        
        As I already said in response to you "To be clear: No one would mistake thepiratebayay for a fansite, and it's unlikely anyone would mistake the average blog for a warez site."
        
        OK, you did say that. Unfortunately, law enforcement has mad that exact mistake. We should therefore try to quantify why that is a mistake, so it's not made again. That is actually more difficult than it sounds, and I'll be the first to admit it. (Okay, I'm not the first, but I don't want to admit that for fear of getting sued for "stealing" the idea.)
        
        Not in my experience. I assume we will simply have to disagree on this point.
        
        I think a big part of it is whether the "fan sites" are dedicated to major media. These sort of fan sites are far more prevalent with non-mainstream media of all stripes. Which, naturally, makes me hesitant to attack them. I personally benefit from these "pirate" fan sites sharing my material, without having to do anything whatsoever. I absolutely do not want to see anyone shut them down, or even restrict them in any way. These types of sites are friends to underground musicians like me, and I want to defend them at any cost. That's my take on the whole thing.
        
        the site owner should bite the bullet and pay a marginal fee so that they are not collecting ad revenue based on traffic garned by pirated material.
        
        Lots of these sites are from sixteen-year-old kids blogging from their bedrooms. They don't have a "marginal fee" to their names. Even if they do bite that bullet, they won't be the ones gathering that ad revenue.
        
        And, again, I've personally seen the numbers, and any claims of "ad revenue based on traffic garned [sic] by pirated material" are a load of hogwash. Nobody - not even The Pirate Bay - is in it for the money. You can earn twice as much money selling pot to high school students out of the trunk of your uncle's Trans Am. They're all in it for other reasons - usually because of their passion for music (or TV or whatever); or, in The Pirate Bay's case, because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 1:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This post is hilarious. It proves the only thing that really matters to these zeros is trying to get someone else to back them on stealing content.
        
        "wait what, you might try to stop the cops from taking down my pirate sites? oh, you're ok then." LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        STFU. I'm not a pirate, I've stated that many times already. My only interest is in preserving the civil rights the anti-pirates are so bent on destroying, even if that means I have to side with the pirates a lot of the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I feel the same way, except that I am interested in preserving the civil rights that pirates destroy. There is a line somewhere inbetween that would be nice to either discover or create.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't personally consider monopolies on ideas to be a right, but at the same time I can understand why rights holders are afraid to lose those privileges.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Personally I don't understand why you feel entitled to the benefits of the output of any of the work you do, when society both enables and needs it in vastly different proportions than you allocate it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not entitlement, it's economics. If the product of my work is scarce, then my work can have a non-zero price -- which of course is not determined by me, but by competition in the market.
        
        Copies of files are not scarce, and their price is zero. It *is* entitlement to expect people to pay high prices for copies of files.
        
        However, scarcity does exist in content *creation*, and I'm all for finding new ways of funding creators without needing insane laws to keep up the old pay-per-copy business model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because legally speaking, I AM entitled to the fruits of my labor. And I produced my work under that set of conditions. Making alterations retroactively is never acceptable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You framed this as a matter of "civil rights". The fact is, copyright is a civil right that has been granted legally. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, my right to disseminate my work as I see fit (to a point) is a a legal fact. I can certainly understand a desire to see those rights altered, and I absolutely believe in copyright reform, but a desire to see change transpire or a personal belief that those laws are unjust does not change existing laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 11:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First copyright is not a civil right, second copyright infringes on the natural order and rights of every individual inside any society.
        
        Copyrights to maintained demand that people respect those absurd rights inside their homes which is not going to happen, you can enforce something in public places but inside the homes of every citizen? that is not going to happen, also nobody respect a law that deprives them of their own rights, copyright is akin to claiming possession of the river water and negating that water downstream to others it ain't happening because people will just ignore it, those are not rights, those are insane demands from insane people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That right there is the hedonism in work and that is why you along with big corporate interests will suffer you are not willing to deal with the hard facts of life and are trying to exert control over something you have none and not even hope to ever get to that point unless of course you like window dressing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really don't seem to understand the nuances of this discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eikinkloster (profile), 19 Mar 2011 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Without copyrights the corporations wouldn't just be able to make millions on top of artist's work because people wouldn't just buy the corporate product: they would copy it freely.
        
        So, at some point society, corporations and artists would manage to strike a deal in which all could win, even if not in the same way they win today.
        
        One way is: the artist creates the story, the corporation makes the movie, the movie is very popular... now the corporation needs to pay deep money to the artist so the artist creates a sequel... and the consumers need to pay deep money to the corporation so the corporation creates the sequel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Without copyrights the corporations wouldn't just be able to make millions on top of artist's work because people wouldn't just buy the corporate product: they would copy it freely."
        
        Isn't a common argument on this blog the fact that one can monetize free content? Why can't corporations make money in this scenario? It seems to me that they already do.
        
        As before: If I write a book and a corporation spends millions developing into a feature film without permission... Yeah, they may not get much from the film itself. But only a small percentage of film revenue comes from viewers. They merchandising aspect is huge, and piracy does little to stop that cash flow.
        
        As for the rest: No offense meant, but this does not seem to be a scenario you have much direct experience with. The corporation won't likely hire the artist to create a sequel. They'll hire someone else. That's the way it often goes, which is why a common contract clause is "first right of refusal".
        
        You might be more optimistic that I (which is not always a bad thing), but I prefer not to presume on the fair play of corporations. Their track record to date is not so wonderful
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.wreckamovie.com/ Some great movies already came out from there.
        
        Quote:
        
        Eliminating copyright simply puts more power in the hands of the wealthy. Those with deeper pockets can oversaturate the market and dominate those with little money to invest.
        
        Hmmm...that is why they are so scared of the free competition?
        
        Yes they could do it to you, but you can now also do it to them, just an example Sick Of Sarah is a collaboration with Bittorrent Inc. they beat every measure stick there is out there giving their songs for free, those punk girls are going places and no million dollar campaign was necessary.
        
        About ideas and execution well, we are not at risk of idea shortages in a free market every idiot has a great idea but it takes a special kind of idiot to do it right.
        
        People trying to criminalize sharing of things are just crazy, greedy trolls that lost their souls and forgot from where they came from.
        
        Why I love open source:
        http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/press/re-branding-blender/
        
        Quote:
        
        With the success of blender.org projects, and publishing all the exciting Blender releases, we're now being challenged by third parties who like to ride the waves and do business with Blender.
        
        There's nothing wrong with that. In its very nature, GNU GPL is about freedom, the freedom not only to use and modify the sources, but also to distribute and resell our releases under another brand name.
        
        Recently we received several concerned emails and forum postings from people who were worried about Blender resellers using especially Ebay to sell Blender.
        .
        .
        .
        Rebranding and re-distributing GNU GPL software is a key right. This doesn't give the right to then also rebrand the credits, claims and artwork as created with Blender.
        .
        .
        .
        But what can we do? Not much really... lawyers will be a waste of money on this. Best is as usual to just publicize this well. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" as a U.S. Supreme Court judge once said.
        
        Ton Roosendaal
        Chairman Blender Foundation
        
        They know others will compete with you, the best managers get chosen by their competence in the job and not some "abstract right" to something they think they have ownership.
        
        Right there you have a open project that competed with the likes of Maya, Modo, 3D Max and so on and it is now in every big CG/FX out there, it is true that no much big movies were made as of yet, but there are a few that made it big like the zombie one that cost $20 bucks, the many short movies on the internet that even being free get people hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the creators not to mention that in the days of hyper-information you can't just claim you did something, if people ever find out you didn't your business is over.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it is true that no much big movies were made as of yet
        
        Not true. Blender was used in the Spider-Man 2 movie. Mostly for pre-production, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is why I said "not much" instead of "any", but maybe my intention was not clear so I will try again.
        
        It is true that not many big movies have been made as of yet, but that will change in the future, just as changed in the software, book and music markets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FuzzyDuck, 20 Mar 2011 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are assuming they could copy from you, but you not from them. It either cuts both ways or it doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I already addressed this. "Cutting both ways" means absolutely zero as one side has infinitely deeper pockets than the other. Regardless, you're basically saying that I shouldn't worry about my ideas being exploited for vast commercial gain without my permission and without compensation because I can copy ideas from corporations?
        
        Why in the hell would I be comforted by being able to utilize ideas created by another party? I'm an artist, not a corporate entity. I don't particularly see the point in copying someone else's work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure why not, why should you care if others make money out of your work?
        
        What you should care about is how do you make money out of your own work and not that others can make it and you cannot, we don't live in the 80's anymore today you can compete with big companies, they don't have the advantage of exclusive distribution channels and the internet practically made the million dollar promotions a thing of the past, you don't need that to be recognized and get paid anymore, now if you don't want anybody to make money ever from you don't do anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 10:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why should others make themselves rich off of my labors? Why should corporations be allowed to exploit artists without permission or compensation? You may be comfortable putting that kind of oppressive power into the hands of corporate interests. I am not.
        
        As for the idea that the internet made the million dollar promotions a thing of the past: You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 11:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why should anybody have less rights than you?
        Why should anybody not be able to enrich themselves off of the labor of others?
        
        Do you not get benefits from the labor of others inside society, have you never used somebody else work without compensation?
        
        I doubt it, you are not capable of paying for everything you use or even knowing that you are benefiting from somebody else works.
        
        I don't care if somebody gets rich using my work, what I do care is having my space respected and being able to make money by myself I don't care how much others make why should I?
        
        Why should you?
        
        Now if somebody ask me to work for them I expect to be paid, if somebody took my work and made money good for them, I will look at it and see what was that they did that was right and will copy it and make my own money.
        
        Are you a cripple? are you dumber? are you afraid?
        
        Besides monopoly only benefits big corporations that have the finances to go after others it really hurts everybody else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        As for the idea that the internet made the million dollar promotions a thing of the past: You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
        
        I 3 words "Sick Of Sarah", they are being pirated(shared) more then the illegal songs and they put it there.
        
        Internet memes transform nobodies into celebrities.
        
        Those things cost anything?
        
        Well maybe not for the recording industry as they are trying hard to destroy the crowd-sourcing promotion that exists LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Irrelevant. Just because something can potentially be advertised at a low (or zero) cost does not equal the end of million dollar advertising campaigns. The ability for a solid word of mouth campaign has existed for a very long time, but the million dollar campaigns remain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What it does mean however is that there is a real way to do the same thing for little or no money and it is efficient, of course a million bucks spent on promotion may not hurt either but it is not needed as much, it is not fundamental anymore and if you didn't figure that out yet I am afraid that the one that doesn't get it, is not me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There have always been alternatives to million dollar campaigns. The internet did may have created new, easier to use approaches, but it did not reinvent this particular wheel.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  So if Nina had children, she would have no problem with me taking pictures of them in ways she would not approve and distributing them to anyone anywhere?
  
  Say my kid is in college, and gets so drunk that he passes out in the gutter. Some guy takes a picture of him and posts it online. If I saw that, the person I would be angry with is not the guy who took the picture.
  
  But I'm never having kids, so what do I know.
  
  One strawman for another.
  
  That's not what strawman means. No wonder you use it so often, and so wrongly.
  
  The "my art is like my child" comes from the artists very real personal connection to the art they produce. Nina is not required to feel this connection.
  
  It is because Nina feels this connection that she believes what she does. Well, that and her notion of "fairness."
  
  Belittling this claim by attaching it to the separate issue of economic incentive for the creation of art is typically disingenuous.
  
  Congratulations, you just got her point!
  
  Copyright's sole purpose is granting an "economic incentive for the creation of art."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Say my kid is in college, and gets so drunk that he passes out in the gutter. Some guy takes a picture of him and posts it online. If I saw that, the person I would be angry with is not the guy who took the picture."
    
    Say your kid is five and you're a devout atheist and I use images I took of your child to promote religious beliefs you find abhorrent? Who do you blame then?
    
    "No wonder you use it so often, and so wrongly."
    
    Strawman: To attack a counterfeit position not being argued by the opponent as if it were being held by the opponent. Refuting said false argument (usually easier to do than attack the legitimate argument) and declaring that some form of victory, without having ever really addressed the actual argument being advanced.
    
    I'm attaching a wholly false analogy to Nina's argument. A scenario that involves aspects of piracy that she has not declared support for and passive aggressively declaring victory through sarcasm without ever really addressing her argument.
    
    Nina's initial strawman was similarly constructed. The "My works are like my children" argument and the economic incentive for producing art are often two arguments made separately. Using one to sarcastically undermine the other is a strawman.
    
    If you're going to try and insult me on what terms I supposedly use properly or improperly, maybe you should understand the nuances of the terms yourself.
    
    "It is because Nina feels this connection that she believes what she does."
    
    There is nothing in the argument she has advanced in her strips to support what you claim.
    
    "Congratulations, you just got her point!"
    
    Except that she is the one making the connection. Suggesting by doing so that the "my works are like my children" has zero value because supposedly it goes hand in hand with the economic incentive argument. These are legitimate but separate arguments. One emotional and one legal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quote:
      
      Nina's initial strawman was similarly constructed. The "My works are like my children" argument and the economic incentive for producing art are often two arguments made separately. Using one to sarcastically undermine the other is a strawman.
      
      That strawman is not from Nina, it is from the artists who defend copyright claiming their work is like their children she just used it to show how ridiculous their position is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 20 Mar 2011 @ 10:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then show me someone (actually, many "someones" if it is meant to be a common combination) making both arguments and attaching them to each other in that manner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2011 @ 11:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you claiming no one said that to defend copyrights?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm claiming that I have never seen those two concepts directly wedded before as a standard defense for copyright. The argument that artists feel an emotional connection to their work that is analogous to parental? Yes? The argument that a particular artists needs economic incentives to create? Yes. The two juxtaposed by one voice as a standard defense? No. If it's so common, show me examples.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 11:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Say your kid is five and you're a devout atheist and I use images I took of your child to promote religious beliefs you find abhorrent? Who do you blame then?
      
      Seems like a fantastic opportunity for you to turn around and call much more attention to your beliefs as an athiest, no? In other words, were that to happen, it presents you with an opportunity, while taking absolutely nothing away from you.
      
      So what's the complaint again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 1:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because an opportunity presents itself does not mean you need to excuse improper behavior. As for your argument that "nothing is taken away"? Pointless. Nothing tangible is taken away from women whose pictures are surreptitiously taken in changing rooms yet the act of taking the pictures is still offensive.
        
        Yes, make the most of the situation. I have never argued against this philosophy, as you well know. But don't pretend that opportunity makes everything okay, and don't pretend that nothing valuable is lost to an individual simply because you cannot relate to the personal importance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because an opportunity presents itself does not mean you need to excuse improper behavior. As for your argument that "nothing is taken away"? Pointless. Nothing tangible is taken away from women whose pictures are surreptitiously taken in changing rooms yet the act of taking the pictures is still offensive.
        
        I didn't say nothing tangible. I said nothing was taken away. In the scenario you describe here, privacy is clearly taken away.
        
        Yes, make the most of the situation. I have never argued against this philosophy, as you well know. But don't pretend that opportunity makes everything okay, and don't pretend that nothing valuable is lost to an individual simply because you cannot relate to the personal importance
        
        I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here? What do you mean I cannot relate to the personal importance? Is that some sort of insult?
        
        Either way, I'd argue that opportunity does make everything okay. If you are creating bigger and bigger opportunities, then the only worry is if you don't take advantage of those opportunities. But the only blame that can be placed in such situations is on those who fail to take advantage. You, however, seem to wish to blame those who provide you the opportunity. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Perhaps I'm missing something in what you're saying, but it seems senseless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know you didn't specify "tangible". I did. And if you recognize the loss of an intangible quality in the second scenario why did you ignore it in the first scenario?
        
        "Is that some sort of insult?"
        
        Why would you think that? It's a pretty standard approach to use general terms in a dialog and I'm simply granting the fact that the offense in question might not be instantly apparent to you. I'm not sure what in that sentence could be considered insulting.
        
        Fact is that we all have boundaries that others might not find instantly recognizable. That does not mean the boundaries are not valid. Taking pictures of girls changing clothes surreptitiously, publishing photos of a child in a scenario the parents fight repugnant and appropriating the artwork of an artist without permission all fall into this category.
        
        "Either way, I'd argue that opportunity does make everything okay."
        
        If I blind you, you have a wonderful opportunity to learn how to read braille. If I total your car, you have a wonderful opportunity to get more exercise. If I steal naked photos of your wife and post them online, she has a wonderful opportunity to become a porn star.
        
        I applaud your "look on the bright side" mentality, but the reality is that:
        
        One: Opportunity itself does not eliminate an offense.
        
        Two: You're acting under the idea that opportunity is a desired result. That wider exposure is always desirable to any artist and that exploitation of art is acceptable if it creates opportunities. Over the years of working with artists, I have met many artists who do not want wider distribution and do not want their works monetized by corporations whose interests the artists abhor supporting.
        
        So yes, I will blame someone who thinks they should have a right to decide for me how my art should be distributed. I might take advantage of the opportunity provide, assuming it doesn't work at cross purposes to my beliefs or interests. But opportunity itself does not remove the offense from an offensive act. If it did, alot of women targeted in up-skirt videos would have already happily become porn stars, grateful to the man with the camera on his shoe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Mar 2011 @ 4:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok. I really don't know how to respond to this. You have an emotional attachment to your works. Ok.
        
        No offense: but too bad. Copyright has nothing to do with emotion. Get over it.
        
        But since you're focusing on emotion, then logic is pointless here, and I'll cede the debate to you. You're right. Some people, such as yourself, can't let go of the irrational attachment you have to how your works are used. What do you want me to say? I recognize that people do that. I have that initial reaction myself. But I recognize that it's silly and get past it and focus on the opportunity. I'm better off with NO loss. All of your counter examples involve actual losses. That's my problem with your scenarios, but you're arguing emotionally, and that's a silly game to play.
        
        So, you win. People get emotional and irrational. Big whoop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 21 Mar 2011 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Copyright has nothing to do with emotion. Get over it."
        
        That's my point. Nina is combining the emotional argument and the legal argument in her strip. The two can (and do) exists separately. Last I checked, it is actually possible to discuss one without the other, and I rarely (if ever) see the two arguments combined as Nina has done with her strawman comic strip.
        
        "So, you win. People get emotional and irrational. Big whoop."
        
        You can dismiss the emotional attachment as "silly" and "irrational" all you like. But just because this is an aspect you do not appear to respect does not make it any less important. As I previously stated, we all have boundaries that others might not find instantly recognizable. That does not mean the boundaries are not valid.
        
        You say that the examples all have "actual" losses, and seem to imply that copyright violation does not. You're wrong, of course. If pictures taken of a woman changing clothes without permission includes a measurable and respectable loss, than so can the appropriation of ones art.
        
        Even in your "concession", you manage a passive aggressive attack. It's "silly" and "emotional" and "irrational". "Big whoop".
        
        We can just as easily apply that to the nude picture scenario. The offended party is better off with no loss. Silly and irrational to worry about. An emotional reaction. Big whoop.
        
        "Some people, such as yourself, can't let go of the irrational attachment you have to how your works are used."
        
        And your intent to make this discussion of reactions personal is noted. Noted and dismissed as misguided. I have repeatedly stated that I do not allow my personal opinions on this matter to affect my approach to creating new opportunities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 12:07am

Mimi & Eunice comics are Free/libre/open source, so

It's just not the same without the acronym.
...How about "Free/Libre/Open Source Stuff"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  How about FLOSC?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 1:16am

I would point out that birth rates (and population) are declining in developed countries, largely because conditions there are disincentivizing the creation of new humans. Since people there no longer have such exclusive rights to their children's work output and support in later life (due to cultural changes), they no longer have such an incentive to make new people. Since people in developed countries no longer need children to support their more basic needs (food, shelter, security) they are finding that they have other, less costly options to achieve high-order needs like self-actualization.

Now, in an ordinary forum, one might speculate that this trend is significant and might have some potential negative consequences for developed countries.

However, I would not want to make such a suggestion here. I would simply be called a shill, a troll, and a "birth maximalist." It's not the lack of exclusive control that is disincentivizing births - it's excessive government regulation. Others will jump down my throat to point out that overall birth rates are as strong as ever and population is growing across the world. Mike will drop in to post, in italics, that more humans are being created today than ever before in history, and that the government regulation hypothesis is supported by three studies (one from Sweden, one from a high school student in Lithuania, and one using a simulation in Microsoft Excel) that conclusively prove this assertion. All assertions to the contrary have been thoroughly debunked many times over.

I would then be reminded that IF developed countries have low birth rates, it is only because of their own failures. If they would only use strategies centered around a simple mantra: CwF+RtB (Create warm Fetuses + Reason to Birth) then they could be wild successes, raising their birth rates to that of a very-slightly-underdeveloped country.

The point is, there is nothing to worry about, because the future is coming, and only good things ever happen in the future. The only obstacles to an utter utopia spontaneously arising out of the emergent behavior of these billions of humans are lawyers, legislators, and lobbyists.

And corporate personhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 4:38am
  
  Re:
  LMFAO! Well played! My favorite post on techdirt ever! :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Freak, 19 Mar 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  I have to admit, I LoL'ed.
  
  If there is a serious position here, though, I don't agree with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  Very well done (even tough I do not completely agree)!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 5:23pm
  
  Re:
  That is funny, well on a serious note though, I would argue that the low birthrate in developed countries is due to the hedonism created inside those societies in the same manner that is why copyrights will hurt creators it takes away the hard experiences needed to survive in a competitive environment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 Mar 2011 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  See, THIS is how you troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2011 @ 9:27am

LOL
lol dis is so funny omg rofl lmao 4 teh winnzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 21 Mar 2011 @ 6:23am

To be fair, the folks who argue "my works are like my children" in support of copyright are generally using the "artists' moral rights" as the justification for copyright, and could care less about the "incentivize creation" justification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Memyself, 22 Mar 2011 @ 1:46am

"On the other hand, life + 90 years is also not an option."

I absolutely agree. I think that the endless copyright extensions that have been granted are an offense.

"We should therefore try to quantify why that is a mistake, so it's not made again."

A fair point. In my personal opinion, a blog that direct users to an occasional album or book or TV series along with running commentary or reviews is visibly not the same thing as something like the TPB. I disagree with the practice involved in said blogs, but I don't believe in punitive measures against them... even if they include ads.

"They don't have a "marginal fee" to their names. Even if they do bite that bullet, they won't be the ones gathering that ad revenue.

I disagree. Most teenagers with a dedicated internet connection and the time to blog have the resources for the marginal fee involved.

"Nobody - not even The Pirate Bay - is in it for the money."

I disagree. You say you believe they are doing what they are doing because they believe it is the right thing. I disagree. I'm not interested in debating this. It is neither the topic on hand or a topic we will likely reach an agreement on. I am comfortable agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

On a side note: Was it really necessary to make a point out of mentioning a typo? This is an informal discussion after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]