Not to defend copy cats.. but here is a very interesting look at copying and creativity throughout history

Thanks Tyler, that was great viewing.  I have a lot of musicians, artists and developers in my world, so I'll be sending this to a whole bunch of people.  I won't be sending to one though.  He's a huge Led Zep fan and I think it'll make him weep when he realises what's been going on there

Just a note to anyone who doesn't realise it (as I didn't initially).  Each segment actually continues on for a further few minutes after the credits have rolled.

What a great set of videos...jammed full of info and SERIOUSLY fun to watch. Thanks for the post.

A piano has 88 keys, using the Kirby everything is a remix, they have all been played before and all music is some other song or part of it. Finding a scene from one movie that appears in another is not a remix. Using the same notes some in the same order at the same speed is not a remix. A 12 bar is not a remix it's a standard progression of chords.

All the words in the dictionary have been used in books. Using Kirby false reasoning all words have been used and all books are nothing but a remix of other books. The End is a remix. They lived happily ever after is a remix. His showing on part to make something a copy is wrong. All the letters have been used before to make those words, all words are nothing but a remix of the original letters.

Rap is a remix it's unoriginal in many ways and uses other bits of music but the words are different in a new song and the parts are rearranged. Some are remakes and copies but using the same bass line doesn't make a song the same, or half of rock and roll is the same song with four chords.

All the colors have been used, the Kirby theory says all paintings are the same if they have white clouds, blue water, light blue sky, green trees and people.

He's wrong very wrong. Leading the viewer with examples is ignoring how different things are.

If this is supposed to prove we shouldn't have laws or copyright then he should give all the money from his donations and advertising to a charity. Without payment or protection there is no reason to create. One free world we can all show his work and charge a fee for it and he gets nothing. That's the world without copyright.

He's not wrong. Everything is built on things that came before. If he's wrong, then it it's impossible for anything to be developed. How on earth could you do geometry without basic math being developed first? You can't.

I suggest you take a look at Linux and open source software. You can make money without IP Laws, you just need to change your business model and seriously rethink what it is you're actually selling.

Quote from: Batman on February 21, 2012, 00:55

A piano has 88 keys, using the Kirby everything is a remix, they have all been played before and all music is some other song or part of it. Finding a scene from one movie that appears in another is not a remix. Using the same notes some in the same order at the same speed is not a remix. A 12 bar is not a remix it's a standard progression of chords.

All the words in the dictionary have been used in books. Using Kirby false reasoning all words have been used and all books are nothing but a remix of other books. The End is a remix. They lived happily ever after is a remix. His showing on part to make something a copy is wrong. All the letters have been used before to make those words, all words are nothing but a remix of the original letters.

Rap is a remix it's unoriginal in many ways and uses other bits of music but the words are different in a new song and the parts are rearranged. Some are remakes and copies but using the same bass line doesn't make a song the same, or half of rock and roll is the same song with four chords.

All the colors have been used, the Kirby theory says all paintings are the same if they have white clouds, blue water, light blue sky, green trees and people.

He's wrong very wrong. Leading the viewer with examples is ignoring how different things are.

If this is supposed to prove we shouldn't have laws or copyright then he should give all the money from his donations and advertising to a charity. Without payment or protection there is no reason to create. One free world we can all show his work and charge a fee for it and he gets nothing. That's the world without copyright.

He's not wrong. Everything is built on things that came before. If he's wrong, then it it's impossible for anything to be developed. How on earth could you do geometry without basic math being developed first? You can't.

So he is right but the argument is trivial?

The donation of content from Istock doesn't surprise me at all, this industry really will benefit from at the very least weakening them back to the original short term limits.

Of course IStock would benefit if there were no IP laws. They wouldn't have to kick us anything back, not even the 15%.
They would wait for someone to steal other people's work and upload it instead of having to negotiate with people who had production costs to deal with.
And of course pretty soon no one would bother producing anything new, when they can easily let someone else bear the costs then steal their work.

Things wouldn't be more open but a lot more closed, that's the point of patents too, you give full disclosure of your discovery so everyone can benefit eventually in exchange for a limited period in which you can exploit it. If there weren't any patents everyone would have to be a lot more secretive.

And of course there would be no incentive to invest a fortune racing to be the first to discover something and patent it.

Again, of course lawyers exploit every loophole to troll, but this is always the case with any law, especially relatively new ones like those governing software patents, it needs tightening up and refining not removing.
Think about it like this, when a teacher is sued for assault when they restrain a child to prevent them kicking the crap out of another pupil do we say that all laws outlawing violence against another individual should be thrown out?

Of course IStock would benefit if there were no IP laws. They wouldn't have to kick us anything back, not even the 15%.
They would wait for someone to steal other people's work and upload it instead of having to negotiate with people who had production costs to deal with.
And of course pretty soon no one would bother producing anything new, when they can easily let someone else bear the costs then steal their work.

Things wouldn't be more open but a lot more closed, that's the point of patents too, you give full disclosure of your discovery so everyone can benefit eventually in exchange for a limited period in which you can exploit it. If there weren't any patents everyone would have to be a lot more secretive.

And of course there would be no incentive to invest a fortune racing to be the first to discover something and patent it.

Again, of course lawyers exploit every loophole to troll, but this is always the case with any law, especially relatively new ones like those governing software patents, it needs tightening up and refining not removing.
Think about it like this, when a teacher is sued for assault when they restrain a child to prevent them kicking the crap out of another pupil do we say that all laws outlawing violence against another individual should be thrown out?

It seems to me you're making the assumption that in a world without IP laws that we would still have the same old business models - we wouldn't. And that's always been my point. You could argue very easily that the stock photography business itself is actually a market distortion caused by IP laws. I don't think it would vanish, but I do think there would be WAY more assignment work if IP laws vanished. It simply makes sense. You can more easily control selling your talent as a photographer in that manner than you can by simply trying to sell stuff you already shot. It seems to me that only stock photographers forget about that. I also find it rather amusing how so many in this business forget that many assignment shooters absolutely hate the stock photo business... because it takes work away from them.

Would some people be more secretive? I'm sure some would. That's their choice, but no secret that produces an item for the market remains a secret for long.

The notion that without IP laws there is no incentive to invest in innovations is just a bunch of propaganda. Ever hear of customer loyalty? If your first to the market, you have the first shot at developing a loyal customer base. You can't put a value on that. Also, for others to "steal" the invention, they would have to invest money into reverse engineering it. I'm pretty sure that costs lots of money too and lets not forget about time. There is also the cost of tooling up, and then the all of the time this whole process of "easily stealing another's invention" takes. It's just ridiculous. People will still invest in being the first person to the market.

It seems to me you're making the assumption that in a world without IP laws that we would still have the same old business models - we wouldn't. And that's always been my point. You could argue very easily that the stock photography business itself is actually a market distortion caused by IP laws. I don't think it would vanish, but I do think there would be WAY more assignment work if IP laws vanished. It simply makes sense. You can more easily control selling your talent as a photographer in that manner than you can by simply trying to sell stuff you already shot. It seems to me that only stock photographers forget about that. I also find it rather amusing how so many in this business forget that many assignment shooters absolutely hate the stock photo business... because it takes work away from them.

Would some people be more secretive? I'm sure some would. That's their choice, but no secret that produces an item for the market remains a secret for long.

The notion that without IP laws there is no incentive to invest in innovations is just a bunch of propaganda. Ever hear of customer loyalty? If your first to the market, you have the first shot at developing a loyal customer base. You can't put a value on that. Also, for others to "steal" the invention, they would have to invest money into reverse engineering it. I'm pretty sure that costs lots of money too and lets not forget about time. There is also the cost of tooling up, and then the all of the time this whole process of "easily stealing another's invention" takes. It's just ridiculous. People will still invest in being the first person to the market.

I am not sure there would be so much more assignment work. One company could simply pinch the photos used by another company. There would still be stock photo libraries, but they would be made up of ex assignment photos uploaded by people who didn't take them, because they have no money invested in their production. Again, the middle man gets all the profit, the creator gets nothing. I am not assuming that the business model would be the same. It would be very different and far, far worse for producers. It would be fantastic for middle men who can get product for nothing and sell it on at huge volume for peanuts. It would actually be the same model as that used by rapid share or megaupload now. Zero incentive or kick back for the creatives.

As far as reverse engineering products and so on it sounds like you are advocating a market that would be entirely run by mega corporations who could easily afford to crowd out creatives by reverse engineering and promoting products based on their initial research and ideas. Customer loyalty is not secured by being first to the market but by having the budget to promote your product. That's how brand loyalty is created. That or having a unique offering, and you can kiss that goodbye with the death of IP. Big corporations would just watch the market to see what product looks like it's taking off then swoop. No chance for anyone else to get a look in. It's like crowd sourcing for ideas, they do it now but at least they have to buy out the creator rather than stiffing them.

Someone who is truly creative (I'm not but I know some who are) creates only because that's what they are (they must create), and not because it's commercially viable. The truly creative don't compromise with commerciability. That's why throughout history you had artists starving in garrets, being supported by sponsors or having other sources of income - because they were so far ahead of their time that the contemporary 'market' wasn't interested, though now they're hailed as geniuses.

Yes, but they did have some kind of financial support (like a sponsor). And it may also be possible that some starving artist would have wanted to be reasonably popular instead of starvation, but their style of work didn't just sell at the time.

Mozart did write some great pieces of music for his sponsors and clients. When he did more personal work he wrote songs about poop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart_and_scatology
Which works are better?

Commerciality isn't always a bad thing. There are very, very few GREAT pieces of art that have been done without financial support or some kind of a business aspect.

Of course the commerciality should always be left in the background.

FWIW, I've spent my whole life around artists and musicians who simply couldn't help but create, whether there was anything in it for them or not.  Many of them ended up having to earn a crust from other avenues, but they still can't help but produce creative works for their own pleasure in their free time.  

So I think that creativity is innate and a 'drive' - but whether one defines onself as an 'artist' is something else, and perhaps artists do split along lines of purely commercial artists and artists that simply can't help but seek expression for their thoughts, feelings and ideas.  

Yes, creativity is certainly a "drive". But to create something GOOD there almost always needs to be money. Without money, there is little you can do. Sure, you can perform singer-songwriter stuff with an acoustic guitar in a local bar, or draw comics in your room... that's about it. But If you want to make a living (to do ONLY what you love to do!) there almost always is a need for some investments. And when you would like to earn money from your work, you start to defend your IP rights

Oof!  I wouldn't define 'good' by whether something is commercially successful or not.  The general public will buy (and buy into) all sorts of cr*p. 

I've never said that no-one should protect their IP rights.  I just think those programmes brought up some great points about IP being taken so far that no-one can produce anything new without infringing them any more.  The whole of political history is made up of swings too far to one extreme and then swings too far to the other.  It's the intelligent middle that we should all be seeking, IMHO.  (Don't ask me to find it though!) 

I think the intelligent middle isn't really found by people holding that golden mean belief from the outset. It is what remains after the battle has been fought. Producers need to fight for their IP as hard as possible while the other side does so to. The dust will settle somewhere in the middle 

It's how markets work generally, the seller tries to get the highest possible price, the consumer the lowest, the market price is where they are forced to compromise. Neither decides to be reasonable and charge or pay what the product is "worth", the figure is landed upon because of the opposing forces.

Oof!  I wouldn't define 'good' by whether something is commercially successful or not.  The general public will buy (and buy into) all sorts of cr*p.  

No, that's not what I'm trying to say. In the other end of the spectrum "fully commercial" means always cr*p. I meant that if you are going to produce something that is "good" or even "great" you need for instance:

- Creativity
- Talent
- Effort
- Time (≈ money)
- Tools and material (=money)

"Creativity" may be a strong drive and force, but it alone will not take you very far.
If we would treat IP:s like pirates, "everything should be free, soon we wouldn't have almost anything worth looking at/reading/listening to.

Quote from: Batman on February 21, 2012, 00:55

Without payment or protection there is no reason to create.

Someone who is truly creative (I'm not but I know some who are) creates only because that's what they are (they must create), and not because it's commercially viable. The truly creative don't compromise with commerciability. That's why throughout history you had artists starving in garrets, being supported by sponsors or having other sources of income - because they were so far ahead of their time that the contemporary 'market' wasn't interested, though now they're hailed as geniuses.

This is a microstock site about making money not about starving artists living in slums making art pictures.  Send me a sponsor I'll work for free. Who pays your bills and lets you work for free? You want people to work all day at making pictures for nothing because it's creative. Whos first here to complain when someone steals your photo or uses it without the right license. You like working for free go do it.

I am not sure there would be so much more assignment work. One company could simply pinch the photos used by another company. There would still be stock photo libraries, but they would be made up of ex assignment photos uploaded by people who didn't take them, because they have no money invested in their production. Again, the middle man gets all the profit, the creator gets nothing. I am not assuming that the business model would be the same. It would be very different and far, far worse for producers. It would be fantastic for middle men who can get product for nothing and sell it on at huge volume for peanuts. It would actually be the same model as that used by rapid share or megaupload now. Zero incentive or kick back for the creatives.

As far as reverse engineering products and so on it sounds like you are advocating a market that would be entirely run by mega corporations who could easily afford to crowd out creatives by reverse engineering and promoting products based on their initial research and ideas. Customer loyalty is not secured by being first to the market but by having the budget to promote your product. That's how brand loyalty is created. That or having a unique offering, and you can kiss that goodbye with the death of IP. Big corporations would just watch the market to see what product looks like it's taking off then swoop. No chance for anyone else to get a look in. It's like crowd sourcing for ideas, they do it now but at least they have to buy out the creator rather than stiffing them.

One of the many problems I see with what you've proposed about how the industry would change is the idea that only people who didn't shoot the images would be selling them. That's incorrect in my eyes. First off, you're assuming they even have access to all the high res versions complete with search metadata embedded already. Secondly,there is nothing to stop the original photographer from selling his own stuff. The megaupload and rapid share examples are good examples, but they do not support what your saying because there was absolutely nothing stopping the film studios from banding together and creating their own exact version of those sites using their own content. Megaupload and Rapid Share are ingenious ideas. Megaupload and Rapid Share figured out that lots of people who are unwilling to pay for content are actually perfectly willing to pay for the privileged of easily sharing it or paying for faster download speeds.

The idea that big companies would simply sit back and wait for ideas to steal is another faulty idea. Proponents of IP Law always make this rather absurd claim that if it vanishes, nobody will ever make anything ever again. It's not even based on reality and open source software is a perfect example of how wrong that mindset really is. And for the record, many opens source programs are actually developed by companies who are paying their programmers to make them and all of the projects are perfectly free to take code from each other. That's one of the reasons companies like open source software. All the people involved get to benefit. Canonical (maker of Ubuntu) is making money off of support and aiming at cloud computing and online storage, so there is money being made off of open source programs as well.

I think one also has to realize that we already live in a post IP Law world, yes, we have a lot of silly laws on the books, but clearly laws that try to fight reality don't take much hold on it.

One of the many problems I see with what you've proposed about how the industry would change is the idea that only people who didn't shoot the images would be selling them. That's incorrect in my eyes. First off, you're assuming they even have access to all the high res versions complete with search metadata embedded already. Secondly,there is nothing to stop the original photographer from selling his own stuff. The megaupload and rapid share examples are good examples, but they do not support what your saying because there was absolutely nothing stopping the film studios from banding together and creating their own exact version of those sites using their own content. Megaupload and Rapid Share are ingenious ideas. Megaupload and Rapid Share figured out that lots of people who are unwilling to pay for content are actually perfectly willing to pay for the privileged of easily sharing it or paying for faster download speeds.

The idea that big companies would simply sit back and wait for ideas to steal is another faulty idea. Proponents of IP Law always make this rather absurd claim that if it vanishes, nobody will ever make anything ever again. It's not even based on reality and open source software is a perfect example of how wrong that mindset really is. And for the record, many opens source programs are actually developed by companies who are paying their programmers to make them and all of the projects are perfectly free to take code from each other. That's one of the reasons companies like open source software. All the people involved get to benefit. Canonical (maker of Ubuntu) is making money off of support and aiming at cloud computing and online storage, so there is money being made off of open source programs as well.

I think one also has to realize that we already live in a post IP Law world, yes, we have a lot of silly laws on the books, but clearly laws that try to fight reality don't take much hold on it.

You aren't really engaging with any of the arguments here. The point isn't that the actual creators of work wouldn't also be able to sell their product, it's that they would never be able to sell it for a price as low as someone who "steals" the work. That should be pretty obvious as one party has to pay production costs while another doesn't. I don't think the assumption that in a post IP world high res copies of photos would be easy to come by is incorrect. I could stock a new stock site with high res content right now from megaupload if the law didn't prohibit me.

Same with the ridiculous megaupload example, of course a studio could open a similar site, but as I said before, the income would never cover the cost of production as they are competing with someone who hasn't had to pay those costs so can very easily undercut the studios. Look at how much the biggest "sharing" sites make and how much it costs to produce just one film!

As far as companies stealing ideas, not sure what your point is here either, I am not saying that innovation would stop, just that innovators would stop being rewarded, and the winners would be those with the funds to manipulate the market.
A post IP world is a very, very ugly one where salesmen and middle men take all the profit while creators get stiffed.

Quote: "Megaupload and Rapid Share are ingenious ideas. Megaupload and Rapid Share figured out that lots of people who are unwilling to pay for content are actually perfectly willing to pay for the privileged of easily sharing it or paying for faster download speeds." Err no that's not what they figured out. All they did was provide content far more cheaply than the other providers by not paying to create that content.  They also don't provide it more quickly, they actually throttle the speed of those that don't pay them, not provide a faster service than for example Netflix, Lovefilm etc. where you can stream instantly. So to recap they are providing product less efficiently at a lower speed and lower quality that's harder to search for but at the cheapest price point. No new innovation, just lower operating costs. If you want to have a semantic argument about what people are actually paying for then you can waste time doing that but the facts remain the same.

Customers just flock to the cheapest option, the cheapest option is the one that doesn't pay for stuff, just steals it from creators.