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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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!) 

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.  

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.