Theft is not to be recognised as being deprived of use, but as a thief taking your possessions (including intellectual works) without authorisation. Only vindictive vandals seek to deprive people of use. Thieves seek to obtain private possessions without authorisation, e.g. payment.
Let's say a thief takes your used stapler, but replaces it with a new one of exactly the same model. You'll say nothing was stolen because the owner was not deprived of use. The thief is laughing all the way to a secret collector who's offered him $5,000 if he can obtain the very same stapler as used in the movie Office Space (which you just happened to have).
Theft is simply an ancient word used to describe a certain class of violation of the natural right to privacy. It is that natural right that explains what theft is, and why theft is not infringing someone's monopoly, nor is theft 'depriving of use' or 'denying of possession'. Being deprived of use or possession is simply a typical consequence of theft - it does not define theft.
The theft is the unauthorised removal of an intellectual work in my private possession. Whether the thief manufactures copies in the process is immaterial. The natural rights violation is the removal of a copy, and that violation is what should be reversed.
Thieves aren't in the business of denying people the use of their intellectual property, but in the business of obtaining it through unauthorised physical access.
If the 200 year old oil painting is public, my property, or I have been permitted access to it, then I can't be stealing a copy of it.
I think you'll find people readily recognise the difference between burglars stealing copies of their camera's memory stick and people taking photos of the oil paintings they have purchased. The former is IP theft, a natural rights violation. The latter is infringement of copyright, an 18th century privilege.
You can steal the fruits of someone's labours, i.e. IP theft.
If I spend a couple of hours taking a photo of a 200 year old oil painting with my digital camera, and you come along, and whilst I'm not looking whip out my camera's memory stick, make a copy, and then re-insert it, then you have stolen the fruits of my labour. It matters not whether my labour involved any creativity, nor whether my photo or the painting is subject to copyright.
Copyright infringement is nothing to do with IP theft, though sometimes copyright is the only law providing any disincentive or remedy. Copyright is an unethical and anachronistic monopoly granted to originators of IP and should be abolished.
However, that doesn't make it open season for IP thieves.
In the case of the NPG, Derrick Coetzee had only re-assembled images from smaller portions voluntarily supplied to him by the NPG. There was no theft involved, only Derrick's labour and selfless donation of it to Wikipedia for the public's benefit.
Moreover, these are published images (delivered to the public - public domain - public property) of publicly owned material and intellectual works held in a publicly owned building entrusted to the care of a publicly funded organisation. How much more public can you get?
Frankly, if Derrick had hidden in the gallery, waited until it closed and then whizzed round with his digital camera (safe light source as opposed to flash) and had then uploaded his images to Wikipedia, it would have still been the mildest of infractions (akin to remaining in a park after nightfall to photograph badgers) to do this as a member of the public, and a philanthropic gesture to selflessly facilitate greater public access to these works.
But, that's only because these are public works. If Derrick had burgled an oil painter's private studio and collection to make copies of his paintings (whether still wet or old masters) then that would be IP theft.
It should be straightforward to recognise the clear ethical difference between an IP thief's violation of an individual's privacy and a corporation's violation of Derrick's cultural liberty (not forgetting illegitimate enclosure of public property).
The question is not how much it cost to make the images available online (they could have used Flickr, say), but how much it cost NPG to scan the paintings, and whether those funds were obtained in a bank loan, or by a grant from the public purse. If the latter, then the public owns those scans and shouldn't have to pay a second or third time for subsequent copies (given digital copies cost nothing to make).
It is obscene that a member of the public should be sued by a public organisation whose remit is to provide that member of the public (as much as any other) with access to public property (including photographic images).
Copyright, suspending the public's liberty to make copies in order to sell them, is an anachronistic and unethical privilege intended for mercenary publishers - certainly not public organisations tasked with delivering art and knowledge to the public.
Should the public pay for the digitisation of its cultural heritage through the suspension of its liberty to share and build upon it? Or should the public pay with its money and keep its liberty intact? I suggest the latter is ethical, whereas the former isn't. The other question is whether the money is extracted from the public by force (taxation) or voluntarily. If the latter, then each image can be placed in a digital art auction, and those among the public who appreciate its value can participate in reimbursing the costs of its digitisation. After all, if 3,300 images cost around 33,000 to digitise then that puts the cost of each one to the public at 10. You'd only need a thousand art appreciators bidding a penny to cover its cost. What a bargain.
Instead we have the parlous sight of a public body putting a fundamentally innocent man through an expensive and very stressful process of litigation.
Given Jammie Thomas was recently given a $1,920,000 penalty for sharing 24 mp3 files on Kazaa ($80k per file), it seems that with Derrick Coetzee having shared at least 3,300 images the NPG could be looking at an award of $264,000,000.
What hell have we descended into where such crimes by publishers against members of the public are regarded as unsurprising, if not just?
Publishers are supposed to benefit the public, not persecute it.
If people have deduced someone's identity there should be nothing preventing them from publishing their deduction (assuming it did not necessitate violating anyone's privacy).
The right to anonymity is not a right to constrain the circulation of knowledge concerning the authorship of one's works, to gag others in order to maintain a pretence that the identity of an unattributed work's author is unknown.
The right to anonymity is a derivative of the natural right to privacy, that curiosity does not sanction the violation of an individual's privacy in order to ascertain whether they are the author of an otherwise anonymous work.
Unfortunately, people may mistake the judge denying an individual's attempt to gag others, as the state forcibly violating someone's privacy to satisfy public curiosity (or the individual's employer).
I agree that copyright should be abolished. However, the ownership of intellectual works and consequently intellectual property does need recognising. The US constitution was right in recognising an author's/inventor's exclusive right to their writings/designs, however, the subsequent copyright/patent legislation that granted them a reproduction monopoly over their published works was an unconstitutional abomination.
The fact that something could be replicated infinitely doesn't mean that it is replicated infinitely from the moment of creation.
The missing step between me creating it and you replicating it infinitely (if that's how you like to spend your time), is me letting you have it - probably in exchange for whatever money I think it's worth (or no deal).
Remember, the principle at work is not free as in beer, but free as in speech.
If you want my software you're going to have to pay for it. There's no free beer for immoral IP thieves in my cellar.
There are two ways any craftsman can sell their work. They accept a commission to produce work, or they sell the work they've already produced.
This concept of scarce vs infinite is an over-simplification.
All we're seeing the Internet do is reveal that copyright is an unnatural privilege and an ineffective anachronism.
The Internet cannot do the impossible. It simply permits people to assert their liberty to share and build upon published work. It doesn't make all acts of creation instantaneously available to all people.
If you want the software I've created you can jolly well pay for it. You can't wave a wand and say that because it's digital it is an infinite good from the moment I created it, and therefore you don't have to pay for it - or that I'm a fool for wanting to be paid for my work (instead of getting paid for a related activity).
If you were aware of a fire, but shouted “Fire!” in a sarcastic way to not only avoid being believed, but also to pre-emptively reduce the credibility of any subsequent discoverers of the fire, then you would still be culpable for endangerment despite being literally truthful.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well . . . what about . . .
Opprobrium, reputation, etiquette, politeness, decency, respect, these are all factors that govern people's treatment and attitude toward each other. However, they do not define rights.
This is why it's essential to have a clear understanding as to what are fundamental rights and what aren't. Life, privacy, truth, and liberty are fundamental rights. Respect towards one's neighbour is a matter for the individuals concerned.
It is also worth noting that corporations in not being human (and thus not having rights) may also need additional regulation to ensure they are sociable rather than sociopathic, consequently it is possible one could require corporations to seek permission in their use of published art where an individual wouldn't be so required, but one would need to be careful to constrain the corporation only to be respectful, not to significantly disadvantage it from an individual (who would suffer opprobrium from disrespect in a way the corporation wouldn't).
Reciprocity is an epiphenomenon of liberty and arises because people are free to seek equity in their exchanges.
It is not that people are obliged to give something equal to what they have received, but that should (at their liberty) they agree an exchange it is on the basis it is equitable.
If an advert using his song doesn't imply that Springsteen endorses Exxon, or any other falsehood (such as that they sponsored Springsteen), then what complaint against it could there be?
Springsteen may well despise Exxon, but why does this give him any right to dictate whether or not and how they or anyone else may use his work? I daresay people would like control over how their work is used, but where does the natural right to such control come from?
Even copyright wasn't about granting the author control over the use of their work, only about enabling the publishers of it to have a monopoly over its printing. If you bought a copy of a newspaper you could wipe your bum with it and run it up a flagpole.
On the post: Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK Copyright Law
Let's say a thief takes your used stapler, but replaces it with a new one of exactly the same model. You'll say nothing was stolen because the owner was not deprived of use. The thief is laughing all the way to a secret collector who's offered him $5,000 if he can obtain the very same stapler as used in the movie Office Space (which you just happened to have).
Theft is simply an ancient word used to describe a certain class of violation of the natural right to privacy. It is that natural right that explains what theft is, and why theft is not infringing someone's monopoly, nor is theft 'depriving of use' or 'denying of possession'. Being deprived of use or possession is simply a typical consequence of theft - it does not define theft.
On the post: Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?
Re: Re: Re: Re: UK Copyright Law
Thieves aren't in the business of denying people the use of their intellectual property, but in the business of obtaining it through unauthorised physical access.
If the 200 year old oil painting is public, my property, or I have been permitted access to it, then I can't be stealing a copy of it.
I think you'll find people readily recognise the difference between burglars stealing copies of their camera's memory stick and people taking photos of the oil paintings they have purchased. The former is IP theft, a natural rights violation. The latter is infringement of copyright, an 18th century privilege.
On the post: Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?
Re: Re: UK Copyright Law
If I spend a couple of hours taking a photo of a 200 year old oil painting with my digital camera, and you come along, and whilst I'm not looking whip out my camera's memory stick, make a copy, and then re-insert it, then you have stolen the fruits of my labour. It matters not whether my labour involved any creativity, nor whether my photo or the painting is subject to copyright.
Copyright infringement is nothing to do with IP theft, though sometimes copyright is the only law providing any disincentive or remedy. Copyright is an unethical and anachronistic monopoly granted to originators of IP and should be abolished.
However, that doesn't make it open season for IP thieves.
In the case of the NPG, Derrick Coetzee had only re-assembled images from smaller portions voluntarily supplied to him by the NPG. There was no theft involved, only Derrick's labour and selfless donation of it to Wikipedia for the public's benefit.
Moreover, these are published images (delivered to the public - public domain - public property) of publicly owned material and intellectual works held in a publicly owned building entrusted to the care of a publicly funded organisation. How much more public can you get?
Frankly, if Derrick had hidden in the gallery, waited until it closed and then whizzed round with his digital camera (safe light source as opposed to flash) and had then uploaded his images to Wikipedia, it would have still been the mildest of infractions (akin to remaining in a park after nightfall to photograph badgers) to do this as a member of the public, and a philanthropic gesture to selflessly facilitate greater public access to these works.
But, that's only because these are public works. If Derrick had burgled an oil painter's private studio and collection to make copies of his paintings (whether still wet or old masters) then that would be IP theft.
It should be straightforward to recognise the clear ethical difference between an IP thief's violation of an individual's privacy and a corporation's violation of Derrick's cultural liberty (not forgetting illegitimate enclosure of public property).
On the post: Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?
Re: Re: The Real Issue is Control no Money
On the post: Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?
Re: Did the Public purse pay for Digitisation?
On the post: Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?
Did the Public purse pay for Digitisation?
It is obscene that a member of the public should be sued by a public organisation whose remit is to provide that member of the public (as much as any other) with access to public property (including photographic images).
Copyright, suspending the public's liberty to make copies in order to sell them, is an anachronistic and unethical privilege intended for mercenary publishers - certainly not public organisations tasked with delivering art and knowledge to the public.
Should the public pay for the digitisation of its cultural heritage through the suspension of its liberty to share and build upon it? Or should the public pay with its money and keep its liberty intact? I suggest the latter is ethical, whereas the former isn't. The other question is whether the money is extracted from the public by force (taxation) or voluntarily. If the latter, then each image can be placed in a digital art auction, and those among the public who appreciate its value can participate in reimbursing the costs of its digitisation. After all, if 3,300 images cost around 33,000 to digitise then that puts the cost of each one to the public at 10. You'd only need a thousand art appreciators bidding a penny to cover its cost. What a bargain.
Instead we have the parlous sight of a public body putting a fundamentally innocent man through an expensive and very stressful process of litigation.
Given Jammie Thomas was recently given a $1,920,000 penalty for sharing 24 mp3 files on Kazaa ($80k per file), it seems that with Derrick Coetzee having shared at least 3,300 images the NPG could be looking at an award of $264,000,000.
What hell have we descended into where such crimes by publishers against members of the public are regarded as unsurprising, if not just?
Publishers are supposed to benefit the public, not persecute it.
Stop this madness.
On the post: Ryanair Requires Web Check-In... Then Takes Down Website For 10 Hours
Bathrooms on planes??
I'd have thought even a shower would only be available to business class passengers who'd paid a special premium.
On the post: UK Court Says No Right To Being An Anonymous Blogger
Protection vs Pretence
The right to anonymity is not a right to constrain the circulation of knowledge concerning the authorship of one's works, to gag others in order to maintain a pretence that the identity of an unattributed work's author is unknown.
The right to anonymity is a derivative of the natural right to privacy, that curiosity does not sanction the violation of an individual's privacy in order to ascertain whether they are the author of an otherwise anonymous work.
Unfortunately, people may mistake the judge denying an individual's attempt to gag others, as the state forcibly violating someone's privacy to satisfy public curiosity (or the individual's employer).
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Morphic Resonance
The Total Music Vortex and How Much is All Music Worth?.
Also covered on P2PNet as Enabling musicians to sell their music and Labels’ back catalogues already belong to us!.
On the post: WSJ To Try Micropayments: What A Bad Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need a mechanism
Like 1p2U.com (one penny to you)? That's what I'm working on.
On the post: New Zealand Officials To Scrap Copyright Law; Start From Scratch
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand Officials To Scrap Copyright Law; Start From Scratch
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Software Development Is A Scarce Good
Re: Here is an example
digitalartauction.com
liberateip.com
fundable.com
We should start a club. :-)
On the post: Software Development Is A Scarce Good
Re: Re: Software is not an art
On the post: Software Development Is A Scarce Good
Re:
The missing step between me creating it and you replicating it infinitely (if that's how you like to spend your time), is me letting you have it - probably in exchange for whatever money I think it's worth (or no deal).
Remember, the principle at work is not free as in beer, but free as in speech.
If you want my software you're going to have to pay for it. There's no free beer for immoral IP thieves in my cellar.
On the post: Software Development Is A Scarce Good
Once Published
There are two ways any craftsman can sell their work. They accept a commission to produce work, or they sell the work they've already produced.
This concept of scarce vs infinite is an over-simplification.
All we're seeing the Internet do is reveal that copyright is an unnatural privilege and an ineffective anachronism.
The Internet cannot do the impossible. It simply permits people to assert their liberty to share and build upon published work. It doesn't make all acts of creation instantaneously available to all people.
If you want the software I've created you can jolly well pay for it. You can't wave a wand and say that because it's digital it is an infinite good from the moment I created it, and therefore you don't have to pay for it - or that I'm a fool for wanting to be paid for my work (instead of getting paid for a related activity).
On the post: Unblurred Google Satellite Images Is The Equivalent Of Yelling Fire?
Re: Fire in a Crowded Theatre
If you were aware of a fire, but shouted “Fire!” in a sarcastic way to not only avoid being believed, but also to pre-emptively reduce the credibility of any subsequent discoverers of the fire, then you would still be culpable for endangerment despite being literally truthful.
On the post: Copyright And Classical Music: The Exact Opposite Of The Intended Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well . . . what about . . .
This is why it's essential to have a clear understanding as to what are fundamental rights and what aren't. Life, privacy, truth, and liberty are fundamental rights. Respect towards one's neighbour is a matter for the individuals concerned.
It is also worth noting that corporations in not being human (and thus not having rights) may also need additional regulation to ensure they are sociable rather than sociopathic, consequently it is possible one could require corporations to seek permission in their use of published art where an individual wouldn't be so required, but one would need to be careful to constrain the corporation only to be respectful, not to significantly disadvantage it from an individual (who would suffer opprobrium from disrespect in a way the corporation wouldn't).
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand The Value Of Free Information Are Doomed To Fail
Re: listen--it's free
It is not that people are obliged to give something equal to what they have received, but that should (at their liberty) they agree an exchange it is on the basis it is equitable.
So, reciprocity does not underlie liberty.
On the post: Copyright And Classical Music: The Exact Opposite Of The Intended Purpose
Re: Re: Re: Well . . . what about . . .
Springsteen may well despise Exxon, but why does this give him any right to dictate whether or not and how they or anyone else may use his work? I daresay people would like control over how their work is used, but where does the natural right to such control come from?
Even copyright wasn't about granting the author control over the use of their work, only about enabling the publishers of it to have a monopoly over its printing. If you bought a copy of a newspaper you could wipe your bum with it and run it up a flagpole.
Next >>