I think arguing over whether a copyright and a patent and a trademark and trade secrets are "property" or not is a wholly silly exercise.
Me too!
They are property.
No, they are not. Property is rivalrous by nature. Culture is the opposite: not merely non-rivalrous, but anti-rivalrous, in that its value increases the more it is shared. To paraphrase what Stephan Kinsella wrote in Against Intellectual Property: valid property minimizes conflicts over scarce goods, while intellectual pooperty maximizes conflicts over infinite goods.
I think arguing over whether water is wet is a silly exercise too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree that water is dry.
Troll, you are hitting on some excellent philosophical topics!
The act of eating isn't to create poop, it is to fuel to body. Poop is at best a byproduct of the process
The act of inhaling and exhaling culture isn't to create art, it's to fuel the soul. Art is indeed a byproduct of a process. Art can be beautiful and nourishing - but so can poop, to other species. And other species' poop is valuable to us. The finest, most highly-valued wines are in fact made of yeast poop.
Food and art are rooted in the fertility of the soil, and "waste" from some processes nourishes that fertility. Witness collage art made from cast-off advertising waste - Graham Rawle's brilliant novel Woman's World is just one fine example. Witness all music, incorporating and recycling bits of sound from everywhere. Witness Everything is a Remix. Witness William Shakespeare, Kahlil Gibran, and yourself.
Sorry, second link should be here.
It's not healthy to desperately hold onto what you need to let go of. The more you glorify it and defend it with laws, the more obscene and ridiculous it becomes.
You're welcome to do whatever you want with my intellectual pooperty, if you're into that sort of thing. If you happen to be a repulsive pervert, that reflects on you, not me.
Yes, yes, nothing is free, we pay in attention. And you, Anonymous Coward, are charging too much. I can't get a refund, but I would like a "hide user" function, so my valuable attention doesn't get wasted as much in the future. Mike, is such a feature available?
"Sita Sings the Blues" is apparently banned in Germany's youtube, too. Apparently some corporation is filing fake takedowns in Germany. Sad. In "Sita's" case it's Sony, who has no copyright over the Hanshaw recordings in Germany, but gets to censor whatever they like anyway. PITA to get it fixed though - QuestionCopyright.org is trying to get a legal intern to work on it.
I agree! DVDs are a waste of plastic. Just put the movie on the internet and let the awards voters download it. It costs less for the filmmaker (making and mailing DVDs is expensive) and is better for the environment.
Although I had a Fair Use argument for using the old songs in Sita Sings the Blues, there was almost no hope of my convincing a court, because SSTB is technically animated fiction rather than documentary.
Please consider reading copyheart.org - it's a very brief manifesto. To address some of the comments here, I'll reproduce the text in full (read the original for active links and illustrations):
♡ Copying art is an act of love.
People copy stuff they like. They don’t copy stuff they don’t like. The more a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn’t taken away by fans, it is added by them, every time they copy.
♡ Love is not subject to law.
Although we appreciate and use Free Licenses when appropriate, these aren’t solving the problems of copyright restrictions. Instead of trying to educate everyone on the complexities of copyright law, we’d rather make our intentions clear with this simple statement:
♡ Copying is an act of love. Please copy.
♡ Please copy and share.
The ♡Copyheart means we WANT you to copy and share. No restrictions. Just like it says: please copy and share.
Q. Is the ♡Copyheart trademarked?
A. No. It’s just a statement of intention. It’s effectiveness depends only on how people use it, not on state enforcement. Here are are some other symbols that aren’t trademarked, but whose meanings and intentions are widely (if imperfectly) understood:
✝ ☪ ✡ ☺ ☮ ♻
Q.Is the ♡Copyheart legally binding?
A. Probably not, although you could test it:
1. Mark your work with the ♡Copyheart message.
2. Sue someone for copying it.
3. See what the judge says.
We really don’t think laws and “imaginary property” have any place in peoples’ love or cultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law – a.k.a. state force – intruding where it doesn’t belong. That ♡copyheart isn’t a legally binding license is not a bug – it’s a feature!
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.
or any of these variations:
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Copying Art is an act of love. Please copy and share.
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Copying Art is an act of love. Love is not subject to law.
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Please copy.
♡2010 by Author/Artist. Please share.
♡2010 by Author/Artist.
♡2010 Copying Art is an act of love. Please copy and share.
♡2010 Copying is an act of love. Please copy.
♡ Copying is an act of love. Please copy.
♡ Copying is an act of love. Love is not subject to law.
You get the idea. Of course you can do anything you want with the ♡Copyheart symbol, and any other symbol. We don’t own it. No one does. copyheart.org
We really don’t think laws and “imaginary property” have any place in peoples’ love or cultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law – a.k.a. state force – intruding where it doesn’t belong. That ♡copyheart isn’t a legally binding license is not a bug – it’s a feature.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Genitive Versus Possessive
Me too!
They are property.
No, they are not. Property is rivalrous by nature. Culture is the opposite: not merely non-rivalrous, but anti-rivalrous, in that its value increases the more it is shared. To paraphrase what Stephan Kinsella wrote in Against Intellectual Property: valid property minimizes conflicts over scarce goods, while intellectual pooperty maximizes conflicts over infinite goods.
I think arguing over whether water is wet is a silly exercise too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree that water is dry.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Copyright on those cartoon characters ?? Iv'e seen them before !!
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re:
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: so ... you poop for free?
HAHAHAHAHAHA! No. Oh my goodness, no.
You might consider doing a little research next time.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The act of eating isn't to create poop, it is to fuel to body. Poop is at best a byproduct of the process
The act of inhaling and exhaling culture isn't to create art, it's to fuel the soul. Art is indeed a byproduct of a process. Art can be beautiful and nourishing - but so can poop, to other species. And other species' poop is valuable to us. The finest, most highly-valued wines are in fact made of yeast poop.
Food and art are rooted in the fertility of the soil, and "waste" from some processes nourishes that fertility. Witness collage art made from cast-off advertising waste - Graham Rawle's brilliant novel Woman's World is just one fine example. Witness all music, incorporating and recycling bits of sound from everywhere. Witness Everything is a Remix. Witness William Shakespeare, Kahlil Gibran, and yourself.
Look up ecology.
Troll, you are part of a beautiful, complex cultural and physical world you have no awareness of.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not healthy to desperately hold onto what you need to let go of. The more you glorify it and defend it with laws, the more obscene and ridiculous it becomes.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get over yourself.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re:
The trolls are just being trolls - it is their nature, and has nothing to do with you or me.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: so ... you poop for free?
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Uhmmm...
On the post: Piracy Isn't The Problem, A Bad Business Model Is The Problem
Re: Re: Uhmmm...
Slavery.
On the post: NBC Universal & MPAA Get NYC To Run Propaganda 'Anti-Piracy' Ad Campaign
Re: Re: FTA TV?
On the post: NBC Universal & MPAA Get NYC To Run Propaganda 'Anti-Piracy' Ad Campaign
As a New York resident
On the post: Debunking The 'But People Just Want Stuff For Free' Myth
Mimi & Eunice
On the post: 'Her Morning Elegance' Artists Create Elegant Reason To Buy
Germany
On the post: Comic Artist Dylan Horrocks Explains How Copyright Is Too Often Used To Kill Culture
Yay!
On the post: Movie Exec Says Studios Should Stop Sending Out DVD Screeners For The Oscars
Studios Should Stop Sending Out DVD Screeners
On the post: Copyright Lawsuit May Reveal Whether Documentary Movie Was Real Or Faked
yep
On the post: Copyheart: Encouraging People To Copy
Copyheart.org
♡ Copying art is an act of love.
People copy stuff they like. They don’t copy stuff they don’t like. The more a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn’t taken away by fans, it is added by them, every time they copy.
♡ Love is not subject to law.
Although we appreciate and use Free Licenses when appropriate, these aren’t solving the problems of copyright restrictions. Instead of trying to educate everyone on the complexities of copyright law, we’d rather make our intentions clear with this simple statement:
♡ Please copy and share.
The ♡Copyheart means we WANT you to copy and share. No restrictions. Just like it says: please copy and share.
Q. Is the ♡Copyheart trademarked?
A. No. It’s just a statement of intention. It’s effectiveness depends only on how people use it, not on state enforcement. Here are are some other symbols that aren’t trademarked, but whose meanings and intentions are widely (if imperfectly) understood:
Q.Is the ♡Copyheart legally binding?
A. Probably not, although you could test it:
1. Mark your work with the ♡Copyheart message.
2. Sue someone for copying it.
3. See what the judge says.
We really don’t think laws and “imaginary property” have any place in peoples’ love or cultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law – a.k.a. state force – intruding where it doesn’t belong. That ♡copyheart isn’t a legally binding license is not a bug – it’s a feature!
Q. How do I use the ♡?
A. Use it wherever you would use the ©copyright symbol. Instead of
you could write
or any of these variations:
You get the idea. Of course you can do anything you want with the ♡Copyheart symbol, and any other symbol. We don’t own it. No one does.
copyheart.org
On the post: Copyheart: Encouraging People To Copy
Re: No, thank you.
Next >>