pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Copy Cats (and creativity) Throughout History  (Read 10471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 18, 2012, 09:45 »
0
Not to defend copy cats.. but here is a very interesting look at copying and creativity throughout history







« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 09:54 by leaf »


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2012, 20:10 »
0
Video 4 (the last one) does a great job summing up the problem with IP Law. It's unsustainable.

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.

rubyroo

« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2012, 06:33 »
0
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.

Microbius

« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2012, 07:21 »
0
Very interesting, does a great job explaining how ideas evolve and within the existing legal framework people can and have used others ideas, remixed, expand and improved upon them. Part one 04:25 to about 05:00 in the first video breaks this down brilliantly.
Then we get to part four where he strangely does a U-Turn and criticizes the system under which all this remixing has thrived for the last several centuries, oh and suggests no concrete ways in which the situation can be improved.
Very easy to criticize, very hard to come with new ideas for reform....oh I get it

« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2012, 14:34 »
0
What a great set of videos...jammed full of info and SERIOUSLY fun to watch. Thanks for the post.

Batman

« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2012, 00:55 »
0
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.

« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2012, 01:26 »
0
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.

fujiko

« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2012, 03:24 »
0
I found the videos very interesting and I believe the author doesn't mean that copyright is bad or we should not have IP. I believe he means that the current IP laws have gone too far from the original intent of promoting the benefit of the society as a whole. Current system is dangerous in many aspects, lots of patents are used to stop innovation, copyright on furniture is used to stop photography, lawyers have took control of IP to a point that a company can profit by suing everyone else and producing nothing.
Original IP law was more fair to authors and society, but current IP law is only for greedy corporations that want perpetual IP and want to milk a single idea forever.
Many things from our grandfathers time should be in Public domain by now and we could be able to use those public domain works to create new and fresh content. Instead, corporations want to stop any new content to enter public domain by lobbying to extend copyright when it is about to expire.
If corporations continue doing this, society will start to think copyright and IP law is unfair and should be eliminated, it already has started to levels unknown before. I hope it stops because I don't want to see copyright eliminated or infringed much more because of this. We need copyright, copyright is good. It's just corporations are taking it too far and it may break.

« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2012, 03:25 »
0
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?

rubyroo

« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2012, 03:28 »
0
An excellent summary Fujiko.  That's very much how I interpreted it too, but could never have expressed it as well as you have.  !

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2012, 04:03 »
0
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?

« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2012, 04:17 »
0
Without payment or protection there is no reason to create.

Are you fxxxing serious ??!!!

« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2012, 05:27 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2012, 05:40 »
0
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.

Microbius

« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2012, 06:18 »
0
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.

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2012, 06:20 »
0
Without payment or protection there is no reason to create.

Are you fxxxing serious ??!!!
Take it in the context of the rest of the statement.
We aren't talking about fine art but creating in the context of the creative industry here.
No incentive to create for a living I'm guessing.

« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2012, 06:34 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 06:36 by Perry »

rubyroo

« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2012, 07:00 »
0
Ooh this is a big subject.  One could argue that invention itself is a form of creativity (as it requires creative thought to begin with) - and invention is something that is innate to humans, and certainly emerges when driven by necessity.

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 (and/or 'release') 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.  
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 07:07 by rubyroo »

« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2012, 07:09 »
0
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 :)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 07:11 by Perry »

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2012, 07:21 »
0
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!)  :D

Microbius

« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2012, 07:32 »
0
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!)  :D

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.

rubyroo

« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2012, 07:38 »
0
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  ;)

That's a great point, Microbius, and beautifully expressed I might add.

I'm always impatient to reach what is fair and reasonable, and pretty terrified of extremes in all forms.

I will try to be more patient as the story plays itself out...

« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2012, 09:19 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 09:23 by Perry »

« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2012, 13:17 »
0
Without payment or protection there is no reason to create.

Are you fxxxing serious ??!!!
Take it in the context of the rest of the statement.
We aren't talking about fine art but creating in the context of the creative industry here.
No incentive to create for a living I'm guessing.

Sorry I didn't want to sound aggressive against batman. It was just a spontaneous reaction as i was reading.
I understand the rest of his statement of course, and the context of creative industry, which i'm also working in
but i thought what the videos here were pointing is a reflexion far beyond the only creative industry domain
just about what "art" really is, even and mostly using examples of art creations before all the technology we know today, with which the possibility of stealing someone else work has undoubtedly increase
I'm not defending copycats, but as the videos show it a bit, maybe for us all at a moment or another there's no way out of being some kind of "thieves" of someone else work, even unintentionally
maybe is it an essential dimension of art...

Not to talk (for computers artists) about the tools we're using (software, plugins etc...) how many designers in the creative industry are using unlicensed software, or have been using it to learn their art and job...?

Batman

« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2012, 15:29 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2012, 17:34 »
0
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.


Personally I want to trademark the letter "A", the musical note "A" and the key of "A" and related chords. That would pretty well make me rich, because you see, all those people have been using it since 440 concert pitch was standardized and I want a piece of the action!
 Using the below image in France is not allowed without a license. Don't blame some big corporation for what an individual and some dumb a$$ froggy court decided.


« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2012, 19:48 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 19:50 by cardmaverick »

RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2012, 23:06 »
0
So lets see, cardmaverick, you think we'll have open source movie's with distribution, free actors and production crews?  :D You suppose that the Rolling Stones will just play for free and someone will pay their living expenses, studio time, tour crews, equipment costs and all that goes behind their shows?

Not trying to explode anything. I like Firefox, I had a laptop running Ubuntu. Paint.net works pretty well. I never figured out Gimp but people swear it's good. Irfanview I love for quick viewing and making websize... the list is another easy 50 pieces of shareware long. So I agree.

What was going on, and still is, on the upload sites is one person obtains a bootleg album. (for example) They upload it and email a dozen close friends, who also have some close friends and pretty soon, anyone who knows anyone has a "Private" link to the download. The site makes money by hosting and turning a blind eye to the piracy. Pretty nice trick.

Then there's the case where someone steals 250 images from a photo site, maybe even using a stolen credit card (ha an people want the site to ay us for that?) makes a CD collection and uploads it to one of these sites and all of your work and the rest of the people here, has just been distributed for free, Worldwide. Plus through the chains, it makes it's way to more pirate sites and soon, we have a product with no value on the market. It's free.

So do we want to work for free and defend these "innocent" sharing sites? I don't.

I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing. People have financial needs. Lets not be silly and say, someone will create for free and be motivated to do that by the desire to create? Money is motivation. Property, cars, possessions, more than just food and drink and some poverty hovel to live in. Be real.

Does everyone here who supports these free sharing sites, also support giving away their work for free? Wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to say it's OK to have, use and steal other peoples work for free but not ours?

And the claims that people use these sites for backup and are innocent. Fine, everyone can access their own information. Just not share it.

Microbius

« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2012, 04:15 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 07:44 by Microbius »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5409 Views
Last post February 20, 2009, 04:13
by Kngkyle
1 Replies
4902 Views
Last post November 15, 2010, 19:53
by lisafx
If Fonts were Cats...

Started by rubyroo Off Topic

20 Replies
5150 Views
Last post May 27, 2012, 11:07
by Microstock Posts
15 Replies
6053 Views
Last post March 21, 2014, 13:35
by tickstock
3 Replies
2313 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 19:03
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle