Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Posted Sep 26, 2014 13:18 UTC (Fri) by peter-b (subscriber, #66996)In reply to: Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica) by etienne
Parent article: Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
But those photos have never been at zero cost, they just have been stolen.Copying is not theft.
Posted Sep 26, 2014 14:35 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (12 responses)
They are different words, I presume they have different meanings.
And to be honest, all this saying the guy should get a different job sickens me. It boils down to basic ethics - he's put a lot of time and effort into creating these photos - if you don't want to pay him for that, DON'T USE HIS PHOTOS! MAKE YOUR OWN!
The problem, of course, is where the water has been horribly muddied by companies claiming copyright over work they didn't create, and where the creator can't benefit (quite likely because he's dead!)
The problem is people seem to be at one end of the spectrum, or the other, and both are selfish and exploitative. Either EVERYTHING is free (and I can walk into your house and help myself to the fruits of your labour, like your car and your TV and your food and all that), or we pay for everything right down to the air we breathe and the water we drink just because some company or person has managed to get a monopoly.
At the end of the day, my personal belief is you have the rights to enjoy the fruits of your own labour. And if he has created those works, he has the right to dictate how they are used. It's not as if you can't go out and create your own equivalent, after all! (Or rather, I see it as jealousy and greed on the part of those who can't or won't create their own if they want it for free!) After all, isn't one of the Open Source mantras "he who writes the code, sets the rules"? The perfect example of FREEdom in controlling your own work?
(And yes, I agree, when mega-wotsits come along and hoover up other peoples rights and (ab)use them, I agree that is wrong).
Actually, I think that view is very much in tune with the American Constitution ...
Cheers,
Posted Sep 26, 2014 17:34 UTC (Fri)
by Creideiki (subscriber, #38747)
[Link] (11 responses)
No, it doesn't. It boils down to basic economics. You may claim that the results of the economic analysis are unethical, but that doesn't make them go away.
Posted Sep 26, 2014 18:16 UTC (Fri)
by jackb (guest, #41909)
[Link] (5 responses)
Example: If you plant a tree people who drive past your house might enjoy the view. They are profiting from your labour without paying you.
The tree might cast shade on your neighbor's house, thereby lowering their electric bill for air conditioning. Again they are profiting from your labor without paying.
Every action that anyone could possibly take could be construed as creating profits that other people enjoy without payment.
The principle of "everyone owns the effects of their labor" is equivalent to "nobody can do anything at all without paying everyone else else they are committing theft."
Posted Sep 27, 2014 14:58 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
If we want *affordable* *popular* art that is professional, then copyright or something like it is a NECESSITY. Some sort of crowd funding.
For performance art (an orchestra, a pop band) you can have ticket sales. Performers can make a professional living from performance. But if you can't make a living from taking photographs, there will be no professional photographers. If you can't make a living from writing music, there will be no professional composers. Which means there will be NO PROFESSIONAL QUALITY photographs, or music for performers, etc etc.
There is a lot of evidence that says someone's "skill in the art" is VERY dependent on how much time you spend practicing - that's time spent over a lifetime! If you spend 10 hours a day earning a living, and three or four hours a night practicing, your "native ability" (which doesn't actually seem to exist!) will be far lower than somebody able to work at it for that same 10 hours a day.
What's the quote? "The average child prodigy has done more practice by the age of 11, than the average person achieves in their entire lifetime". "innate ability" really means that you *enjoy* *practicing* whatever it is. If you are prevented from practicing then you're never going to be any good.
And much as you may not like it, copyright (done properly) is a very good source of crowd funding. The problem is that the current implementation sucks massively - so massively as to be pretty much a blatant fraud :-(
Cheers,
Posted Sep 27, 2014 15:56 UTC (Sat)
by Creideiki (subscriber, #38747)
[Link] (2 responses)
Even assuming that "professional quality" is even a thing, and relevant, you have not successfully argued why the existing avenues for non-copyright-based income for artist are inadequate. A lot of art is produced on commission, because it needs to be specific, which makes it non-fungible. Look at all the graphics artists, designers and musicians who work in the advertising industry. Look at those employed by the movie industry. Are you saying that these do not count? Or that they can be replaced by clip-art from the Internet? Look at the ticket-selling pop band in your example. Are you saying that none of that money will ever go to commissioning the services of a songwriter? Or that they won't recognize the need until songwriters have become extinct? There really is a world of difference between that kind of art production and a web site which just wants a bug picture, which is fungible with any other bug picture. Or look at Patreon. It's not hard to find people who make several thousands of dollars per month (plus whatever they make from other avenues, such as ads), which I would count as "making a living" from their art. They get this not from copyright, not for something they've done in the past, but for the promise to continue to create.
Posted Sep 27, 2014 19:52 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
So you're saying that a crystal-clear, perfectly sharp, wonderfully coloured bug picture is fungible with a fuzzy, out-of-focus, overexposed bug picture taken with a cheap flare-ridden lens on a cheap low quality sensor?
It's like saying that a professional musician who - through years of training - can pretty much be guaranteed to hit the right note first time every time is interchangeable with a person who sings in the shower and is so tone deaf he can't even hear that he's way out of tune.
If a web site is happy with a grotty free picture, that's fine. What I'm saying is that if everybody is happy pirating those high-quality, professional pictures, then simple economics says the supply of those pictures will simply dry up. Nobody will be able to afford the investment needed to be *capable* of producing them!
And that's why copyright exists - so that those who make that investment get the chance to recoup their investment. They have no right to a return on the investment, they have no guarantee to a return on their investment. But without copyright or somesuch similar, they pretty much have a guarantee that they WON'T make a return on their investment. Which means that the supply will dry up. Which is why the American Constitution allows copyrights - to try and prevent the well running dry ...
Cheers,
Posted Sep 27, 2014 20:11 UTC (Sat)
by Creideiki (subscriber, #38747)
[Link]
And what I'm saying is that that is demonstrably not the case, since there is a market for commissioned photos.
Posted Sep 27, 2014 23:33 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
But *intent* matters.
If I plant a tree in my garden, I get the benefit of my labour. I enjoy the tree. If I plant a tree in my forest, I get the benefit. I cut it down and sell it for firewood, or furniture, or paper or whatever. If you benefit as a *side* *effect*, that's great. (If you suffer as a side effect, well that's what anti-social laws are for - in the UK you could be forced to chop the tree in your garden down).
This guy is taking photographs in order to make a living. I'm not even certain if it's him that's putting them up on the internet in the first place!
If *I* post *my* photos on the internet, and a side effect is to stop him making a living, then that's not anti-social. That's *fair* competition, and that's tough. But if *I* post *HIS* photos (quite likely without permission!) then that is unfair, unethical, illegal and anti-social.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 27, 2014 14:25 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
Which then says that these pictures are worthless, because economics dictates that they CANNOT happen.
If you want those pictures to exist, you have to rig the market so that it produces people capable of taking them ...
Cheers,
Posted Sep 27, 2014 15:59 UTC (Sat)
by Creideiki (subscriber, #38747)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2014 19:56 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
And ability depends on time available to practice. You want popular art? You have to pay for it. And if you're relying solely on those people you talk about you're going to have very few artists. And typically they will be bohemian souls who either die young in poverty, or abandon art for more lucrative careers.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 27, 2014 20:19 UTC (Sat)
by Creideiki (subscriber, #38747)
[Link] (1 responses)
Perhaps. But even if so, copyright is far from the only way to do it. Kickstarter and Patreon are doing a fine job proving that. Another way is tax-funded education.
Posted Sep 27, 2014 21:37 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
And what happens when they graduate? Should all art be created by students?
If they can't make a living from it, they won't practice it, and if the education was supposed to be vocational then it was a total waste of money.
Cheers,
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
It boils down to basic ethics
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
What I'm saying is that if everybody is happy pirating those high-quality, professional pictures [...]
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
And ability depends on time available to practice. You want popular art? You have to pay for it.
Bugging out: How rampant online piracy squashed one insect photographer (Ars Technica)
Wol