You are not logged in. Please login or register.
The soviets had a government funded film and music industry, very different situation.
Most countries subsidize their film and music industries to some extent. The copyright system itself is a massive government subsidy to content creators.
I don't think there's actually any disagreement that you owe something, but the question could be 'what do you owe'? Just throwing this idea out there, I'm not saying I know the answer or if there even is one.
And there's the rub. Greg was asked many times how this was actually going to work or who is going to pay actors etc and he declined to answer despite being asked again and again. Instead he just keeps saying the same lines over and over again, if he said he doesn't know how to answer that would be fine but he just keeps replying with the same shit (count how many times he has said the word 'government'). This has been frustrating for some and even making some think he's trolling. When this is said he just says 'I'm not trolling, you are' which, again is not only frustrating but a bit childish. You can almost imagine him sniggering every time he presses 'submit reply'.
I'm not saying what he is saying is wrong just that it doesn't make any sense. It has got to the stage where other people are trying to explain it for Greg rather than Greg doing it himself. If he can't, why doesn't he just say and leave it? He does keep coming back you know, he could end it by stop saying ridiculous comments without being able to back them up or at least admitting as much.
Last edited by Jimmy B (2012-11-30 20:24:59)
TheGreg wrote:iJim wrote:No it's not. How can it be fraud if the ideas are everyone's? It was never the original creator's idea. It's the public's. Duh.
That's right - the idea is in the public domain, but the rules of academia require citation of references. Plagiarism isn't a crime, its a breach of academic etiquette.
OK. If you're confused, think about these cases:
1. Theft. You own a copy of MS's Frankenstein. I take it from you without your permission.
2. Copying. I make an exact replica of the book. It isn't under copyright. You still have it. I have it.
3. Copyright infringement. I make an exact copy of a different book, that is under copyright.
4. Plagiarism. I take a marker, cross out Mary Shelley, and write TheGreg, passing the work off as my own.OK. So now that you've established that tell me what your thesis in this thread is. What, exactly, is your point. Because I've yet to figure it out.
I guess at this stage in the discussion my point is that there is such an incredible level of ignorance about the basic facts (for example the pervasive belief that copyright infringement is theft, or that content creators own their work), even on a board populated by content creation professionals, that it's hard to have a discussion about this without constantly being bombarded by completely untrue assertions (for example, that the text of a book is like a sandwich in any reasonable way).
I made a comment on the thread about distribution mechanisms, that I did not expect to be controversial, and it stirred up a huge discussion, most of which I interpret as being about misunderstandings of the basic facts.
redxavier wrote:I don't think there's actually any disagreement that you owe something, but the question could be 'what do you owe'? Just throwing this idea out there, I'm not saying I know the answer or if there even is one.
And there's the rub. Greg was asked many times how this was actually going to work or who is going to pay actors etc and he declined to answer despite being asked again and again. Instead he just keeps saying the same lines over and over again, if he said he doesn't know how to answer that would be fine but he just keeps replying with the same shit (count how many times he has said the word 'government'). This has been frustrating for some and even making some think he's trolling. When this is said he just says 'I'm not trolling, you are' which, again is not only frustrating but a bit childish. You can almost imagine him sniggering every time he presses 'submit reply'.
I find your comments a little childish. It's ok for you to accuse me of trolling, but you don't think the converse is legitimate?
Frankly, I don't know why you think the onus is on me to figure out a way for you to make a living. I've said that time and again, and no one has explained to me why they think it is my problem, instead simply repeating the question. Of course my answer is the same each time. That's not trolling - that's my answer to the question, that I keep repeating because the question keeps getting repeated.
How many times did I say 'government', and what's your point?
I'm not saying what he is saying is wrong just that it doesn't make any sense. It has got to the stage where other people are trying to explain it for Greg rather than Greg doing it himself. If he can't, why doesn't he just say and leave it? He does keep coming back you know, he could end it by stop saying ridiculous comments without being able to back them up or at least admitting as much.
Which comments do you feel are ridiculous, or not supportable? Please try to be specific. Thanks!
And I thought my thread about sexism and misogyny was getting annoying...
I guess at this stage in the discussion my point is that there is such an incredible level of ignorance about the basic facts (for example the pervasive belief that copyright infringement is theft, or that content creators own their work), even on a board populated by content creation professionals, that it's hard to have a discussion about this without constantly being bombarded by completely untrue assertions (for example, that the text of a book is like a sandwich in any reasonable way).
I made a comment on the thread about distribution mechanisms, that I did not expect to be controversial, and it stirred up a huge discussion, most of which I interpret as being about misunderstandings of the basic facts.
I'm not sure that it is other people who are misunderstanding the facts though. Don't you think that these 'content creation professionals' may actually know a thing or more about it than you or I?
What makes you the authority?
TheGreg wrote:I guess at this stage in the discussion my point is that there is such an incredible level of ignorance about the basic facts (for example the pervasive belief that copyright infringement is theft, or that content creators own their work), even on a board populated by content creation professionals, that it's hard to have a discussion about this without constantly being bombarded by completely untrue assertions (for example, that the text of a book is like a sandwich in any reasonable way).
I made a comment on the thread about distribution mechanisms, that I did not expect to be controversial, and it stirred up a huge discussion, most of which I interpret as being about misunderstandings of the basic facts.I'm not sure that it is other people who are misunderstanding the facts though. Don't you think that these 'content creation professionals' may actually know a thing or more about it than you or I?
What makes you the authority?
Well, let's take the issue of theft and copyright infringement as an example. At least three times in this thread people (and I'm not sure whether they specifically are content creation professionals, but no one else seemed to want to correct them) incorrectly made the claim that copyright infringement is theft. It's not me that' the authority, it's the US Supreme Court who has ruled that this simply isn't true.
Addendum.
Even after this posting, Dr Submarine, who is a film student, implies that tormenting a movie is theft, even after this has been definitively shown not to be the case (at least under US law). I'm at a loss about how to proceed with a discussion with people who will not recognize basic facts of the discussion.
Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-30 20:49:40)
This is, inadvertently, my point in a nutshell. Content creators have an entitlement culture that says they deserve a living from what they do simply because they want it.
I cannot fathom how any living person could possibly say this with complete sincerity. Really. I don't get how you can say, "Oh, it's the people creating the content who are entitled! So what if hundreds of people did things in the real world to create a movie? The product isn't real, so they deserve nothing!"
I'll level with you here. If all I wanted to do in my life was make money, I probably wouldn't be studying film. I want to work in the film industry because it's what I like. I like creating art. It's what I do. BUT, this does not mean that the work that I or anyone puts into a film is negligible. Films don't spring out of the internet fully formed. They aren't just a bunch of ones and zeroes. Real people, with real families and real bills that need paying, worked in the real world to make that movie, which just so happens to be a digital file.
But no, I'm "entitled" because I dare to suggest that I should earn money from the work I do, because "you can't own an idea," and, "nothing is stolen when I torrent a movie." There's an "entitlement culture" among the people who work on movies for months on end, not the people who sit on the couch and watch them for two hours. Yeah. Sure.
TheGreg wrote:This is, inadvertently, my point in a nutshell. Content creators have an entitlement culture that says they deserve a living from what they do simply because they want it.
I cannot fathom how any living person could possibly say this with complete sincerity. Really. I don't get how you can say, "Oh, it's the people creating the content who are entitled! So what if hundreds of people did things in the real world to create a movie? The product isn't real, so they deserve nothing!"
Clearly you can't, and likewise I cannot fathom how you could make the converse sincerely. If I, and hundreds of my friends, make something in the real world, what about that makes me deserve to make money? The act of making something does not, contrary to popular belief, entitle you to a living.
I'll level with you here. If all I wanted to do in my life was make money, I probably wouldn't be studying film. I want to work in the film industry because it's what I like. I like creating art. It's what I do. BUT, this does not mean that the work that I or anyone puts into a film is negligible. Films don't spring out of the internet fully formed. They aren't just a bunch of ones and zeroes. Real people, with real families and real bills that need paying, worked in the real world to make that movie, which just so happens to be a digital file.
I totally understand and empathize that you want a job that you enjoy, and a secure living, but nothing about the modern economy entitles you to that simply by the wanting of it.
But no, I'm "entitled" because I dare to suggest that I should earn money from the work I do, because "you can't own an idea," and, "nothing is stolen when I torrent a movie." There's an "entitlement culture" among the people who work on movies for months on end, not the people who sit on the couch and watch them for two hours. Yeah. Sure.
Of course I want you to earn money for the work you do. And of course you can't own an idea, and of course nothing is stolen when someone torrents a movie. Why do you think those things are conflicting?
You clearly think that you are entitled to a living simply by virtue of working on a movie. I wish that were so, but it isn't.
I find your comments a little childish. It's ok for you to accuse me of trolling, but you don't think the converse is legitimate?
I don't believe I actually personally accused you trolling......
You know what, I'm officially dropping out of this conversation because, quite frankly, I have more important things to worry about.
TheGreg wrote:
I find your comments a little childish. It's ok for you to accuse me of trolling, but you don't think the converse is legitimate?I don't believe I actually personally accused you trolling......
You know what, I'm officially dropping out of this conversation because, quite frankly, I have more important things to worry about.
I beg your pardon - you didn't. You managed to imply it without actually saying it.
Then you misread my intentions, the word 'troll' never entered my mind expect when reading others write it or when I typed it to say as much. It's easy to misread things written on the internet, though, it's been happening a lot here recently.
Again, I'm done.
Then you misread my intentions, the word 'troll' never entered my mind expect when reading others write it or when I typed it to say as much. It's easy to misread things written on the internet, though, it's been happening a lot here recently.
Again, I'm done.
Then I sincerely beg your pardon for misinterpreting your intent.
I'm out too, this is a bridge that we are clearly not going to cross, as I live in a different universe from you.
I'm out too, this is a bridge that we are clearly not going to cross, as I live in a different universe from you.
You do - apparently one with a different US Constitution and Supreme Court.
Jimmy B wrote:Then you misread my intentions, the word 'troll' never entered my mind expect when reading others write it or when I typed it to say as much. It's easy to misread things written on the internet, though, it's been happening a lot here recently.
Again, I'm done.
Then I sincerely beg your pardon for misinterpreting your intent.
Accepted. And I apologise for not conveying my point correctly 
The soviets had a government funded film and music industry, very different situation.
Yes, a system that ultimately collapsed upon itself.
Dorkman wrote:And there are also alternatives to the entitlement culture that says you deserve to have anything just because you want it.
This is, inadvertently, my point in a nutshell. Content creators have an entitlement culture that says they deserve a living from what they do simply because they want it.
The fact is that you cannot own an idea. You cannot own a combination of bits and information. Content creators do not own the content they create, and they are not guaranteed a living from it, no matter how much they might want one. Ideas are publicly owned, and in the US the government grants a limited time monopoly to content creators to make copies of those ideas, but the ideas belong to the public at large.
I think this is were I diverge in my opinion with you and others. Creators put forth time and effort in to creating an idea. Creators are saying that their time and effort is worth something, say, an hourly fee. Regardless of whether or not they created a "thing" or an "idea" there is still time and effort put in to it, and the creator, the originator of the idea, is allowed to charge for their time-whether or not I am willing to pay for it is up to me. If I don't pay, the creator must find another patron or another means of making a living.
The idea that ideas are owned by the public at large strikes me as ultimately a justification rather than a basis in reality. Ideas belong to individuals as those ideas would not exist without an individual making the time and effort to create it. That is where I see the our paths diverging. U.S. copyright law did not originate as the government's attempt to intervene and control the outflow of ideas-it was designed to protect creators from people who would copy their work and thus cheapen the work produced.
Now, I am not saying that copying a work cheapens the product but nor does it take the away from the cost of producing the idea. The idea is still something that takes effort to make. This isn't an entitlement attitude-its the foundation of market exchange. Whether we are exchanging ideas or things, there is still a creator, there is still effort made in creation, and expectation of payment.
I believe that you and will never agree that ideas can be owned. I believe they can-you believe they can't.
The fact that you see movies, music, and literature as nothing more than ideas and information says far worse about yourself than any of us ever could. You are entitled to your opinion, but man do I pity you.
+4
That's not what he's saying at all, Eddie.
Guh, I don't have time to get sucked into this. But he doesn't literally watch a movie and process it as dry information. He's making a distinction at the legal definition level, not the human experience level.
The fact is that you cannot own an idea.
You're right. But you can own the execution of an idea.
You and I can both come up with the idea of a raunchy puppet show. But if I produce Avenue Q, that's not the idea, that's the execution. That is a tangible thing that I put effort into creating. I have created an experience which is mine to share on my terms. If you want to experience it you need to agree to those terms. If you are not willing to do so then the experience was not worth the trade to you. That's how it works.
Content creators do not own the content they create
Yes, they do. You apparently don't like it because you've decided you should get what you want when you want it and fuck everyone else. But that's a problem with you, not the system.
and they are not guaranteed a living from it, no matter how much they might want one.
This is true. If you don't want to pay whatever cost I've determined is fair to experience what I've created, then you won't. And if enough people are like you and feel the content is not worth the cost, I don't make a living.
But to decide the content is not worth the cost but you deserve it anyway? That's just being an asshole.
Ideas are publicly owned
We're not talking about ideas. We're talking about tangible execution of ideas.
+3
Clearly he does not go into a screening of the Matrix and see, literally, The Matrix scroll down in 1's and 0's. But by his own words, all they are are ideas, and to him, ideas should not have a monetary value attached. They should be free to all.
I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked back into this. I woke up this morning and looked at this thread, and it was the same feeling as waking up in a hotel room with my hands covered in blood and no memory of how I got here. So this is going to be my final word on it. I don't think he's trolling per se. But I do suspect he's the type of guy to use a laser pointer to torment his cat in hour long sessions of "catch the floating red dot."
We're not talking about ideas. We're talking about tangible execution of ideas.
TheGreg wrote:The fact is that you cannot own an idea.
You're right. But you can own the execution of an idea.
You and I can both come up with the idea of a raunchy puppet show. But if I produce Avenue Q, that's not the idea, that's the execution. That is a tangible thing that I put effort into creating. I have created an experience which is mine to share on my terms. If you want to experience it you need to agree to those terms. If you are not willing to do so then the experience was not worth the trade to you. That's how it works.
No, I'm sorry, but you cannot own an intangible good like the execution of an idea, at least not under US law. That's simply not 'how it works'.
Content creators do not own the content they create
Yes, they do. You apparently don't like it because you've decided you should get what you want when you want it and fuck everyone else. But that's a problem with you, not the system.
No, no they don't. That's not my opinion, that is the opinion of the US Constitution, and the US Supreme Court. It's you who are laboring under the misapprehension that content creators own content - this idea is simply wrong. The content is publicly owned, content creators are granted a time-limited monopoly on the legal creation of copies under US law.
If this isn't clear to you, then think about this. Who 'owns' the information in the book Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Shelley wrote the book in 1816, and had a government issued monopoly for a limited period to make copies. The copyright lapsed, and now the public can utilize the idea that they own. In fact, they have always owned it, although there was a period during which they did not have the right to make copies of it.
If you believe that the idea in MSF was 'owned' in the same sense that a physical object is owned, why did the 'ownership' not pass to her heirs with the rest of her estate? Of course the answer is that her estate does not own it, because the concept of ownership of an intangible good like a story does not exist in the the UK or US legal systems.
and they are not guaranteed a living from it, no matter how much they might want one.
This is true. If you don't want to pay whatever cost I've determined is fair to experience what I've created, then you won't. And if enough people are like you and feel the content is not worth the cost, I don't make a living.
But to decide the content is not worth the cost but you deserve it anyway? That's just being an asshole.
You may feel that way, and you're entitled to that opinion. I take the view that something that someone does that does me no harm is not being an asshole. In fact, I feel that your view marks you as an asshole.
Ideas are publicly owned
We're not talking about ideas. We're talking about tangible execution of ideas.
If by 'tangible execution of ideas, you mean a physical DVD, then yes. If by tangible execution of ideas you mean the series of 1s and 0s encoded on it, then no. I'm afraid you're wrong, at least according to US law.
Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-30 22:33:50)
The fact that you see movies, music, and literature as nothing more than ideas and information says far worse about yourself than any of us ever could. You are entitled to your opinion, but man do I pity you.
As other people have pointed out, that is clearly not what I said.
The idea that ideas are owned by the public at large strikes me as ultimately a justification rather than a basis in reality. Ideas belong to individuals as those ideas would not exist without an individual making the time and effort to create it. That is where I see the our paths diverging. U.S. copyright law did not originate as the government's attempt to intervene and control the outflow of ideas-it was designed to protect creators from people who would copy their work and thus cheapen the work produced.
This is absolutely not true. The purpose of US Copyright Law is spelled out in the constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution says: "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." The purpose is NOT to protect creators, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Outwith this intervention from the US legal system, there is no exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. Additionally after this limited period their temporary right expires, and the public has a general right to the material.
I believe that you and will never agree that ideas can be owned. I believe they can-you believe they can't.
Right, and yet it's not just MY opinion, it is the opinion of the US legal system, from the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I guess it's your right to disagree with the law, and lobby to change it, but you have to recognize that it is the law.
I'd also refer you to the thought experiment about Frankenstein above if you're having trouble getting your head around why intangible goods can't be owned.
Last edited by TheGreg (2012-11-30 22:35:57)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
