The Couch

sampling vs. piracy

Comments on sampling vs. piracy

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 05/03/07 - 8:54 PM:
Subject: sampling vs. piracy
i came across a clip today on youtube concerning a plagiarism case against one of my favorite music producers, timbaland. here's the clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=M4KX7SkDe4Q

in a later interview, timbaland admitted to hearing this track on a video game and "sampling" it in the composition of a song he produced for nelly furtado, called "do it". he said that the composer of the track was not credited on the video game, that sampling is not theft, and that "everybody samples everybody every day". he also cites an example of another producer who was sued for "sampling" one of the demo tracks on his casio keyboard, and timbaland criticizes casio for the lawsuit, saying that if you bought the keyboard, you bought the demo tracks on it. i presume he is likening this case to buying a CD with clipart on it, although as an argument it doesn't hold much water, in my opinion. if you buy a magazine, it does not automatically grant you copyright ownership to all the photos and text in it.

where or how does one draw the line? it seems to me that the simplest way to resolve this is to acknowledge the original composer (which he has now done indirectly, in the aforementioned interview, but not by way of financial compensation in the form of damages and royalties). concerning the lawsuit, XXL magazine says, "if you are going to attack Timbaland’s credibility for this, you might as well throw out 90% of pre-1997 hip hop that lazily looped up a sample. Or every blues and rock musician who jacked a riff, for that matter." to which i would suggest that the extent to which the original track was used in the timbaland remake far surpasses sampling just a loop or a riff; the whole melody was used, although slightly modified.

another question that comes to mind is how this relates to visual art. if i paint a picture of a coke can, can coca-cola company sue me?

on a final related note, it was recently pointed out me that one of my favorite artists, jed bouscal, has a style suspiciously similar to another famous artist, sam brown, who draws exploding dog. one person wrote in a stumbleupon review: "the fact that this guy not only signs this work but copywrights it at the end is a massive fucking travesty. the reason for that is that this work is clearly an outright copying of the style, aestetic, and consept of Sam from Explodeing dog. Jed here clearly is familar with explodeing dog, the similaritys are to much to be a coinsideance (he even uses the fucking robot)." i can see the obvious similarities but in all honesty, i still like jed bouscal's work better. the question remains: is it plagiarism?

lib


JrnymnX
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2006

Total Topics: 12
Total Comments: 217
Avatar JrnymnX
Posted 05/03/07 - 9:17 PM:

Give credit where credit is due.





I have no idea who said that first. eek
Paul
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Location: Northern California

Total Topics: 13
Total Comments: 370
Avatar Paul
Posted 05/04/07 - 5:45 AM:

Similar style, no matter how intentional, surely isn't plagiarism. There's nothing wrong with immitation, as they say it's the sincerest form of flattery. Patents protect against immitation, but luckily you can't patent your style.

Actually copying words/images/sounds directly is where the problem begins. I don't think a single line should be drawn, it should just be a matter of whether the sampled content plays a non-trivial role in the distributed final product. If the role of it is trivial, such that nobody would've noticed if something else were used instead, then it's questionable but I don't think anything should be done about it. If it's an integral part then of course it's a problem.
Rudi
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Comments: 474
Rudi
Posted 05/04/07 - 8:14 AM:

Hey Lib,

You bring up a lot of issues here. Each one has its own nuances and needs to be looked at in its specific context.

It often boils down to what you do with the work you 'used'. The problem normally only arises when you re-sell the work, either in its entirety or as part of another work.

In the end, much more often than not, it is the money that drives the issue.

Rudi


libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 05/04/07 - 9:40 AM:

in the youtube link above, it plays timbaland's song side-by-side with the original track. i'd also be curious to know if couch folks feel this is a specific example of plagiarism. same question applies to jed bouscal's work vs. exploding dog (links to the art can be found in the original post; you can click on jed bouscal and exploding dog) - i'd be curious to know if you feel this also is an example of plagiarism.

as for me, it's really hard to say. timbaland's melody is virtually identical to the original track. he more or less just added lyrics to it. i think the bottom line in his case is simply ignorance; he apparently thought the music was in the public domain and it's not. in the hiphop music industry, the common practice of sampling definitely makes this a grey area. however, i would still say his use of the song goes beyond sampling; the entire melody is used.

in jed bouscal's case, i would say it's just the style that is being copied, although the robot character adds some grey area here too. no one can deny the obvious inspiration from the original work, but if i were sam brown, i would take jed bouscal's work as more of a tribute than an attempt to "steal" his work. also, as rudi pointed out, money is an important factor and jed bouscal's case would probably be a different matter if he were trying to sell his artwork.

i'd love to hear your thoughts.

lib
Jed Bouscal
New

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 1
Posted 06/02/08 - 10:02 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

on a final related note, it was recently pointed out me that one of my favorite artists, jed bouscal, has a style suspiciously similar to another famous artist, sam brown, who draws exploding dog. one person wrote in a stumbleupon review: "the fact that this guy not only signs this work but copywrights it at the end is a massive fucking travesty. the reason for that is that this work is clearly an outright copying of the style, aestetic, and consept of Sam from Explodeing dog. Jed here clearly is familar with explodeing dog, the similaritys are to much to be a coinsideance (he even uses the fucking robot)." i can see the obvious similarities but in all honesty, i still like jed bouscal's work better. the question remains: is it plagiarism?

lib


Hello,

I stumbled upon this thread after googling my own name. What a surprise to find someone I don't even know who is a fan of my drawings!

I would like to clear the air regarding similarities of my work to exploding dog.

I was drawing simplistic line drawings before I had the pleasure of being exposed to Mr. Sam Brown's work. Any similarities between his and my "style" are coincidental.

Unfortunately for myself, but none the less rightly so, Mr. Sam Brown is much better known publicly, and it is for this reason that I do not have any of my drawings whose style bear similarities to his posted online for viewing. Any websites who choose to display my drawings belong to people I have never met, and are outside of my control.

My heartfelt thanks to anyone who's taken the time to appreciate my artwork, as it is a window in to my psyche, which is rarely comfortably shared.

I have some 200 ideas written down that await my drawing one day (the hand full of good ones anyway!) and I look forward to sharing them when I feel I'm up to the task.


Best Regards,


Jed Bouscal


P.S. LibertyGrl, below is a link to a drawing I've never posted before. Please enjoy it.

farm4.static.flickr.com/312...547262790_91eed09948_o.gif
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 06/02/08 - 10:12 PM:

Jed Bouscal wrote:
P.S. LibertyGrl, below is a link to a drawing I've never posted before. Please enjoy it.

farm4.static.flickr.com/312...547262790_91eed09948_o.gif

awesome, thank you smiling face
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 06/03/08 - 10:32 AM:

here's a link to a currently defunct conversation in another place

i offer it here, because -- while not exactly on-topic -- it does mirror the theme...

www.flickr.com/groups/alpha...discuss/72157604436630678/

...*shrug* --henry
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 06/03/08 - 12:17 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
here's a link to a currently defunct conversation in another place

i offer it here, because -- while not exactly on-topic -- it does mirror the theme...

www.flickr.com/groups/alpha...discuss/72157604436630678/

...*shrug* --henry

interesting. i hadn't heard about google's plans to make books available for free online. personally, i'm not opposed to the idea; as a writer, i decided some time ago that when i start publishing my own books, i would make them available online for free as well as make hard copies available for sale. i've purchased a few books electronically, but by and large i prefer reading books on paper rather than onscreen.

in my view, the ethics of this google plan become questionable if google plans to do any advertising on such a site, and if so, they are clearly profiting from others' works not only without their permission but but also without sharing the profit.

i remember when VCRs first came out, the cinema industry was worried that everyone would be watching movies at home and that no one would see films in the theater anymore. of course, movie theaters are still making big money and even with giant screen TVs in people's homes, there's something to be appreciated about the cinematic experience. there's also the sense of community which comes from enjoying a movie with a large group of people.

anyway, my point in all this is that new technology is not going to render certain things obsolete. writers, musicians, and film-makers will still have plenty of ways to make a good living through their art. the internet is forging its niche but we still have a need for the visceral.

here is another related link, one i find a little more foreboding; proposed changes in U.S. copyright law may mean that you could lose all the rights to your own work:

mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype...one&article_no=3605&page=1
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/03/08 - 1:39 PM:

to libertygrl:

"as a writer, i decided some time ago that when i start publishing my own books, i would make them available online for free as well as make hard copies available for sale."

as you like...my only objection: i choose not to make my work available for free and some schmuck -- without my permission -- posts or prints my writings, making those writings available to the world

whether he draws a profit or not is irrelevant

if i DO give my work away, it ought to be on the same terms i see it printed for profit, that is: mine

don't you agree?

my words are mine


as for the orphan works bill: there's a few things to wade through before i can commit myself to an opinion

the article in question is countered by others on-line

i need to read bit before i sharpen my knives... -henry
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/03/08 - 2:38 PM:

henry wrote:
if i DO give my work away, it ought to be on the same terms i see it printed for profit, that is: mine

don't you agree?

as an ideal, i certainly agree. but i also believe that realistically there's only so much within a person's control. if you are a musician, anyone can make copies of your music and share it with friends for free. that has been the case long before filesharing came around. doesn't make it right, per se (or does it? if it's true that might makes right).

as it stands, anyone can buy a copy of your book (or album, or movie, and so on) and make it part of a public library where it can be checked out millions of times for free, all without giving you a penny, or so much as asking your permission. do you object to the principle of a public library?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/03/08 - 4:39 PM:

"...realistically there's only so much within a person's control...anyone can make copies of your music and share it with friends for free...doesn't make it right, per se (or does it? if it's true that might makes right)."

while i can't be everywhere -- godlike -- with infinite eyes and mighty fists ensuring my work isn't copied, traded, or adulterated without my permission, the current limits of my 'reach' can't be the foundation determining my ownership of my work

rather: the foundational element is my willingness and capacity to personally hunt down offenders and kill them, literally or metaphorically

that is: i may not stop the theft before hand, but certainly i am willing and able to halt it (or enact revenge) after the fact


might makes right: of course it does! it always has and always will

in the context of my ownership of my work: it's a contest of my wisely applied 'might' (my understanding of 'contract' as well as my understanding of, and willingness to use, the proxy 'might' of 'law' and the executors of 'law'), versus the 'might' of the schmo who would deprive me of control of my work, or -- worse -- who would profit from my work, without my permission

in the most honest scenario: i wouldn't avail myself of the 'law' but would deal with the thief face to face...an impractical situation, i admit, because of the potential distance involved, and all those pesky 'laws' declaring killing 'wrong'

my point: the awkwardness of maintaining ownership my work over great distance doesn't negate my ownership

the only thing limiting my ownership of my work (or my 'self') is my own capacity to claim and defend that ownership


"...anyone can buy a copy of your book...and make it part of a public library where it can be checked out millions of times for free, all without giving you a penny, or so much as asking your permission. do you object to the principle of a public library?"

actually: i do

here's something i just pulled from the net...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/libraries.html

...interesting, yes?

personally: i can’t imagine anything i write ever making its way into the stacks of any branch of any public library system...i don’t write for a wide audience...and even if something of mine were to make it's way into the library, i doubt i'd raise much of a stink...ostensibly: libraries are cultural archives, with profit -- as such -- not on the table

it's -- for me -- a balancing act between my own innate hatred of the 'state', and all it does, and an 'ideal' i can -- with great reservation -- offer my support to

but: bottom line, yes, i object to public libraries...at least the current incarnation of them... --henry
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/05/08 - 11:57 AM:

henry wrote:
my point: the awkwardness of maintaining ownership my work over great distance doesn't negate my ownership

hi henry,

in turn, my point is that if one believes that might makes right, then it would seem to follow that one believes one's right extends only to how far you can enforce your values. would you agree? further, if your personal values dictate that someone deserves death for copyright infringement, but the law contradicts that, then who is in the "right"?

henry wrote:
bottom line, yes, i object to public libraries...at least the current incarnation of them...

do you use the public library?

henry wrote:
here's something i just pulled from the net...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/libraries.html

...interesting, yes?

interesting, yes. however, the idea of turning public libraries into private ones does not put any more money or power into the pocket of the writers whose books end up those libraries. in any case, i do think it's a good suggestion - government subsidization does tend to make a mess of things. but it's not without its virtues.

peacelib




henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/05/08 - 12:39 PM:

"if one believes that might makes right, then it would seem to follow that one believes one's right extends only to how far you can enforce your values. would you agree?"

yes...my 'might' is only as effective as my 'reach'

therefore: 'i may not stop the theft before hand, but certainly i am willing and able to halt it (or enact revenge) after the fact' IF i become aware of the theft, and, IF it's in my power to find the schmuck


"if your personal values dictate that someone deserves death for copyright infringement, but the law contradicts that, then who is in the "right"?"

speaking only for myself: since i care not one whit for, or about, 'law', i say i am

with this: i must weigh the pleasure and 'justice' i could get from killing the thief, against the possibility the executors of 'law' might find and 'punish' me

keep in mind "might makes right' is not an ethos (for me) but a simple observation of how the world works...this foundational principle obligates me to nothing...that is: 'might makes right' is just a tool among many...i use tools...i'm not ruled by them


"do you use the public library?"

yes...since i'm unable to find a way to avoid paying the sales tax here, and since the sales tax is the funding source for the library system here, i get my money's worth...i'd much prefer to pay a membership fee to a private provider


"the idea of turning public libraries into private ones does not put any more money or power into the pocket of the writers whose books end up those libraries"

no it doesn't, but it does make it tad easier to deny the access of one's work to a library if the library is a private institution...besides: i'm mainly opposed to the current incarnation of libraries because of gov involvement and sanction...even if profit weren't on the table, i'd still oppose the idea of the public library... --henry
Morgena
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Location: Midgard

Total Topics: 42
Total Comments: 868
Avatar Morgena
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/06/08 - 12:50 PM:

I think if a copy is used commercially, the artist should be asked for permission, even if there is just a part of the original used, the original composer should be announced. Private use is a different matter altogether.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/06/08 - 2:01 PM:

The whole issue of 'ownership' suggests to me that 'art' should never be produced as a commodity to be bought or sold. Its purpose is higher, more refined, a connected to the 'soul' of human beings, much like philosophy. Knowledge should not be bought and sold but should be freely available to all who seek it; the only barriers to knowledge being the effort and discipline it takes to aquire and digest it (which in itself can be considerable). But art and knowledge being bought and sold is really holding beauty and truth for ransom: It fosters inequality and power structures.

For all writing the same intellectual courtesy should apply in fiction as in academics: name your sources. Now that doesn't mean that if my inspiration is Stephen King, Mr. King gets a cut of my book sales. But rather, make the connection plain and transparent so that interested readers can pursue the source material. If I create a work of art that references another artist, and I acknowledge this explicitly, this can only help that artist, because it is a kind of free-advertising. If someone quote my text in their work, then that means my text may be seen by people who it might not have otherwise reached. So long as the connections are maintained, use and reuse should be a free-for-all. Honesty and integrity for source materials is essential.

8)
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/08/08 - 9:35 AM:

monk:

like anything else that results from the effort of an individual, 'art', 'knowledge' belongs to the creator or 'discoverer', and is his to dispense with as he chooses

the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer...he can give the discovery away, sell it to the highest bidder, or squirrel it away

someone independently discovers the same cure: he's not beholden to the other guy...he can do with his version of the 'wheel' as he sees fit

more to the point: the writer can give away, sell, or squirrel away his work

in the unlikely event another writer crafts the exact same work: 'he' can do with his version of the 'wheel' as 'he' chooses

the same applies to musicians, painters, photographers, and on and on... --henry
Paul
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Location: Northern California

Total Topics: 13
Total Comments: 370
Avatar Paul
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/18/08 - 4:23 AM:

If libraries weren't so inconvenient, and didn't require returning what you take out, then I would certainly object to them as an impediment to creativity. They'd virtually eliminate professional writers.

This is why we don't allow online libraries, and hopefully never will.

Of course, google isn't making any copyrighted books available free -- it's making them searchable with contextual excerpts, which is entirely fair and should be embraced by authors for helping introduce potential customers to the idea that they might want to buy that book. It's no different from headlines on google news, which foot-shooting press websites have also objected to at times.

morgana wrote:
I think if a copy is used commercially, the artist should be asked for permission, even if there is just a part of the original used, the original composer should be announced. Private use is a different matter altogether.


Private, non-commercial use of online libraries would destroy all works of fiction at least, once everybody has an ebook reader. The notion so many people have that it's ok if they don't resell what they don't pay for is just self-serving and dangerous.

Midnight Monk wrote:
The whole issue of 'ownership' suggests to me that 'art' should never be produced as a commodity to be bought or sold.


A society should be allowed to make its own decision on that. If it wants a few struggling artists to admire for their purity, it should not create any copyright. If it wants a much wider array of entertainment choices with which to amuse itself, then it will create copyright. Like it or not, in this society the people who like pop entertainment outnumber purists -- you're outvoted, and it'd be hypocritical of you to consume the fruits of their decision on the terms of your opposite decision. Of course many millions of people do declare that copyright should be abolished while pirating works that would never have existed without it, and that's the power of the human urge to rationalize self-serving decisions combined with the power of the human mind to ignore inconvenient contradictions.

Copyright was invented to spur progress in science and the arts, and has been amazingly successful at doing so. The fact that current copyright laws are so badly twisted by lobbyists that you can hardly find the public interest in them anymore is not an argument against copyright itself.

henry quirk wrote:
like anything else that results from the effort of an individual, 'art', 'knowledge' belongs to the creator or 'discoverer', and is his to dispense with as he chooses

the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer...he can give the discovery away, sell it to the highest bidder, or squirrel it away


Even without copyright, artists were perfectly capable of selling, squirreling away or giving away the actual creation. It's the right of the creator to tell the person who he has already sold the work to what that person can do with it which is at issue. Can the highest bidder on the cancer cure put the drug into cheap generic production? That's actually a patent issue, not a copyright issue, but it's clearly up to society to decide which answer creates the greatest good (the answer being unclear in your particular scenario, frankly, and very important to keep an open mind about rather than treating it as an unassailable right of the inventor). When a writer sells a book to you, can you then make copies of that book, now that you own it? The answer in our society is "no", but not due to any natural right -- it's due entirely to the calculation that we as a society will get more of what we desire in the long run from offering the writer monetary motivation for each person who endorses the work by buying a copy of it, no matter who made that copy.

Edited by Paul on 06/18/08 - 4:48 AM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/19/08 - 4:50 PM:

paul,

as a writer, and owner, i make no 'legal' distinctions

what's mine is mine: whether a fiction or a cancer cure

if i build it for myself, write it for myself, or develop it for myself: it's mine to dispense as i like


"When a writer sells a book to you, can you then make copies of that book, now that you own it?"

nope: quite apart from what 'society' thinks...the buyer owns a 'copy' of the book, not the book...that is: he owns a particular copy of my work, but not the right to do with 'the' work as he sees fit

of course -- in my view -- the buyer is free to 'try' to turn a profit on my work, just as i am free -- in my view -- to 'try' to seek compensation in blood

fundamentally: it's a question of whose 'might' will make the 'right'... henry
Paul
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Location: Northern California

Total Topics: 13
Total Comments: 370
Avatar Paul
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/22/08 - 6:38 AM:

As the United States constitution puts it, copyright and patents are:
Article 1 Section 8 wrote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries


henry quirk wrote:
as a writer, and owner, i make no 'legal' distinctions

what's mine is mine: whether a fiction or a cancer cure


So you believe that every patent system in the world is evil, since patents don't last longer than 20 years in any country that I know of? You believe you should be paying huge markups for vaccines invented 60 years ago, and that making a cheap generic as we do now of those 60 year old inventions isn't justified by the fact that it saves millions of lives of people who couldn't afford patented drugs? Do you support the right of the inventor of the drug to go out and murder all the wrongfully alive people personally?

if i build it for myself, write it for myself, or develop it for myself: it's mine to dispense as i like

The original is. What can be done with copies after you give a copy to someone is however purely a matter of the local society's decision of what's in the greater good. You have no right on the matter, only an argument that it's pragmatic for society to reward you. If you don't even bother to try to convince society that it's in their best interest, and just demand it as a right, then don't be suprised if they take it away from you. You don't have to look any further than people like Midnight Monk, whose piracy is enabled by the attitude of you and most of the industry.

Shakespeare didn't get to control copies of his plays, since there was no copyright law back then. He did of course make money by selling the original to his theatrical group, and nobody else could perform the same play until they sent someone to pay admission in order to copy it down. I'd argue that the lack of any copyright law prevented a lot of would-be writers of that era from writing, but it's not the writers who were wronged by that -- nobody has a right to a particular career and your goods are worth what the market will give you -- it's the society which suffered for it.

"When a writer sells a book to you, can you then make copies of that book, now that you own it?"

nope: quite apart from what 'society' thinks...the buyer owns a 'copy' of the book, not the book...that is: he owns a particular copy of my work, but not the right to do with 'the' work as he sees fit


Right, the buyer can't do anything with the original. He can only copy the copy. He'll never dirty the pure platonic essence of originalness either.

When you own something, you can do with it as you like unless the law makes a special exception. Private property is a far more natural right -- copyright is an unnatural exception which prevents people from having freedom with their own property for the sake of the long term interests of consumers.

Treating something as a natural right which was invented a few hundred years ago doesn't make much sense.

of course -- in my view -- the buyer is free to 'try' to turn a profit on my work, just as i am free -- in my view -- to 'try' to seek compensation in blood

You will spend decades in jail for it, whereas the copyright violator probably gets off with a fine.

Do Shakespeare's descendants have a natural right to seek compensation in blood from you for reading his works without paying them? If copyrights were actual property then they would, because property is certainly inherited, and you've already declared that the lack of copyright law in that era was a horrible wrong which doesn't change the moral reality of ownership.

It's views like yours that are going to destroy copyright for the rest of us. I make my living off my copyrights (software), but when people see copyright as an unequal exchange which takes from them while offering them nothing (as it is increasingly becoming), they lose faith and ignore it completely. Much piracy is caused by the adversarial stance of trying to exploit people instead of make a fair exchange with them.

fundamentally: it's a question of whose 'might' will make the 'right'

Beating people up isn't morality, obviously might and right have never been related. If you don't believe in morality, why are you declaring what you think is moral?

At any rate, the law is mighty so by your theory whatever local copyright law is in effect is necessarily right -- including in Shakespeare's time, when copyright was wrong and evil since the law forbade it.

Edited by Paul on 06/22/08 - 7:30 AM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/23/08 - 2:16 PM:

So you believe that every patent system in the world is evil...Do you support the right of the inventor of the drug to go out and murder all the wrongfully alive people personally?

(((hmmm...big leap there, paul...don't think i said any of that)))

(((again (and read JUST my words, don't extrapolate): 'what's mine is mine: whether a fiction or a cancer cure')))

(((if you wanna talk about the current state of the 'law', i'm amenable)))

(((what i'm arguing HERE is not the virtue or flaws of codified convention, but personal principle and philosophy)))

(((the codified convention -- 'law', 'morality' -- is a tool for the individual's use...not the other way around)))


"Private property is a far more natural right"

(((it's not a 'right' at all...if 'you' can hold and defend your claim to 'something' (including yourself), either directly or through proxy, then you have a 'right' to it...if you can't defend your claim, then you have no 'right')))

(((any 'right' secured for you by another (a non-proxy) and then granted to you is mere privilege)))


"Beating people up isn't morality, obviously might and right have never been related. If you don't believe in morality, why are you declaring what you think is moral?"

(((a superior or wisely applied 'might' makes the 'right', makes the 'morality')))

(((if jane kills joe and is never arrested, never tried, never sentenced, never jailed for the 'crime', how is she 'wrong'?)))

(((her 'crime', her 'sin', is defined by the agreed-upon codified conventions of 'law' and 'morality')))

(((if jane slips the noose, then jane is 'right')))

(((if jane is caught, then jane is 'wrong')))

(((if henry writes a novel, and that novel is stolen, henry can use the tool of 'law', or a baseball bat, to correct the situation...individual circumstances will lend themselves to the use of one or the other tool (or another tool entirely) )))


"the law is mighty so by your theory whatever local copyright law is in effect is necessarily right -- including in Shakespeare's time, when copyright was wrong and evil since the law forbade it."

(((that's not how i interpret 'might makes right')))

((('might makes right' is a simple observation of how the world works)))

(((it's not an ethos (though it is a principle i hold) )))

(((and: simply because sam has more 'might' than me (today) in no way obligates me to submit to sam (though i may have to foist up a pretense of submission) )))

(((what sam's current superiority (in 'might') lays at my feet is the problem of how to wisely use my own 'might' to defend against sam, to operate out of sam's sight, to kill sam, to come to an accord with sam, etc.)))

(((certainly: within the context of this thread, i've used 'might' to describe the most direct and obvious kind of 'might')))

(((but: 'might' is as versatile as the individual who holds and exercises it... --henry)))

Edited by henry quirk on 06/23/08 - 5:25 PM. Reason: needed a extra word or two
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/24/08 - 1:46 AM:

What is it ? A principle or an observation ? Because if 'might makes right' is reality, making reality a princpile is a tad.... lazy (absurd?) ?

Anyway, if 'might makes right' is what you live by, you should be in favor of mass-scale organisations with strict rules.. for obvious reasons (everyone knows this.. the romans called it 'divide et impera': get everyone else to divide while you yourself keep strongly organised). If liberty is what you seek, 'might makes right' should frustrate you a great deal, because those two are mutually exclusive.

Might demands a great deal of sacrifice and restricts your freedom of movement. Whether you are at the head or part of an organisation, it doesn't necessarily make *that* much difference. Except that, the more powerful someone is within an organisation, the more he/she needs to invest to get in such a position and stay there.

One man with an axe is ridiculously un-mighty. Nobody needs a hero.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/24/08 - 11:49 AM:

smoke, as you know from elsewhere, i am an extremist in matters of the individual ALWAYS taking precedence over the 'collective' (the 'collective' being the 'god' worshiped by the collectivist)

my use of my 'might' is for me to decide, as your 'might' is your concern

your examples are not representative of how i discharge 'my' life or 'my' 'might'

you seem to have a narrow view of what exactly 'might' is and how it can be expressed

example: "One man with an axe is ridiculously un-mighty"

if one man with an axe defends his child against predation by another man, i'd say this is a valid and successful expression of the axe-holder’s 'might'

if a woman chops up her abusing husband with an ax, i'd say this is a valid and successful expression of 'might'

but: those are simply, as i said, 'the most direct and obvious kind(s) of 'might''

as i also said (but you apparently missed): ''might' is as versatile as the individual who holds and exercises it'

here, a little help...


might: the individual's capacity to enact change...this can be the brute power of the physically superior man...the seductive allure of the temptress...the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear...the vigorous application of reason...the subtle application of charisma...the overt application of the 'stick', the 'gun', the 'bomb', the clever use of the proxy 'might' of 'law', and on and on


...'might makes right' is -- for me -- not about having the most power...it's about self-possession, self-deliberation, and the application of 'might' (myself) to secure and defend these

there are others, of course, who will interpret 'might makes right' as narrowly as you, and those folks WILL work to acquire 'power'

by my reckoning: such folks are enslaving themselves to an appetite...the hunger for 'might' essentially takes the hungry out of the driver's seat making him or her just a puppet to impulse (no better than a dog)

me: i just self-possess and am self-deliberate (as should be obvious from everything i've posted in this thread)

i have no interest in 'ruling' OR being 'ruled'... --henry

Edited by henry quirk on 06/24/08 - 12:19 PM. Reason: needed more words...
beatcafe
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2008
Location: Detroit

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 1
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/29/08 - 4:13 PM:

if it has been recorded then it is owned by the recorder or the artist and should not be sampled unless granted or the right to use paid for.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/30/08 - 6:43 PM:

hi beatcafe, welcome to the couch smiling face
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.