Respect Other People's Work and Don't Steal It

[BrendanWenzel]

I've noticed a huge problem in the Ron Paul community of downloading other people's YouTube videos and then reuploading them on their own accounts with 0 attribution to the original creator that made the video. You know what they call this? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Blows my mind that we talk about respecting people's private property and then do things like this. My time is considered my private property and when someone puts a lot of time into making a video for Ron Paul, it's wrong to take their video to promote your own agenda. There are ways to share videos you really like. It's called making a playlist and making the video a favorite.

Biggest thing is when people download the videos from the official channel and then reupload them with their own links in the description instead of the official RonPaul2012.com (look at the RonPaul2008dotcom channel for an example). Do you realize you're actually hurting the campaign by doing this? You're taking views away from the official video and new subscribers away from the official channel. Not to mention all the traffic that's now going to your site instead of being introduced to the actual campaign. By siphoning off views from the official campaign videos, you're taking away from their total view counts and thus the channel's authority.

Personally, this is one thing that is completely unacceptable to me. If you want more videos on your channel, contribute to the movement by making unique videos that help further the cause. Unless you first have permission, don't use other people's on your channel. Simple as that.

[Bruno]

Brb, I'm going to get some popcorn for the discussion on intellectual property and copyright laws.




Back - I can see how this would upset someone for sure that put the hard work into it.

[belian78]

And yet people are still able to watch the videos and experience Ron Paul. Even though the message isn't being sent by the official campaign, people are getting it all the same. That's what matters, right?

[IndianaPolitico]

I think the biggest example is the new "The One" ad from the campaign. Right after it was uploaded, the RonPaul2008dotcom channel uploaded it as their own as usual. It took away over 150,000 views! That is alot of traffic lost.

[TheTyke]

This is a really good point... re-uploading videos seems to hurt viral potential by diluting the view count. It's absolutely counterproductive but it seems almost standard procedure now. I don't understand why people even do this. Are some deliberately trying to undermine us?

[r3volution]

i understand what you are saying , but it is not necessarily COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT .

[Romulus]

I agree that one video with 500k views is better than 100 videos with 50 views.

[specsaregood]

Brb, I'm going to get some popcorn for the discussion on intellectual property and copyright laws.


Better bring enough for everybody.

[BrendanWenzel]

I think the biggest example is the new "The One" ad from the campaign. Right after it was uploaded, the RonPaul2007dotcom channel uploaded it as their own as usual. It took away over 150,000 views! That is alot of traffic lost.

And where do they send the traffic? To their own landing page of course. It's ridiculous.


i understand what you are saying , but it is not necessarily COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT .

Yeah, it's not necessarily always copyright infringement. News interviews I wouldn't consider infringement. But when someone edits stuff and make it a unique piece of work, it falls into that category.

[teacherone]

yay! another 50 pages!

in b4 conza.

[pipewerKz]

I don't think its any kind of property right. You are displaying a video to potentionally billions of people on a public site, the only way to keep an idea private is to never show it to anyone.

That being said...

Likes:
Videos sometimes have better titles and are better to share because they will attract more people.
Videos are more available to pop up as a recommended video.

Dislikes:
Not putting a link to RonPaul2012.com
Not giving credit to the original uploader
Takes away views from the offical upload site.

You can't forget about the fact that channels like MoxNews always upload Ron Paul interviews regardless of whether or not the campaign or other channels do. Are we to ask them to stop? People can do what they want to spread the message, but be respectful to other peoples productivity and don't pass it off as your own.

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm protesting this thread right outta the gate this time

[brushfire]

Does posting to youtube imply some sort of copyright?

I had thought it was the public domain... People have copied my videos and just added a character or something to the title. In my line of "political business" that's called increasing surface area (exposure). I agree that it shows poor character/taste to not cite the original sources. I think that an a$$hole takes someone else's video and portrays it as their own... Still, a fond friend of the good Dr Paul once said: "There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."

I say suck it up, and keep producing material that people want - you must be doing something right.

[MJU1983]

I think the biggest example is the new "The One" ad from the campaign. Right after it was uploaded, the RonPaul2008dotcom channel uploaded it as their own as usual. It took away over 150,000 views! That is alot of traffic lost.

That one (pun) bothered me as well. I mean, click favorite and let Dr. Paul get the hits. :)

[IndianaPolitico]

That one (pun) bothered me as well. I mean, click favorite and let Dr. Paul get the hits. :)

It is REALLY annoying when it happens to yourself. I uploaded a short film I worked on for months, and right away someone uploaded it as their own! I got it taken down, but it drove a good bit of traffic away from mine.

[teacherone]

It is REALLY annoying when it happens to yourself. I uploaded a short film I worked on for months, and right away someone uploaded it as their own! I got it taken down, but it drove a good bit of traffic away from mine.

so?

[BrendanWenzel]

You can't forget about the fact that channels like MoxNews always upload Ron Paul interviews regardless of whether or not the campaign or other channels do. Are we to ask them to stop? People can do what they want to spread the message, but be respectful to other peoples productivity and don't pass it off as your own.

Absolutely not. Like I said above, interviews wouldn't fall into this category. It's more about videos that were obviously edited and took someone time to make.


I'm protesting this thread right outta the gate this time

Cool, I got a protester!!


Does posting to youtube imply some sort of copyright? I had thought it was the public domain...

If you want to allow people to use your video, then you can mark it with the creative commons license. Here's how to do it: http://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Absolutely not. Like I said above, interviews wouldn't fall into this category. It's more about videos that were obviously edited and took someone time to make.



Cool, I got a protester!!



If you want to allow people to use your video, then you can mark it with the creative commons license. Here's how to do it: http://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons

How exactly is taking other's clips and editing them together any different? I would think a Ron Paul supporter would like to see the message get to the most people -- so I don't see how restrictions will spread the message faster, or to more people. As far as IP, once you put it out in the public domain you can't honestly expect to control other's property can you? They haven't stolen anything from you -- you still have your video and people can still view it at the same place if they want. You restricting the use of anothers property is a violation of property rights. It would be like complaining that people are replicating your replicator machine that you patented and sold. It's patently absurd! (Ha pun intended)

[dusman]

i understand what you are saying , but it is not necessarily COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT .

It absolutely, without a doubt is. Copyrights are established as soon as the creator makes anything that comes from their own mind, whether explicitly declared or not even considered from the originator.

I second this motion. It's a very serious problem and not only to do with videos. In my case, one of the sample ads I created that used a photo comp (copyrighted) was then used elsewhere, putting me and the re-distributor at risk of copyright infringement.

There should be no excuse whatsoever from the community on this.

We need to patrol our areas and when this occurs, we should all take up the responsibility to report these to the original creator and ask them to communicate with those who are imposing on their copyrights.

[LibertyEagle]

I've noticed a huge problem in the Ron Paul community of downloading other people's YouTube videos and then reuploading them on their own accounts with 0 attribution to the original creator that made the video. You know what they call this? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Blows my mind that we talk about respecting people's private property and then do things like this. Time is considered private property and when someone puts a lot of time into making a video for Ron Paul, it's wrong to take their video to promote your own agenda. There are ways to share videos you really like. It's called making a playlist and making the video a favorite.

Biggest thing is when people download the videos from the official channel and then reupload them with their own links in the description instead of the official RonPaul2012.com (look at the RonPaul2008dotcom channel for an example). Do you realize you're actually hurting the campaign by doing this? You're taking views away from the official video and new subscribers away from the official channel. Not to mention all the traffic that's now going to your site instead of being introduced to the actual campaign. By siphoning off views from the official campaign videos, you're taking away from their total view counts and thus the channel's authority.

Personally, this is one thing that is completely unacceptable to me. If you want more videos on your channel, contribute to the movement by making unique videos that help further the cause. Unless you first have permission, don't use other people's on your channel. Simple as that.

I totally agree.

[dannno]

I agree that one video with 500k views is better than 100 videos with 50 views.

Would you agree that when a youtube account gets deleted, having the videos stratesphied over multiple accounts is good as well?

[dannno]

It is REALLY annoying when it happens to yourself. I uploaded a short film I worked on for months, and right away someone uploaded it as their own! I got it taken down, but it drove a good bit of traffic away from mine.

Did you make the video for you, or for Ron Paul?

[IndianaPolitico]

Did you make the video for you, or for Ron Paul?

For myself, it was a short action film.

[hillertexas]

..

[dusman]

Does posting to youtube imply some sort of copyright?

Yes. In fact, the copyright was imposed prior to even uploading. YouTube is not public domain and does a pretty good job enforcing IP rights.

[IndianaPolitico]

so?

Fruits of my labor... Plus, I am shooting for YT partnership someday.

[CasualApathy]

The only situation where I can see justified anger over someone else stealing your views is (as mentioned above) if you're actually trying to become a youtube partner and make money on your channel as video view counts and likes factor in to that decision when youtube looks at who to make a parther. That being said i doubt many channels uploading political videos will ever make youtube partner. It's mainly gaming and lifestyle/gossip channels who seem to make the cut at the moment.

[davidt!]

Most of the people who make youtube videos take samples from copyrighted news interviews, debates and from other peoples photos. Maybe nobody should be allowed to make a youtube video?

[LibertyEagle]

I agree with this.

I do too, but shouldn't that decision be up to the one who created the work? We don't like it when government or do-gooders decide that they know best what to do with the fruits of our labors, but yet, some of us seem to do the very same thing. Sure, there are all kinds of excuses, but in my opinion, they are just that. Excuses.

[dannno]

For myself, it was a short action film.

Then how is it related to this thread?

[dannno]

Most of the people who make youtube videos take samples from copyrighted news interviews, debates and from other peoples photos. Maybe nobody should be allowed to make a youtube video?

Winnah.


Stop whining, share the message.

[IndianaPolitico]

Then how is it related to this thread?

The discussion is about people re-uploading other people's YT videos, that is what happened.

[Chrysamere]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.

Whining about it won't help though, besides you probably stole clips/pictures\music from other people too. Next time put your name/account name in the video itself at the end or something.

[brandon]

Time is considered private property

mind = blown

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I do too, but shouldn't that decision be up to the one who created the work? We don't like it when government or do-gooders decide that they know best what to do with the fruits of our labors, but yet, some of us seem to do the very same thing. Sure, there are all kinds of excuses, but in my opinion, they are just that. Excuses.

Can you point out to me what was 'stolen' from the OP? Seems to me nothing was considering:

1) He is still in full possession of his video
2) His video is still accessible via YT (as it originally is/was)

Seems to me that he has exactly everything he had before this thread was made (aka after someone duplicated the video). Lest I remind you, that video views are not property, nor does anyone have a right to viewership, or euphemistically profit.

[dusman]

Can you point out to me what was 'stolen' from the OP? Seems to me nothing was considering:

1) He is still in full possession of his video
2) His video is still accessible via YT (as it originally is/was)

Seems to me that he has exactly everything he had before this thread was made (aka after someone duplicated the video). Lest I remind you, that video views are not property, nor does anyone have a right to viewership, or euphemistically profit.

Again, your logic is simply founded in inexperience in dealing with it. Redistribution IS infringement. As a professional creative, I take offense to it, every time I see it occur.

[CaptainAmerica]

I think the biggest example is the new "The One" ad from the campaign. Right after it was uploaded, the RonPaul2008dotcom channel uploaded it as their own as usual. It took away over 150,000 views! That is alot of traffic lost. No doubt about that! I wasn't aware that ronpaul2008dotcom did that....wouldn't surprise me if it was just a traffic stunt to get ratings up on their little account.

[CaptainAmerica]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.

Whining about it won't help though, besides you probably stole clips/pictures\music from other people too. Next time put your name/account name in the video itself at the end or something. That is your opinion.

[Chrysamere]

That is your opinion.

Ofcourse it is CaptainObvious.

[hillertexas]

..

[dusman]

Ofcourse it is CaptainObvious.

Don't expect a single creative to take your side on that opinion.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, your logic is simply founded in inexperience in dealing with it. Redistribution IS infringement. As a professional creative, I take offense to it, every time I see it occur.

In order to re-distribute you must take from one to give to another -- which means the person who was taken from is not in possession of what was taken. How hard is this to grasp. You cannot steal an idea, nor, can the duplication of something be considered theft. Perhaps you should analyze the situation again. This person is still in FULL possession of the video and his YT page is still accessible. He is exactly the same the moment before and the moment after the other person uploaded their video (it is in their hard-drive after-all, unless you are perfectly fine with the OP controlling anothers property aka HARD-DRIVE, CD's, etc.).

[CaptainAmerica]

Better bring enough for everybody. LOL intellectual property vs anti-ip 2.0? I think the main topic here is that certain youtube users like to re-upload other viral videos to get their own ratings up.

[CaptainAmerica]

Ofcourse it is CaptainObvious. Well I didn't see you say "I think it is pure evil" you called it pure evil.

[dusman]

So what is the solution? A restriction of the rights of someone else to spread the message? It is unfortunate that some take advantage, but should we restrict the masses in order to stop a few? In this case, everyone still has the fruit (video) of their labor. Someone else just made a copy. Are the number of hits worth the censorship?

A disclaimer should be placed as a sticky on this forum for all to be exposed to 100% of the time. That would help. Further, ask for permission like a decent human being with respect for others to use it. You'll find that 99% of the time, they won't deny you that use and the matter will be avoided altogether.

[IndianaPolitico]

So what is the solution? A restriction of the rights of someone else to spread the message? It is unfortunate that some take advantage, but should we restrict the masses in order to stop a few? In this case, everyone still has the fruit (video) of their labor. Someone else just made a copy. Are the number of hits worth the censorship?
YT already has a solution, you can report the video for copywrite infringement. To join YT, you agree to their terms of service. Re-uploading someone else's work, is against their terms of service.

[specsaregood]

At this point, is it possible to just SELECT INTO one of the hundreds of other threads into this one? save some typing time?

[Chrysamere]

Well I didn't see you say "I think it is pure evil" you called it pure evil.

It is pure evil. :D

[CasualApathy]

No doubt about that! I wasn't aware that ronpaul2008dotcom did that....wouldn't surprise me if it was just a traffic stunt to get ratings up on their little account.

Who is to say that all of those 150k would have seen the video on the official site? maybe only half of them would have, who knows?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A disclaimer should be placed as a sticky on this forum for all to be exposed to 100% of the time. That would help. Further, ask for permission like a decent human being with respect for others to use it. You'll find that 99% of the time, they won't deny you that use and the matter will be avoided altogether.

I don't see why someone should have to ask permission to use their own hard-drive, their own CD's, etc.

[dusman]

In order to re-distribute you must take from one to give to another -- which means the person who was taken from is not in possession of what was taken. How hard is this to grasp. You cannot steal an idea, nor, can the duplication of something be considered theft. Perhaps you should analyze the situation again. This person is still in FULL possession of the video and his YT page is still accessible. He is exactly the same the moment before and the moment after the other person uploaded their video (it is in their hard-drive after-all, unless you are perfectly fine with the OP controlling anothers property aka HARD-DRIVE, CD's, etc.).

Again, you are naive to the legalities with this. I deal with this on a daily basis as a graphic/web designer and one whom makes every attempt to clear ALL copyrights at ALL times. Hell, I'd prefer to lose my most valuable client if they ever suggested what you are right now.

[CaptainAmerica]

It is pure evil. :Dhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-Intellectual-Property-rights
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-Intellectual-Property-rights)
have at it in that thread.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, you are naive to the legalities with this. I deal with this on a daily basis as a graphic/web designer and one whom makes every attempt to clear ALL copyrights at ALL times. Hell, I'd prefer to lose my most valuable client if they ever suggested what you are right now.

I do not care about legalities. It's legal to now assassinate American citizens. It was once legal to own another human being. What is your point? I am talking about private property rights -- which is all that matters.

I think you know I am right since you purposefully ignored my argument and then made an appeal to authority (aka Legislators). I would love to see you make that argument for all your other positions. Whatever the Legislators say goes!

[Chrysamere]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-intellectual-property-rights
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-intellectual-property-rights)
have at it in that thread.

no u.

[low preference guy]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.

My position as well.

[dusman]

I do not care about legalities. It's legal to now assassinate American citizens. It was once legal to own another human being. What is your point? I am talking about private property rights -- which is all that matters.

Again, you are just proving my point on how naive you are on this. Just because you personally believe that it doesn't matter, doesn't make it so. Your right to private property should not infringe on my right to private property. When my private property shows up on your private property without my consent, you better believe you are on the losing side of the law. I'm frustrated you don't have more respect for that, because of your own personal opinion.

If I seem a little pissed off, it's because people on this same forum exposed me and my business to potential copyright infringement. I do not take it as lightly as you do, excuse me for that.

[libertybrewcity]

http://i.imgur.com/tHw0b.gif

[specsaregood]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.
My position as well.

My position is that people that have that position are free to create items of their own and release them to the public domain.

[CaptainAmerica]

Again, you are just proving my point on how naive you are on this. Just because you personally believe that it doesn't matter, doesn't make it so. Your right to private property should not infringe on my right to private property. When my private property shows up on your private property without my consent, you better believe you are on the losing side of the law. I'm frustrated you don't have more respect for that, because of your own personal opinion.

If I seem a little pissed off, it's because people on this same forum exposed me and my business to potential copyright infringement. I do not take it as lightly as you do, excuse me for that. Don't expect any foundational logic from austrian econ disciple.See the intellectual property thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-intellectual-property-rights

[dusman]

I don't see what is so hard to understand about taking 30 seconds to send a message to the originator asking for permission.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, you are just proving my point on how naive you are on this. Just because you personally believe that it doesn't matter, doesn't make it so. Your right to private property should not infringe on my right to private property. When my private property shows up on your private property without my consent, you better believe you are on the losing side of the law. I'm frustrated you don't have more respect for that, because of your own personal opinion.

If I seem a little pissed off, it's because people on this same forum exposed me and my business to potential copyright infringement. I do not take it as lightly as you do, excuse me for that.

Naive? No. I do not care what some Legislator says -- they aren't the guiding beacon to morality, or truth. In fact, you would be doing pretty well if you just did the opposite of what they believe / do. A duplication is not me taking anything of yours, nor do I have any property rights if I must ask permission for me to use what I own in the first place. If I have to ask permission to use something, then I do not own it. If I do not have ownership, then there are no private property rights. You would be the first person to condemn the Star-Trek replicator I suspect -- even though no property rights would be violated, and it would be the best thing to ever happen to mankind. Rent-seeking is one of the worst forms of tyranny.

[specsaregood]

I don't see what is so hard to understand about taking 30 seconds to send a message to the originator asking for permission.

because if you don't give a crap what the originator has to say about it, then why bother?

[IndianaPolitico]

"The Congress shall have Power ... 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."
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Just thought I would throw that out there...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't see what is so hard to understand about taking 30 seconds to send a message to the originator asking for permission.

Should I have to ask permission from the Government to say what I want on my own property? If I do then I have not ownership, nor private property. I defend the principle. Personal behavior is an entirely other subject.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

"The Congress shall have Power ... 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."
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Just thought I would throw that out there...

What does that have to do with anything? Why do the IP side do nothing but appeal to authority and skirt the argument?

[IndianaPolitico]

What does that have to do with anything? Why do the IP side do nothing but appeal to authority and skirt the argument?
Because the Constitution is important.

[specsaregood]

Because the Constitution is important.

some don't give a crap about that either.

[dusman]

Naive? No. I do not care what some Legislator says -- they aren't the guiding beacon to morality, or truth. In fact, you would be doing pretty well if you just did the opposite of what they believe / do. A duplication is not me taking anything of yours, nor do I have any property rights if I must ask permission for me to use what I own in the first place. If I have to ask permission to use something, then I do not own it. If I do not have ownership, then there are no private property rights. You would be the first person to condemn the Star-Trek replicator I suspect -- even though no property rights would be violated, and it would be the best thing to ever happen to mankind. Rent-seeking is one of the worst forms of tyranny.

Let's test your theory.

Post something that I have created and see how quick you get summoned for court. I bet you I win 100% of the time. Don't put it past me, I've already got cease and desist letters prepared for the next time it happens here and they will be sent out if there is any resistance to respecting my wishes to remove such work. I could care less if you are the most avid Ron Paul supporter on this forum.

Sorry, but anyone here willing to risk my livelihood, because of their laziness to ask for permission or their disrespect for the law, does not deserve any respect from anyone who has any decency.

Where is your so-called morality you speak of?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Because the Constitution is important.

If the Constitution said slavery was A-OK would you defend that? All you are doing is appealing to authority and not addressing any of the arguments. It's lazy and a dangerous thought-process.

[IndianaPolitico]

some don't give a crap about that either.
Sad, but true.

[dannno]

Because the Constitution is important.

The parts of the Constitution that are important are the parts that are supposed to give us life, liberty and the persuit of happiness by saying that we have the inalienable right to free speech, to defend ourselves, etc.. not the part that makes government edicts about people's thoughts and ideas and calling things that aren't property property.

[Razmear]

Just as an FYI, all my work is CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed.
You may take any of my works and do with them as you like, with or without credit, so long as it's used towards the advancement of the Ron Paul campaign.
I expect many others feel as I do on this issue, but I haven't read thru the thread yet.

http://RonPaulMosaic.com has lots of nice pics you are welcome to use as you see fit.

eb

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let's test your theory.

Post something that I have created and see how quick you get summoned for court. I bet you I win 100% of the time. Don't put it past me, I've already got cease and desist letters prepared for the next time it happens here and they will be sent out if there is any resistance to respecting my wishes to remove such work. I could care less if you are the most avid Ron Paul supporter on this forum.

Sorry, but anyone here willing to risk my livelihood, because of their laziness to ask for permission or their disrespect for the law, does not deserve any respect from anyone who has any decency.

Where is your so-called morality you speak of?

I'll make this easy:

What was stolen from the OP?

[dannno]

If the Constitution said slavery was A-OK would you defend that? All you are doing is appealing to authority and not addressing any of the arguments. It's lazy and a dangerous thought-process.

Excellent point.

[dannno]

I'll make this easy:

What was stolen from the OP?

Nothing. OP still has everything they had before, they haven't been deprived of their property.

[IndianaPolitico]

The parts of the Constitution that are important are the parts that are supposed to give us life, liberty and the persuit of happiness by saying that we have the inalienable right to free speech, to defend ourselves, etc.. not the part that makes government edicts about people's thoughts and ideas and calling things that aren't property property.

I partly agree with that. But that is what our "representatives" in Washington think. Alot of them think, "Oh, the first ammendment is important, but our duty to declare war isn't." I have found you have to embrace the whole Constitution.

[dusman]

I'll make this easy:

What was stolen from the OP?

Better yet, what is the difference of you physically coming onto my property to take something you like so you can put it on your property? That is exactly what is being done. Just because it's easily accessible doesn't change that fact.

[wizardwatson]

Doesn't this IP crap when taken to the full out extent ultimately mean that "creators" can appeal to the government to have my memories of their artwork erased from my brain?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Better yet, what is the difference of you physically coming onto my property to take something you like so you can put it on your property? That is exactly what is being done. Just because it's easily accessible doesn't change that fact.

Just answer the question please.

[specsaregood]

Just as an FYI, all my work is CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed.
You may take any of my works and do with them as you like, with or without credit, so long as it's used towards the advancement of the Ron Paul campaign.
I expect many others feel as I do on this issue, but I haven't read thru the thread yet.


Glad to hear that you too believe in IP.

[low preference guy]

Because the Constitution is important.

Not everything in the Constitution is good. E.g. sixteenth amendment. I put IP also among the bad things.

[CaptainAmerica]

What does that have to do with anything? Why do the IP side do nothing but appeal to authority and skirt the argument? individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.


I saved my thoughts in note pad in case you decided to ask that question again.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I partly agree with that. But that is what our "representatives" in Washington think. Alot of them think, "Oh, the first ammendment is important, but our duty to declare war isn't." I have found you have to embrace the whole Constitution.

I guess you have failed basic Constitution 101: There is an amendment process -- ergo, you do not have to defend any part of the Constitution, except acknowledging that to change it you must amend it. So you wouldn't be in favor of getting rid of the 16th, 17th, etc.? I defend anothers right to say what they want on their own property, but it doesn't mean I sanction what they say. If you believe in the social contract, and Constitutionalism, you can defend the Constitution without sanctioning anything within-it. Are you just fine with the Government socializing the postal service? You find zero-fault in the Constitution?

[dusman]

Doesn't this IP crap when taken to the full out extent ultimately mean that "creators" can appeal to the government to have my memories of their artwork erased from my brain?

Why are you creating a strawman for this? And, no, its the act of replicating, deriving, redistributing something that is tangible that is the point of IP. What gives you the right to take something I put my heart into and either present it as your own or go against my wishes if I don't like how you represent it? What if you took my art and put it onto a pornography web site? Do you think that is right? What if it was clear to everyone that it was my work and I lost client's because I was inadvertently associated to that?

[dusman]

Just answer the question please.

The originators right to decide how and when his work is represented, redistributed, derived from, is what is stolen. That has always been the exclusive right of the creator. Your logic would assume you have a right to infringe upon my rights.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The originators right to decide how and when his work is represented, redistributed, derived from, is what is stolen. That has always been the exclusive right of the creator. Your logic would assume you have a right to infringe upon my rights.

All rights are derived from property rights. What other rights are there? You still didn't answer the question -- the OP claimed he was stolen from. I want to know what was stolen. What property of his was stolen?

[wizardwatson]

Why are you creating a strawman for this? And, no, its the act of replicating, deriving, redistributing something that is tangible that is the point of IP. What gives you the right to take something I put my heart into and either present it as your own or go against my wishes if I don't like how you represent it? What if you took my art and put it onto a pornography web site? Do you think that is right? What if it was clear to everyone that it was my work and I lost client's because I was inadvertently associated to that?

Just because something is immoral doesn't make it illegal.

You just need to ask yourself:

What would Jesus copyright?

[specsaregood]

You just need to ask yourself:
What would Jesus copyright?

That is the wrong question, as nobody is disupting that creators have the right to give their work freely into the public domain.
A more apt question would be something like, What work product of others would Jesus use without permission and despite the objections of its creator.

[The Free Hornet]

"The Congress shall have Power ... 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."
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Just thought I would throw that out there...

FYI,

Note the word "limited". The Supreme Court has allowed any limit - it could be a million years for all they care and it can be applied RETROACTIVELY regardless of how much money you just paid the Creator - blessed is His name - for a copy of His piece of crap.

Like most things, the rentseekers have made a mockery of the constitution. Give an inch, and they will take a mile. Lets stop giving inches.

[dusman]

All rights are derived from property rights. What other rights are there? You still didn't answer the question -- the OP claimed he was stolen from. I want to know what was stolen. What property of his was stolen?

I am the only one allowed to decide how my artwork is represented, redistributed, derived from, and is my exclusive right, which does in fact fall under property rights. It would be no different if you came onto my property and put a sign up that I don't want there. What you aren't getting is that digital property is so easily transferable and so you assume that means that no property right applies to how it's used. When you take my property and make it your own, you violate the foundation of property right.

[CaptainAmerica]

Just because something is immoral doesn't make it illegal.

You just need to ask yourself:

What would Jesus copyright? Do you know what Jesus said about a coin which had Caesar's face on it? I can play that game too ...........stop with the straw mans

[low preference guy]

That is the wrong question, as nobody is disupting that creators have the right to give their work freely into the public domain.
A more apt question would be something like, What work product of others would Jesus use without permission and despite the objections of its creator.

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality. So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.

[CaptainAmerica]

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality. So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song. Jesus was a carpenter ,he built stuff with his own two hands ..I am quite sure that he did not steal from people.

[dusman]

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality. So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.

So you reject a morality position for another morality position.

If we are purely discussing legality here, then it should be clear that redistribution, in whatever form it may come IS ILLEGAL.

[wizardwatson]

Do you know what Jesus said about a coin which had Caesar's face on it? I can play that game too ...........stop with the straw mans

I'm not strawmanning. I'm being facetious and flippant.

Mostly because I'm really tired of this IP debate. The debate is over in my mind. The only reason IP rights exist are because its in the Constitution. In that vein I'm forced to follow it, doesn't mean I think its right or that it should be there.

[specsaregood]

That's a moral question. We are discussing legality.
Well the person I replied to brought it up.



So the right question I think is would Jesus approve threatening and putting in jail somebody who reproduced a song even if he didn't sign any contract agreeing to not reproduce the song.
I have no problem requiring signed contracts

[Razmear]

Jesus was a carpenter ,he built stuff with his own two hands ..I am quite sure that he did not steal from people.

But if JC copied the work of other carpenters ("Hey Mary, you want a new deck like the neighbors have?") then he did technically steal IP.

Been wondering as I peruse this thread how many of the pro IP crowd paid royalties to use their avatars?

Information and Ideas should be freely shared for the betterment of mankind.

eb

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm not strawmanning. I'm being facetious and flippant.

Mostly because I'm really tired of this IP debate. The debate is over in my mind. The only reason IP rights exist are because its in the Constitution. In that vein I'm forced to follow it, doesn't mean I think its right or that it should be there. I gave you reasoning and you ignored it.

[specsaregood]

Information and Ideas should be freely shared for the betterment of mankind.
eb

And yet you too want to add restrictions on the reuse of your IP.

[wizardwatson]

I gave you reasoning and you ignored it.

I've been on these lovely boards for a while now and have participated in these arguments ad nauseum. All the reasoning on the pro-IP side boils down to saying its immoral. That may be in a lot of cases.

I remember a interview I saw a few years back where Dr. Dre said that downloading his music illegally was, and I quote "taking food off my families table".

Only in America will multi-millionaires complain about loss of royalties while half the world starves to death. Is that not "immoral"?

[mport1]

I'm sure that people have already said this a million times, but intellectual property is not property. It is not "stealing" to use other people's work. While it is nice to give credit to the content originator, this should not be required.

[Razmear]

And yet you too want to add restrictions on the reuse of your IP.

People can do what they like with my IP, I would prefer they use it to promote Ron Paul, but if they choose otherwise I acknowledge the futility of trying to stop them. If I post something in a public place, then I have no expectation of privacy or property rights. I consider the entire internet a public place.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am the only one allowed to decide how my artwork is represented, redistributed, derived from, and is my exclusive right, which does in fact fall under property rights. It would be no different if you came onto my property and put a sign up that I don't want there. What you aren't getting is that digital property is so easily transferable and so you assume that means that no property right applies to how it's used. When you take my property and make it your own, you violate the foundation of property right.

Can you tell me when the OP was no longer in possession of the video? If he had always had possession, then nothing was taken. Similarly, if you put your art up on display on your front-lawn, you can't then claim that you have ownership over the entire line of sight. That's just plain absurd. You have no argument, and you refuse to engage me in the Socratic Method so I can show you, your position is in fact wrong. IP is not property. Nothing was stolen. Nothing was taken. The OP had possession of the video for the entire time and was never dispossessed at any moment. I am done since you will not engage and you will not face the facts.

[wizardwatson]

My contribution to yet another IP thread.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml


"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson

But then....


"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good." - Thomas Jefferson

IP rights are a privilege, a "grant" as Jefferson says and was recognized as such by the framers. And I feel, as Jefferson warned, that the danger of the precedent is glaringly obvious in todays world of patent and copyright wars.

[specsaregood]

People can do what they like with my IP, I would prefer they use it to promote Ron Paul, but if they choose otherwise I acknowledge the futility of trying to stop them. If I post something in a public place, then I have no expectation of privacy or property rights. I consider the entire internet a public place.

Well then 2 statements in this comment are incorrect:

Just as an FYI, all my work is CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed.

If your work is in fact copyleft, then people are not free to "do what they like with my IP". The copyleft imposes restrictions on future revisions of your IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

A more accurate statement if you feel that way is to put your work in the "public domain", not copyleft. In fact, copyleft only works in a world where IP rights are protected.


so long as it's used towards the advancement of the Ron Paul campaign.
I can see why you threw that in there, but I guess that is not accurate now.

Personally, I have contributed work to both the public domain and BSD style licenses. But at the same time reserve other work as my IP that I license and restrict the use of.

[dusman]

I've been on these lovely boards for a while now and have participated in these arguments ad nauseum. All the reasoning on the pro-IP side boils down to saying its immoral. That may be in a lot of cases.

I remember a interview I saw a few years back where Dr. Dre said that downloading his music illegally was, and I quote "taking food off my families table".

Only in America will multi-millionaires complain about loss of royalties while half the world starves to death. Is that not "immoral"?

No it's not. It's LAW. I mean seriously, all of you whom are putting your personal opinions into the matter really make me want to not contribute anymore to this community. It's embarrassing to have to say that, because I WANT to be involved. However, I won't allow anyone here to infringe on my rights that have been well established in law, nor will I allow anyone here to jeopardize my business with some stupid lawsuit, because someone else put me into that position, because they disregard the law like it means nothing, simply due to their personal beliefs.

You quote Dr. Dre, to try and rationalize your point. Well, don't consider someone like me who is barely making it and risk my business that puts food on my families table. Just less than a few months ago I was put into a potential copyright infringement issue due to SOMEONE ELSE from this forum not giving a shit, like all you anti-IP seem not to. You then disregard the morality of such a position, like morality shouldn't be a factor. I barely make enough to survive as it is and so the risk from people that disregard IP, is a very real concern to me. I spend so much time trying to uphold not only the law, but morally be respectful to those who are like me that put a lot of time into their work, by simply asking for permission.

I would rather keep my talent and my time to myself or direct it instead toward projects that actually make me money, if you all feel this way.

[KramerDSP]

Most of you don't caption your Ron Paul videos. When I rip them, I ALWAYS credit the creator and explain that this was ripped only to add captions for the Deaf and hard of hearing communities. Someone ripped my "appeal to the left" and "Ron Paul vs Barack Obama on the war on drugs" videos and did not cite me. Worst, they didnt add captions which pissed me off to no end. Captions can be toggled on/off so there was no need to rip those videos I poured energy and sweat into. Oh well

[Razmear]

Well then 2 statements in this comment are incorrect:

If your work is in fact copyleft, then people are not free to "do what they like with my IP". The copyleft imposes restrictions on future revisions of your IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft



A CopyLeft's main restriction is to prevent others from copyrighting a work derived from a copyleft work. It's goal is the free flow of information and to ensure further development without restriction.
If you want to read more into it than that, go nuts.

eb

[specsaregood]

A CopyLeft's main restriction is to prevent others from copyrighting a work derived from a copyleft work. It's goal is the free flow of information and to ensure further development without restriction.
If you want to read more into it than that, go nuts.

eb

I'm not reading "more into it", I'm just saying what it is. It puts its own restrictions on the work product.
It isn't just me, go look at how the GPL people go nuts when they get the idea that somebody has put their gpl'd work into a closed-source product. Copyleft licensing restrictions such as that only work in an environment where IP is respected.

[Razmear]

I'm not reading "more into it", I'm just saying what it is. It puts its own restrictions on the work product.
It isn't just me, go look at how the GPL people go nuts when they get the idea that somebody has put their gpl'd work into a closed-source product. Copyleft licensing restrictions such as that only work in an environment where IP is respected.

Well, I'm not a "GPL People", and you missed the second part of my notice, "CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed." is the total statement, as it was printed in the Principia Discordia in 1965, while most of those GPL people were still in grade school or yet unborn. If folks add new meanings to concepts that were clear cut almost 50 years ago, that's their problem, not mine.

eb

[Travlyr]

No it's not. It's LAW. I mean seriously, all of you whom are putting your personal opinions into the matter really make me want to not contribute anymore to this community. It's embarrassing to have to say that, because I WANT to be involved. However, I won't allow anyone here to infringe on my rights that have been well established in law, nor will I allow anyone here to jeopardize my business with some stupid lawsuit, because someone else put me into that position, because they disregard the law like it means nothing, simply due to their personal beliefs.

You quote Dr. Dre, to try and rationalize your point. Well, don't consider someone like me who is barely making it and risk my business that puts food on my families table. Just less than a few months ago I was put into a potential copyright infringement issue due to SOMEONE ELSE from this forum not giving a shit, like all you anti-IP seem not to. You then disregard the morality of such a position, like morality shouldn't be a factor. I barely make enough to survive as it is and so the risk from people that disregard IP, is a very real concern to me. I spend so much time trying to uphold not only the law, but morally be respectful to those who are like me that put a lot of time into their work, by simply asking for permission.

I would rather keep my talent and my time to myself or direct it instead toward projects that actually make me money, if you all feel this way.

This is evidence of the anti-IP position stifling creative work. Why bother? The behind-the-scenes time and effort put forth on a creation is valuable. What is being stolen is just compensation for a creator's previous investment of time and money. Would Thomas Edison and others put forth tremendous resources and time into creating a lightbulb if not for laws that would help them recoup their investments? I doubt it.

[specsaregood]

Well, I'm not a "GPL People", and you missed the second part of my notice, "CopyLeft, All Rights Reversed." is the total statement, as it was printed in the Principia Discordia in 1965, while most of those GPL people were still in grade school or yet unborn. If folks add new meanings to concepts that were clear cut almost 50 years ago, that's their problem, not mine.

eb

All I'm pointing out is that your work products are not actually "copyleft" but rather public domain by your own description.

[CCTelander]

Doesn't this IP crap when taken to the full out extent ultimately mean that "creators" can appeal to the government to have my memories of their artwork erased from my brain?


Yes, it does.

But they're never in a big hurry to admit that. Kind of makes their position absolutely clear.

[teacherone]

just to be clear: claiming another's work as one's own is not copyright infringement - it is fraud.

i'm fairly certain even those anti IP will recognize that plagiarism for profit is and should remain criminalized.

[muzzled dogg]

Thread is jokes

Stop trying to stifle the grassroots

[specsaregood]

Thread is jokes
Stop trying to stifle the grassroots

I'm pretty sure that was the point of the OP, as taking somebody's hard work without permission and releasing without any credit given is a good way to stifle their creativity by discouraging future work. Glad to see you agree with the OP.

[Wesker1982]

Have any IP advocates read/listened to this? It really does destroy any arguments in favor of IP. Don't let that scare you, though ;)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAvbWeivv8o

[trey4sports]

traffic = money, and a lot of times that's what this boils down to on YT. The majority of Ron Paul videos on the YT are not exclusive to the campaign. Yes, it may be better for the campaign to get the traffic but honestly, their social media team probably doesn't understand the first thing about converting views into votes and money. The main thing with the majority of these videos is simply getting the message out and it really doesn't matter who uploads the video. If the videos were unique and actually exclusive to someone I would agree with you.

[dusman]

Can you tell me when the OP was no longer in possession of the video? If he had always had possession, then nothing was taken. Similarly, if you put your art up on display on your front-lawn, you can't then claim that you have ownership over the entire line of sight. That's just plain absurd. You have no argument, and you refuse to engage me in the Socratic Method so I can show you, your position is in fact wrong. IP is not property. Nothing was stolen. Nothing was taken. The OP had possession of the video for the entire time and was never dispossessed at any moment. I am done since you will not engage and you will not face the facts.

Look, this isn't a philosophical battle. This is a legal issue.

Your position simply would not hold up in court. You are failing to acknowledge that once an idea is in a tangible form, such as written on paper or produced into something that can be transfered to another human being - it automatically becomes copyrighted and is considered property. I could share an idea with you and without a non-disclosure, you'd have every right to go off and do what you may. I think that is probably the root of your point, which I wouldn't really disagree with. However, the moment I put it into tangible form, it is copyrighted property and in court all I have to prove is that I am the originator. If you don't think that is the case, I have already presented a challenge that YOU can engage in, instead of sidestepping MY points. If you are going to accuse me of doing such a thing, then if you are a reasonable human being, you'll be able to see you have done the same thing through strawman arguments. You are simply trying to force this discussion into the philosophical realm and I'm discussing it purely from the legal realm.

I'm not interested in your "Socratic Method" to debate the philosophical nature of this discussion.

My whole perspective derives down to the very specific situation that I was put in by people on this forum taking what was a composite for review and using it in a fashion that could be construed as commercial use, where licenses for portions of that work had not been purchased yet and was dependent on approval from RevPac, whether such a purchase for license was necessary. That is out of my hands and I have a responsibility to protect whom owned the rights for license. I have no choice but to track those redistributions down and ask them to remove it. If they didn't, I would have needed to serve a cease and desist letter, so I could protect my legal interest. You have so far disregarded that entirely, just so you can prove your philosophical position. Why I have a problem with that is because it has the potential to come back on me and cause me REAL harm. Why would you be ok with that? All opinions aside, I would like an answer to that question specifically. Are you suggesting that because you have an opinion, that that entitles people here to bring harm to other's real-life livelihood?

So if you'd like to get into a philosophical debate why don't you first reveal if you think it's right for others here to put me into a legal situation? I would then afterwards, be more willing to get into philosophical debate with you.

If the conclusion is that people here believe it is morally right or legally-sufficient to put me into that position, you will never see another creative work by me be put forth to this community. That pains me to have to take such a position, but I will not risk my family's well-being for any one of your opinions.

[dannno]

just to be clear: claiming another's work as one's own is not copyright infringement - it is fraud.

i'm fairly certain even those anti IP will recognize that plagiarism for profit is and should remain criminalized.

I haven't seen any of these videos, but I'm guessing what the OP means by "claiming it is theirs" is equivalent to "uploading it to their youtube channel" :confused:

[teacherone]

I haven't seen any of these videos, but I'm guessing what the OP means by "claiming it is theirs" is equivalent to "uploading it to their youtube channel" :confused:

to be honest...if someone is not trying to profit off their work and puts in the public sphere then they have no right to any damages (none exist).

[dannno]

Look, this isn't a philosophical battle. This is a legal issue.

Your position simply would not hold up in court.

The same could be said about my use of medicinal cannabis.

If you're a cop, however, it's still wrong to come and steal my medicine and arrest me.





You are failing to acknowledge that once an idea is in a tangible form, such as written on paper or produced into something that can be transfered to another human being - it does become property. I could share an idea with you and without a non-disclosure, you'd have every right to go off and do what you may.

You don't need IP to make a contract with somebody that if they make money off of the idea they are about to discuss then they will be required to contract with them or give them a %.

We can deal with all of this through contract law. If you have a movie, make a copy, sell it to a theater, sign an agreement with them not to reproduce it. Good luck doing that with millions of music listeners.

The question is, if somebody happens to hear something on public airwaves and reproduces that using their own hardware, have they stolen anything? The answer is no.

[Bman]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.


Winner!

Otherwise it is fraud!

[dusman]

The same could be said about my use of medicinal cannabis.

If you're a cop, however, it's still wrong to come and steal my medicine and arrest me.



Can we stop with the strawman arguments? That perspective is a calamity in itself with state vs federal legislative conflict. In regards to me being at risk of legal retaliation with how others used my composite for review, is irrefutable.



You don't need IP to make a contract with somebody that if they make money off of the idea they are about to discuss then they will be required to contract with them or give them a %.


Duh. Still, not the point of my post. I'm not talking about IDEAS, whatsoever. When I released my composite on this forum for review, copyright to that work is already established automatically and therefore there is no need to formally define contractual obligations. If I was litigating such a matter, all I would have to do is formally copyright the material and serve a summons to appear in court. As long as I have the source files and so long as the other party doesn't, the court will rule in my favor 100% of the time.

[low preference guy]

As long as I have the source files and so long as the other party doesn't, the court will rule in my favor 100% of the time.

So what? Who cares? Are you talking about whether people who copy your work will get away with it? Is that what we are debating?

[CasualApathy]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0P3UNdBrdM4/TbaF24DmItI/AAAAAAAAAKI/Ru7UkNGji00/s1600/love.jpg ya'll?

[dannno]

Ya, you're missing the point.. the courts do a lot of things that are tyrannical, so whether the court will enforce something or not has no basis on whether it is moral.

I'm not against you here, I think others should credit your work. Maybe you can message the youtube channels that are copying your work and ask them to credit you. Or maybe you can put the credits in the film itself so if it gets copied you still get credits.

I like the idea that if one person uploads a video that somebody else might think of a better title and a better way to market the video with that title, they can go out and give the video an extra few hundred thousand or million views where they wouldn't have been able to with the old title, or maybe they made some other slight changes for a different audience. The more people who see it, the better.

The fact is, if you give it the best title and market it properly, your video will get the most views and eventually you will get a youtube partnership.

If somebody else copies your vidoes but it still has your credits, then that can only help more people see your videos.

[jmdrake]

Question. In the time it took for people to argue about how this uploaded video diverted traffic from the main campaign YouTube, how many times could the main campaign YouTube have been uploaded to other blogs and forums? Just sayin.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

[RonPaulFever]

A couple people uploaded my two videos without giving me credit, but they were promos for money bombs so I didn't mind. The point was to spread the message so the more people who see them, the better. And since the bulk of the video material came from newscasts, Ron Paul speeches and such, I didn't feel like I owned them to begin with.

[dusman]

Apparently, people are not understanding the situation I was put in by people in this forum.

The Ames Tribune Ad Submission thread. If you go back and review it, you'll see that I entered a military ad submission. This ad was purely a composite for review. In order to create that composite, I did what a typical graphic designer would do and sought after an image available for purchase by license and used the comp they provide to fulfill a demonstration of my ad. This image was of course watermarked by iStockPhoto. The purchase for license was contingent on whether or not my ad was selected, which then RevPac would have been responsible for making the purchase for the image so that it could legally be used for commercial use.

This ad was NEVER intended to be used in any capacity, outside of being a composite for review. However, that ad was used anyways by people here and, unfortunately, no disclaimer was attached to the thread and the general legalities were not understood by those viewing the submissions. Since I had no protection with an indemnification clause in contract, I could be held liable for that being used in commercial capacities as it was. Therefore, I did my best to track down any uses of it and asked those people to remove the work for that reason.

This is a perfect example why people here need to respect the wishes of the creators of artwork to not redistribute and simply ask for permission first. It's not always about their wishes, but about legalities. Believe me, I learned my lesson now and won't ever release such an ad submission to this community without a very specific disclaimer. However, if people here were 1) respectful of artists work to ask for permission first, and 2) were given notice of such situation, then it would never be an issue.

It's clearly a mistake to assume people here give a shit.

[dannno]

It's clearly a mistake to assume people here give a shit.

It sounds like they give a shit about getting Ron Paul elected and less about istockphoto.

I hope they don't come after you, but it sounds like people just liked your video and wanted to make sure it stayed available for others to see even if you decided to take it down or if your account got deleted.

[low preference guy]

It's clearly a mistake to assume people here give a shit.

Even if people at the forum give a shit, it's a mistake to assume people outside the forum will.

[dusman]

In the end, and to conclude with this ridiculous discussion, I am surprised you all put your own opinions above the greater good of the community here. I don't see how it is beneficial to put doubt into all the creative people here who EXPECT at least a little bit of respect toward their work, and to pretend that there is no moral or legal reasoning to ask for permission first.

So I'll return the favor.

Anyone reviewing this thread, take note that if you don't approach me for permission first and I see anything I create being used and I'm certain you knew about this thread, I will move right forward with cease and desist letters and if continued I will summon you to court to prove a point.

I'll let a judge decide, whether that be tyrannical or not.

[low preference guy]

I don't see how it is beneficial to put doubt into all the creative people here who EXPECT at least a little bit of respect toward their work, and to pretend that there is no moral or legal reasoning to ask for permission first.

Anti-IP people don't necessarily advocate disrespecting creators, just like people who advocate for the first amendment don't necessarily advocate racist speech.


Further, anyone reviewing this thread, take note that if you don't approach me for permission first and I see anything I create being used and I'm certain you knew about this thread, I will move right forward with cease and desist letters and summon you to court.

I'll let a judge decide, whether that be tyrannical or not.

With this warning, I'm sure they will use TOR or other anonymizing tool to not go to court, whether you find that tyrannical or not.

[dusman]

Anti-IP people don't necessarily advocate disrespecting creators, just like people who advocate for the first amendment don't necessarily advocate racist speech.



With this warning, I'm sure they will use TOR or other anonymizing tool to not go to court, whether you find that tyrannical or not.

Sure they are, they have made that pretty clear they could care less about the creators in this thread. It's offensive.

And if that happens I would hope that the moderators would uphold what is right and ban those people from these forums.

[The Free Hornet]

I am the only one allowed to decide how my artwork is represented, redistributed, derived from, and is my exclusive right,

So if I buy your crap, I'm not allowed to take a crap on it? Once you sell it, you no longer own it. See the "right of first sale". Once I buy it, I'll resell it to whomever and wipe my ass with it whenever.


which does in fact fall under property rights.

No, read the f-ing constitution which does not use the word "property" (see wikipedia for when this fiction was created, clue: it wasn't the founders). It does use the words "limited time". Your "exclusive rights" - which are not property - lessen as you sell the product, based on the terms AND contract under which it is sold.


It would be no different [literally? lol] if you came onto my property and put a sign up that I don't want there. What you aren't getting is that digital property is so easily transferable and so you assume that means that no property right applies to how it's used. When you take my property and make it your own, you violate the foundation of property right.

Read and understand the law if you want to be an advocate of IP. As I have recommended to others, I shall recommend to you. This special, non-unique brand of stupidity by so-called creative types needs a trademark to help people like me to avoid accidentally supporting people like you.

By the way, you have about 99% of the politicians on your side with this issue so keep a lid on it. Overreach has been the downfall of the IP industry. Blowback is a bitch here too.

[hillertexas]

..

[dusman]

So if I buy your crap, I'm not allowed to take a crap on it? Once you sell it, you no longer own it. See the "right of first sale". Once I buy it, I'll resell it to whomever and wipe my ass with it whenever.


Duh, I never suggested otherwise. If I have transferred rights to you through a sale, I care less what you do with the work. However, I can still contractually limit how it is used and have done so in many cases.



No, read the f-ing constitution which does not use the word "property" (see wikipedia for when this fiction was created, clue: it wasn't the founders). It does use the words "limited time". Your "exclusive rights" - which are not property - lessen as you sell the product, based on the terms AND contract under which it is sold.


There has been no sale, so therefore no transfer of right to the work, unless explicitly given. While you do have a good point, it still doesn't change my potentiality to be liable in the situation I addressed above. Thanks for not caring.



Read and understand the law if you want to be an advocate of IP. As I have recommended to others, I shall recommend to you. This special, non-unique brand of stupidity by so-called creative types needs a trademark to help people like me to avoid accidentally supporting people like you.

By the way, you have about 99% of the politicians on your side with this issue so keep a lid on it. Overreach has been the downfall of the IP industry. Blowback is a bitch here too.

I'm not necessarily even advocating IP. I'm protecting my artwork, which I have every right to do. People just doing whatever they wish with something I consider sacred to me is not only disrespectful, it should be frowned upon. It's amazing to see that is not the case.

[low preference guy]

Duh, I never suggested otherwise. If I have transferred rights to you through a sale, I care less what you do with the work. However, I can still contractually limit how it is used and have done so in many cases.

Exactly, even most of us anti-IP people agree with this.

[CasualApathy]

Anyone reviewing this thread, take note that if you don't approach me for permission first and I see anything I create being used and I'm certain you knew about this thread, I will move right forward with cease and desist letters and if continued I will summon you to court to prove a point.

If I did that and you sued me, would that get me a free flight to the US? :p

[dusman]

If I did that and you sued me, would that get me a free flight to the US? :p

Hmm, sounds like an interesting scenario. ;)

[CasualApathy]

Hmm, sounds like an interesting scenario. ;)

Haha, thanks for being a good sport :)

By the way, you've given me food for thought and I will certainly consider what you have said in the future.

[dusman]

Haha, thanks for being a good sport :)

By the way, you've given me food for thought and I will certainly consider what you have said in the future.

Thank you. I'd hope it wouldn't be much to ask for a simple 30-second message asking if it was fine to use something. Again, 99% of the time I would be more than happy to let anyone use it! It's scenarios like the above that is the whole reason it's important to ask first. You never know what repercussions could come to others!

[CasualApathy]

Thank you. I'd hope it wouldn't be much to ask for a simple 30-second message asking if it was fine to use something. Again, 99% of the time I would be more than happy to let anyone use it! It's scenarios like the above that is the whole reason it's important to ask first. You never know what repercussions could come to others!

True, I honestly hadn't considered that before.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Dusman could you stop being disingenuous? I only support the principle of private property; I haven't said anything about my personal feelings in regards to how a person uses their property. Your assertion is no different than people calling me a racist because I support the right of a person to say what he wants and do what they want on their own property and some people who do so happen to be racist. You have no cogent argument. Sure, do I have sympathy because the courts and the law are wrong and crooked? OF FUCKING COURSE. Just because something is wrong and just so happens to be law, doesn't mean we should either sanction it, or lord it over folks trying to make them to be some horrible person. Take this to heart:


"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."

I am also getting tired of the IP folks calling ideas, recipes, formulas, etc. property when it has never been defined or used as such, nor can it stand up to the rigor of critique. Even the law doesn't say it is property, or that a violation is thievery. The only foot you have to stand on is a utilitarian one and that is weak, or you can just appeal to authority and let the Government aka Legislators tell you what you should believe, as if they are the demi-god to bestow upon us the truth. Logic and Reason is truth, and as insofar as man uses these tools which have been fortuitous for us to receive, it shall be. Man is not authority -- logic and reason are.

[dusman]

Dusman could you stop being disingenuous? I only support the principle of private property; I haven't said anything about my personal feelings in regards to how a person uses their property. Your assertion is no different than people calling me a racist because I support the right of a person to say what he wants and do what they want on their own property and some people who do so happen to be racist. You have no cogent argument. Sure, do I have sympathy because the courts and the law are wrong and crooked? OF FUCKING COURSE. Just because something is wrong and just so happens to be law, doesn't mean we should either sanction it, or lord it over folks trying to make them to be some horrible person. Take this to heart:



I am also getting tired of the IP folks calling ideas, recipes, formulas, etc. property when it has never been defined or used as such, nor can it stand up to the rigor of critique. Even the law doesn't say it is property, or that a violation is thievery. The only foot you have to stand on is a utilitarian one and that is weak, or you can just appeal to authority and let the Government aka Legislators tell you what you should believe, as if they are the demi-god to bestow upon us the truth. Logic and Reason is truth, and as insofar as man uses these tools which have been fortuitous for us to receive, it shall be. Man is not authority -- logic and reason are.

Think and say whatever you'd like. I will always believe that my artwork is my property and IS tangible property. Even if I am entirely wrong in my basis in law, which I'm not. It is the law and if you don't like it then take it to the legislation to clarify it with your infinite wisdom on the subject.

If you were an artist, perhaps you would understand. If you have ever actually had your artwork stolen.. maybe you'd understand. It doesn't feel good. Whether it be put on canvas or in a file, that is my artwork that I've spent a lifetime building a skillset for. I won't ever condone or stand behind someone who thinks they have a moral or legal right to just take it and make it their own.

I can do strawman arguments all day long too. What if Hitler purchased the Mona Lisa, removed all reference to Leonardo Da Vinci in all of the historical account and wrote his name on it and proclaimed to the world it was his? That would be fine with you - because the morality of it is entirely baseless in your view.

If you don't respect the principle of not only appreciating someone's artwork, but also respect for such expression, then your own opinion proves pointless too.

Curse all you want about it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Think and say whatever you'd like. I will always believe that my artwork is my property and IS tangible property. Even if I am entirely wrong in my basis in law, which I'm not. It is the law and if you don't like it then take it to the legislation to clarify it with your infinite wisdom on the subject.

If you were an artist, perhaps you would understand. If you have ever actually had your artwork stolen.. maybe you'd understand. It doesn't feel good. Whether it be put on canvas or in a file, that is my artwork that I've spent a lifetime building a skillset for. I won't ever condone or stand behind someone who thinks they have a moral or legal right to just take it and make it their own.

I can do strawman arguments all day long too. What if Hitler purchased the Mona Lisa, removed all reference to Leonardo Da Vinci in all of the historical account and wrote his name on it and proclaimed to the world it was his? That would be fine with you - because the morality of it is entirely baseless in your view.

If you don't respect the principle of not only appreciating someone's artwork, but also respect for such expression, then your own opinion proves pointless too.

Curse all you want about it.

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.

[CaptainAmerica]

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad. http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/kappellmeister2003/joker-clap.gif http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/kappellmeister2003/0-joker-clap-avy.gif you are truly amazing at being rude and making a case for utopian ownership of what isnt yours.

[Travlyr]

If IP laws protect owners of creative projects the right to recoup the investment costs of creation, and creators say that in an anti-IP environment they will be less likely to create, then the anti-IP solution does not seem like a creative environment. That kinda sucks.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/kappellmeister2003/joker-clap.gif http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/kappellmeister2003/0-joker-clap-avy.gif you are truly amazing at being rude and making a case for utopian ownership of what isnt yours.

My CD isn't mine? My Hard-drive isn't mine? My canvas isn't mine? My paint isn't mine? My copper wires aren't mine? What do you mean, isn't mine? You want a renter-ship society where the only things you own are limited to items outside of the patent books. Thank god patents, copyright, and IP originated in the late 17th Century and really didn't gain prominence until the mid 19th, or else most of the items that exist today would be under ownership of the estates of the guy who originally discovered certain ideas.

Imagine if IP was around when the English Language was invented. I wonder what royalties I would have to pay to have the fortune of using my vocal cords.

[silverhandorder]

Bulloks on less creation. England with IP laws and Germany without IP laws on books show that it is the other way around. Germany had much more books created and much more demand for books without IP protection.

Even if you think IP is real technology is making it impossible to enforce. I can easily copy anything on internet, make an anonymous account and spread it everywhere. No way to trace to me and no way to stop it. Get with the times.

[Chainspell]

@Austrian Econ Disciple:

Wow seriously a lot of people here need to calm down. When I upload a video that video is mine, and whoever re-uploads it, is doing something wrong if they don't get my permission. Data is also property, videos on youtube that you created are Intellectual property. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Just because you still have it doesn't mean nobody can copy it and steal your work. I don't get what is so hard about this, I can understand if you are the one stealing people's Intellectual property then to you have a lot to defend yourself about.

And I have to say, that is the vibe I'm getting from you. You're against society's current stance on Intellectual Property. Which is fine, be that way. So is it okay to copy someone's work and not consider it stealing by today's standards? What does it matter if you don't think so? lol who are you?

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Brendan, many people here are IP thieves and use their anarchistic worldview to defend it. It's a lost cause trying to argue it here. Those of us, like you and I, that make our living by being creative, will never be understood by those that only know how to use their hands and not their heads. Don't bother arguing, it's just a waste of time, and get used to them stealing your work, you can't do anything to stop them. Truly you can't. The only thing that stops a man stealing is his morals, and today, most don't have any to speak of.

And don't worry folks, I won't be back to this thread to read your comments - I have heard it all already.

[Chainspell]

Brendan, many people here are IP thieves and use their anarchistic worldview to defend it. It's a lost cause trying to argue it here. Those of us, like you and I, that make our living by being creative, will never be understood by those that only know how to use their hands and not their heads. Don't bother arguing, it's just a waste of time, and get used to them stealing your work, you can't do anything to stop them. Truly you can't. The only thing that stops a man stealing is his morals, and today, most don't have any to speak of.

And don't worry folks, I won't be back to this thread to read your comments - I have heard it all already.
wow I didn't know that. Thanks for warning me, I'm not gonna bother with this.

[Napolitanic Wars]

People stealing my work and not giving credit is the reason I signed up here. Hopefully more people will see my stuff if I post it here. On that note, enjoy these vids! :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKU3D-1xsY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E46Ur04FFsg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jWt-2Shfo

[dusman]

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.

Traditionally, for someone to have an exact clone of my artwork would require in every case a sophisticated reproduction of the work in some form or another. In most cases, this would require someone with at least the same skill to achieve the desired result and still it would NEVER be an exact copy. Technology has provided the convenience to not NEED to physically take the artwork, but still have the ability to make an exact clone of the work that is impossible to distinguish from the original.

This is where my opinion defers from you.

If I were a painter and displayed my artwork in a public forum and someone took that piece, that would be theft. If they wanted it, without stealing it, they would have to pay for it. Otherwise, it's impossible to have.

However, if we take those same assumptions into the online spectrum, it becomes a very different situation.

I'm the same artist whom displays my artwork in a public forum online and someone takes that piece, that should be theft, correct?. But, it's a conundrum because they can't technically remove the original piece, but they certainly can CLONE the piece, without any need to reproduce the artwork. Just because in the traditional sense that is impossible, doesn't mean the intent was not the same.

You WOULD try to make the case that I am against others using my work as inspiration and that I'm opposed to "the highest form of flattery". It's simply not the truth. That would destroy the whole foundation of art and culture. All artwork is inspired in one way or another from other's artwork. However, you blur the lines between theft and imitation, that should be pretty clear at this point.

So let's compare the two scenarios in regards to theft and imitation:

1) I release my military ad and there is a licensed image attached to said ad that I do not own. Someone comes and CLONES that artwork and reuses it somewhere else without my knowledge. That just created a legal liability for me, because there is no way to disprove that it didn't originate from me. My only remedy is to prove that it was CLONED without my consent and used in a manner I did not intend. In your philosophy, I would be denied that remedy, which all law is required to facilitate.

2) I release my military ad and there is a license attached to said ad that I do not own. Someone comes and is so inspired by it that they IMITATE my work (check the thread, that is exactly what also happened) and use that same licensed image in THEIR OWN work. I have nothing to do with how that person's imitation uses that licensed image, and so therefore liability is now on him, not me. My remedy is to simply show that it was not my work, therefore not my responsibility.

Just because the basic requirement of physically taking my original is no longer necessary, doesn't justify your point; nor does it automatically create a presumption that it cannot be theft, therein. You completely discount the new forms of theft that are possible today and you refuse to acknowledge it, so you can justify the theft that you engage in, most likely.

I don't appreciate you using ANOTHER strawman to associate my position to condoning slavery, because it was legal and poor plantation farmer couldn't put food on his family's table. That is obnoxious and very immature. Grow up. If you think that is anywhere close to whom I am, then you are a poor judge of character and your own bigotry is exposed.

Ultimately, I believe in the basis of common law and reject statutory rules/codes. I believe no human being has the right to do harm to another human being, to damage their property, or be fraudulent in their contracts. I believe with that basis in law, morality becomes much easier to align with law.

Also, it is absolutely laughable that you try to make it seem as if I'm SO MUCH FOR authority. I've risked my own freedom fighting authority and corrupted law. I have walked right into court and ordered Sheriffs to arrest Judge's who refuse to put their oath on record. I've stood up against the military to stand up for my own Constitutional oath. So much for your attempt to pretend I'm the one attacking character. I've simply stood on my own truth in regard to being an artist and the challenges we face protecting our work.

Funny, that you are the one cursing and the one using strawman arguments, to justify your point. I try to avoid that at all costs, so that I don't make the same mistake you just have in the past few posts.

Anyways, I'm bored with this pointless back and forth with you. You are welcome to think however you'd like and I am as well. So on that note, you'll just have to accept to agree to disagree, as much as that probably rowls you up.

[silverhandorder]

We don't fight over breathing air do we? Same for ideas. They are not scarce and technology is making it so. It is a fact of life that you just have to accept and move on. You can try and fight it but P2P is impossible to police.

[dannno]

Bulloks on less creation. England with IP laws and Germany without IP laws on books show that it is the other way around. Germany had much more books created and much more demand for books without IP protection.

Even if you think IP is real technology is making it impossible to enforce. I can easily copy anything on internet, make an anonymous account and spread it everywhere. No way to trace to me and no way to stop it. Get with the times.

This is reality.

Sorry dusman, at the end of the day, IP is extremely flawed. You are sorta like the record labels trying to prop up a dying system.

That doesn't mean you can't find ways to make good compensation from your hard work, in fact, I think everybody as a whole would be much more successful without it because it would go back to industry and suddenly things would be much cheaper and more available for everyone.

[Bman]

I think this whole argument really gets narrowed down to agreeing on fraud, once we get past all the b.s.

When it comes to artwork and anything of a creative process what level of acceptance does the free market provide against fraud?

[Birdlady]

I did not read this entire thread, but your post is so true of most people believe on the internet. They think anything listed on the internet is in public domain, but that is absolutely not true at all. Look at google images for example. You are not supposed to copy and paste those picture and use them for your own use. They are indeed copyrighted by the person who took the photo or created the photo and you are supposed to ask for permission to use those. I nearly sued someone because they used a picture of my face on their website without my permission.

I have to ask, but have you ever created anything at all that was available to the public like a book, song or video? Write a book, upload it online and let me know how you like it if a person would completely reproduce that book without giving you any credit and passing it off as their own.


You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand? You can say someone copied or replicated your work, but no one has stolen anything. You will find that terminology no where used in the historical accounts up until the mid 1800s. Artists, inventors, etc. have long called imitation (aka copying, reproducing, duplicating, etc.) the highest form of flattery. You guys have debauched your own standing. You demean the entire demagogy of philosophy, yet, you use your own twisted contradictory notion of property, and an appeal to authority (Law..I mean hell slavery was once legal and you were taking the food off the plantation owners families plate by making slavery illegal...). You can't argue against my position, because it is the only logically correct position, instead you use emotion and attack the character of the poster. I hope everyone can see this and see who has the superior argument.

(Doesn't feel good....) Yes, let's use that as a basis of morality and law.

PS: Whenever you put something on the internet it is exactly the same as putting it in your front lawn. If someone walks by, likes what they see, goes home uses their own property to recreate and then either uses it, or sells it, you would use violence to confiscate this mans property or throw him in a cage for using his own property to his own accord. Then you have the audacity to proclaim you are defending property rights? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE with that shit. Makes me so mad.

[low preference guy]

..

[Napoleon's Shadow]

I've noticed a huge problem in the Ron Paul community of downloading other people's YouTube videos and then reuploading them on their own accounts with 0 attribution to the original creator that made the video. You know what they call this? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Correct, although it's more like "copyprivilege infringement". Government can't grant rights, only privileges.




Blows my mind that we talk about respecting people's private property and then do things like this. My time is considered my private property and when someone puts a lot of time into making a video for Ron Paul, it's wrong to take their video to promote your own agenda. There are ways to share videos you really like. It's called making a playlist and making the video a favorite. But there is no actual property involved. The government only grants you a privilege for a limited time the ability to control your work; specifically when, where, and how it's performed, copied, transmitted, distributed, etc.

The phrase "Intellectual property" is a misnomer.



Biggest thing is when people download the videos from the official channel and then reupload them with their own links in the description instead of the official RonPaul2012.com (look at the RonPaul2008dotcom channel for an example). Do you realize you're actually hurting the campaign by doing this?
You're taking views away from the official video and new subscribers away from the official channel. Not to mention all the traffic that's now going to your site instead of being introduced to the actual campaign. By siphoning off views from the official campaign videos, you're taking away from their total view counts and thus the channel's authority. That is a valid point. Total views are important. But the damage cannot actually be measured or quantified in reality. And monetary damage is either so miniscule to be negligible, or nonexistent.

[Anti Federalist]

Doesn't this IP crap when taken to the full out extent ultimately mean that "creators" can appeal to the government to have my memories of their artwork erased from my brain?

Do NOT give them ideas.

[dannno]

I have to ask, but have you ever created anything at all that was available to the public like a book, song or video? Write a book, upload it online and let me know how you like it if a person would completely reproduce that book without giving you any credit and passing it off as their own.

There's a big difference between reproducing a book or piece of music and spreading it around and claiming it as one's own and selling it. The first, as a musician or artist, I would be happy about people spreading my work so I became more well known. The second is fraud.

[Birdlady]

I understand what you are saying, but this goes back to end justifies the means. Well it's ok to steal another person's work because it is for a good cause after all... Well I don't believe in that. Ask for permission and if you don't get it, then make your own videos.


There's a big difference between reproducing a book or piece of music and spreading it around and claiming it as one's own and selling it. The first, as a musician or artist, I would be happy about people spreading my work so I became more well known. The second is fraud.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I understand what you are saying, but this goes back to end justifies the means. Well it's ok to steal another person's work because it is for a good cause after all... Well I don't believe in that. Ask for permission and if you don't get it, then make your own videos.

It's not an ends justify the means. Look at the pharmaceutical industry today. Just because you are the first to discover something doesn't make you the owner of that discovery. Imagine if for all eternity (if it was indeed property and the individual/corporation never gave permission for anyone to reproduce) only Tylenol was allowed to produce acetaminophen, even though you at your house, or in a lab, or elsewhere with your own property were barred from using it as you wish, just because someone discovered a formula before you. Imagine if you had to pay royalties to use your own vocal cords? Can you visualize yet how IP infringes on private property rights? I can't make it much clearer. You can't have a contradictory set of property rights -- it simply does not exist, nor can it.

You can own a CD, but not the lyrics on the CD. You can own a DVD, but not the images or ideas on the DVD. You can own a piece of sheet music, but you cannot own the chords within. One is property, one is not. One is scarce, one is not. One is tangible, one is not. IP is nothing more than another individual laying claim to my property and my-own-self.

[Matthew Zak]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MatthewDZak

I'm not sure how much of my videos fall into the category of copyright infringement, but as far as I'm concerned, you are all welcome to download and reupload these videos at your discretion in order to get the message out.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've always wondered how on the day before the patent/copyright is set to expire, I can be called a thief, but on the day after, I'm not, yet my actions have remained the same. /whistles

[ForLiberty2012]

I didn't read through all of the 170 replies, but I would like to say this: If your video contains content from any news media (clips of Ron Paul) it's not yours, unless you recorded it. If you use Ron Paul's name without his consent, it's not yours. If you use any music in your video that isn't yours, it's not yours. And if it's not yours, you have no "rights".

However, if it's 100% original, and you have the proper copyrights to your video, then by all means, go ahead and notify Youtube and have them shut down those videos if you are so inclined to do so.

Otherwise, it really is not a big deal.

[CaptainAmerica]

I understand what you are saying, but this goes back to end justifies the means. Well it's ok to steal another person's work because it is for a good cause after all... Well I don't believe in that. Ask for permission and if you don't get it, then make your own videos. they have no respect for other individuals, so it would negate their very idea of twisted "liberty" to ask other individuals for permission.

[fearthereaperx]

I didn't read through all of the 170 replies, but I would like to say this: If your video contains content from any news media (clips of Ron Paul) it's not yours, unless you recorded it. If you use Ron Paul's name without his consent, it's not yours. If you use any music in your video that isn't yours, it's not yours. And if it's not yours, you have no "rights".

However, if it's 100% original, and you have the proper copyrights to your video, then by all means, go ahead and notify Youtube and have them shut down those videos if you are so inclined to do so.

Otherwise, it really is not a big deal.

Atleast, Notify the offender with a message to please take it down.

[Travlyr]

For the last 50 years I have considered intellectual property rights to be a cornerstone of liberty. So I am a bit surprised that IP is not cherished by the liberty movement. Perhaps I don't understand the debate so the following scenario is meant to continue this debate in hopes of getting a better understanding of the positions.

If I spend $5 million and two years of my labor making a movie, then what rights do I have to recover my investment? Can just anyone and everyone copy my movie, show it to audiences, charge admission, and not pay me royalties?

[Chieppa1]

Sometimes I think all TPTB have to do to keep Ron Paul from winning, is have two people have an debate about some little issue right outside all election voting centers around the country. All Ron Paul supporters would be too busy debating "who sucks more" outside and forget to vote...

[ForLiberty2012]

For the last 50 years I have considered intellectual property rights to be a cornerstone of liberty. So I am a bit surprised that IP is not cherished by the liberty movement. Perhaps I don't understand the debate so the following scenario is meant to continue this debate in hopes of getting a better understanding of the positions.

If I spend $5 million and two years of my labor making a movie, then what rights do I have to recover my investment? Can just anyone and everyone copy my movie, show it to audiences, charge admission, and not pay me royalties?

If it's 100% yours... paid for by you, original idea is yours, filmed by you, etc etc... obtained the proper copyrights... then yes you can get lawyers involved and "sue" for "lost profit".

[Birdlady]

I'm not talking about IP's here at all. I'm talking about a creative work of art that a person created in their own time, mind and then God forbid wanted to share it with the world. It is theirs no matter what medium is used to share that work.

And actually in your pharmaceutical example you are completely wrong. Only that one company can make that drug as there are patents on all medications. Once the allotted amount of time runs out (20 years), then other companies can produce that same drug as a generic. That's why these companies make small changes all the time, so they reset the clock on their patents. Acetominophen has been off-patent for many many years...

We aren't talking about patent law here though. We are talking about copyright. Copyright never expires, until many years after the creator's death.


It's not an ends justify the means. Look at the pharmaceutical industry today. Just because you are the first to discover something doesn't make you the owner of that discovery. Imagine if for all eternity (if it was indeed property and the individual/corporation never gave permission for anyone to reproduce) only Tylenol was allowed to produce acetaminophen, even though you at your house, or in a lab, or elsewhere with your own property were barred from using it as you wish, just because someone discovered a formula before you. Imagine if you had to pay royalties to use your own vocal cords? Can you visualize yet how IP infringes on private property rights? I can't make it much clearer. You can't have a contradictory set of property rights -- it simply does not exist, nor can it.

You can own a CD, but not the lyrics on the CD. You can own a DVD, but not the images or ideas on the DVD. You can own a piece of sheet music, but you cannot own the chords within. One is property, one is not. One is scarce, one is not. One is tangible, one is not. IP is nothing more than another individual laying claim to my property and my-own-self.

[CCTelander]

"I get this strange feeling of deja vu."

[Travlyr]

If it's 100% yours... paid for by you, original idea is yours, filmed by you, etc etc... obtained the proper copyrights... then yes you can get lawyers involved and "sue" for "lost profit".
If that's the case, then it might make sense to take the risk and make the investment.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm not talking about IP's here at all. I'm talking about a creative work of art that a person created in their own time, mind and then God forbid wanted to share it with the world. It is theirs no matter what medium is used to share that work.

And actually in your pharmaceutical example you are completely wrong. Only that one company can make that drug as there are patents on all medications. Once the allotted amount of time runs out (20 years), then other companies can produce that same drug as a generic. That's why these companies make small changes all the time, so they reset the clock on their patents. Acetominophen has been off-patent for many many years...

We aren't talking about patent law here though. We are talking about copyright. Copyright never expires, until many years after the creator's death.

So you think property rights come with a time-table? Odd seeing as how non-IP has no restriction, because it is a fundamental natural liberty, unlike IP which are nothing but writs of State-monopoly. If IP was actually property, then it is yours ad infinitum down on lineage unless you decide to give it away. You can't argue that IP is property when it has zero characteristics of property. Not in law. Not in philosophy. Not in reality.

I wish I was around right before the English Language was invented so I could get IP passed and then charge folks for using the language I invented. Nothing like owning everyones vocal cords.

[low preference guy]

they have no respect for other individuals, so it would negate their very idea of twisted "liberty" to ask other individuals for permission.

yeah, lying about the people you're arguing with and not arguing against their ideas is very convincing. what more proof does anyone need that you don't have an argument?

[satchelmcqueen]

i see the point the OP makes, but i still gotta say that as long as ron paul gets his message heard, i really dont think it matters WHERE it was heard from. If i make a rp vid (and i have) and someone else takes it to further put it out there for people to see, (which they did) i am fine with that. the more the merrier i say. this is about spreading pauls message, not "who made the video". grass roots!!!!

[McBell]

Deleted

[jmdrake]

Jesus was for peace so lets have a war to reclaim His homeland.

Ron Paul is for smaller government so lets advocate a larger government so that there will be someone to police YouTube sites and demand copies of Ron Paul videos be taken down so that the official campaign channel can get more views.

Yeah. Makes sense. /sarcasm

The idea that RonPaul2008dotcom is doing this to "steal views" from the official campaign is retarded. For one thing their channel views dwarves the official channel. For another if you just want views their are easier ways of doing it. I think this was a simple attempt to get the video out to more people. Is it ill thought out? Maybe. Then again maybe not. If you go to youtube and just search for "Ron Paul The One" the official video comes to the top. So how are views being "stolen"?

Here's something that most people arguing on the "Let's restrict IP to help Paul" side are missing. You can only post a response video on YouTube if it is one you've uploaded. So if RonPaul2008dotcom wants to spread that particular video by posting it as a response to some neocon crap he'd have to download and upload it. (Yeah you can post the last bit of a video URL in a comment, but that kind of sucks and folks are generally to lazy to cut/paste/splice just to see a video.) Now maybe some would feel better if he did a "trailer of the trailer" and posted that. Anyway, enough of the circular firing squad. Go make some cold calls or something. ;)

[FSP-Rebel]

Funny yall did this thread this far.

[dannno]

Here's what I think: I've noticed a huge problem in the Ron Paul community of downloading other people's YouTube videos and then reuploading them on their own accounts with 0 attribution to the original creator that made the video. You know what they call this? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Blows my mind that we talk about respecting people's private property and then do things like this. My time is considered my private property and when someone puts a lot of time into making a video for Ron Paul, it's wrong to take their video to promote your own agenda. There are ways to share videos you really like. It's called making a playlist and making the video a favorite.

Biggest thing is when people download the videos from the official channel and then reupload them with their own links in the description instead of the official RonPaul2012.com (look at the RonPaul2008dotcom channel for an example). Do you realize you're actually hurting the campaign by doing this? You're taking views away from the official video and new subscribers away from the official channel. Not to mention all the traffic that's now going to your site instead of being introduced to the actual campaign. By siphoning off views from the official campaign videos, you're taking away from their total view counts and thus the channel's authority.

Personally, this is one thing that is completely unacceptable to me. If you want more videos on your channel, contribute to the movement by making unique videos that help further the cause. Unless you first have permission, don't use other people's on your channel. Simple as that.

EDIT: LOL! You just copied the OP, I get it..

But seriously, if somebody wants to market a video, then I think they have the right to direct people to their youtube channel if they want to. Just because it is on their channel doesn't mean they claim to have made it.

Not to mention, pretty much every Ron Paul video includes copyrighted material to begin with.

I don't remember this being an issue at all in 07/08, because everybody just wanted everybody to know about Ron Paul.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Remember guys, if you make an invention, it's available to everybody for free, just like in Glorious Soviet Union.

[silverhandorder]

Remember guys, if you make an invention, it's available to everybody for free, just like in Glorious Soviet Union.

[jmdrake]

Remember guys, if you make an invention, it's available to everybody for free, just like in Glorious Soviet Union.

Actually the Soviet Union had copyright laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union

[jmdrake]

EDIT: LOL! You just copied the OP, I get it..

But seriously, if somebody wants to market a video, then I think they have the right to direct people to their youtube channel if they want to. Just because it is on their channel doesn't mean they claim to have made it.

Not to mention, pretty much every Ron Paul video includes copyrighted material to begin with.

I don't remember this being an issue at all in 07/08, because everybody just wanted everybody to know about Ron Paul.

LOL. I'm slow today. :o

[free.alive]

Quote Originally Posted by McBell View Post
Here's what I think: I've noticed a huge problem in the Ron Paul community of downloading other people's YouTube videos and then reuploading them on their own accounts with 0 attribution to the original creator that made the video. You know what they call this? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Blows my mind that we talk about respecting people's private property and then do things like this. My time is considered my private property and when someone puts a lot of time into making a video for Ron Paul, it's wrong to take their video to promote your own agenda. There are ways to share videos you really like. It's called making a playlist and making the video a favorite.

Biggest thing is when people download the videos from the official channel and then reupload them with their own links in the description instead of the official RonPaul2012.com (look at the RonPaul2008dotcom channel for an example). Do you realize you're actually hurting the campaign by doing this? You're taking views away from the official video and new subscribers away from the official channel. Not to mention all the traffic that's now going to your site instead of being introduced to the actual campaign. By siphoning off views from the official campaign videos, you're taking away from their total view counts and thus the channel's authority.

Personally, this is one thing that is completely unacceptable to me. If you want more videos on your channel, contribute to the movement by making unique videos that help further the cause. Unless you first have permission, don't use other people's on your channel. Simple as that.
EDIT: LOL! You just copied the OP, I get it..

But seriously, if somebody wants to market a video, then I think they have the right to direct people to their youtube channel if they want to. Just because it is on their channel doesn't mean they claim to have made it.

Not to mention, pretty much every Ron Paul video includes copyrighted material to begin with.

I don't remember this being an issue at all in 07/08, because everybody just wanted everybody to know about Ron Paul.

[dannno]

Remember guys, if you make an invention, it's available to everybody for free, just like in Glorious Soviet Union.

What exactly is "available to everybody for free" ??

If you sell a contraption, and I buy it, and I make more them then I've not taken anything. I've made something. If you are harboring an invention in your basement, it's only available to those you make it available to.

[Carehn]

Brb, I'm going to get some popcorn for the discussion on intellectual property and copyright laws.




Back - I can see how this would upset someone for sure that put the hard work into it.
late I know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLlZh9yelk

[Mr Tansill]

You can't steal something you are still in possession of. How hard is this to understand?

Uhhh, possession is requisite to theft...

[dannno]

Uhhh, possession is requisite to theft...

No, he's saying someone couldn't have stolen something from you that you have had continuous possession of.

I will post this again:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOdNc_seyM

[Mr Tansill]

"I get this strange feeling of deja vu."

Yeah, same...wasn't this just beat to death?

[Mr Tansill]

No, he's saying someone couldn't have stolen something from you that you have had continuous possession of.

I will post this again:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOdNc_seyM

I guess what's really missing from this entire debate is a clarification on what constitutes an idea vs. what constitutes a specific realization of an idea.

No one owns music, people do own the rights to their songs.

No one owns the idea of the computer, but people do own the rights to their brand.

If you don't believe in IP, you can't believe in copyright.

If you don't believe in copyright, you don't acknowledge fraud.

Do we, in the liberty movement, hold fraud as one of our core values?

[dannno]

If you don't believe in copyright, you don't acknowledge fraud.

Do we, in the liberty movement, hold fraud as one of our core values?

Why can't fraud just be fraud? If someone tries to represent themselves as someone else, then it's fraudulent. That doesn't mean I can't play a song by The Beatles, it just means I can't say I am The Beatles.

[Sentinelrv]

I just want to see people's opinions on this. I'm writing a book and I'm planning on selling it as an ebook, and maybe even having it published later on. I'll probably start selling it through my website for around $19.99 when it's finished. This book will go toward helping me setup my future.

My question is, do you believe in principle that it should be ok for somebody to download my book without offering me any kind of value or monetary exchange in return?

I'm just curious to hear what people have to say on this. If this was the case, it would probably discourage me from wanting to finish writing my book, because I'd be worried that I wouldn't receive compensation for my investment of time and energy in creating it. On the other hand though, I've heard research that claims books that are being pirated receive increased sales compared to books that are not being pirated. If this is true, then allowing your work to be pirated by others actually benefits the creator through increased sales. The only cause I can think of why this would be the case is that word of your book spreads more quickly because the information is easier to access. That coupled with the fact that more people will buy your book legally than pirate it will lead to increased sales.

So I'm torn on this issue. I have a desire to protect my profits, but does closing off access to my work help protect my profits, or does it actually decrease my profits by not allowing my work to spread to as many people as possible? That's an important question in my opinion.

[JoshLowry]

I'm going to steal this idea.

http://kotaku.com/5343843/heeeeeeeello-monday-ban-monday

[Mr Tansill]

Why can't fraud just be fraud? If someone tries to represent themselves as someone else, then it's fraudulent. That doesn't mean I can't play a song by The Beatles, it just means I can't say I am The Beatles.

I guess I'm not sure...

I can't really envision a world though where we as a society would build a body of law under which no one was allowed to copyright anything, but we were still concerned about fraudulent activities...

Can you?

In my mind, copyright exists to prevent fraud - i.e. they are equivalent, or whatever.

[Carehn]

I'm going to steal this idea.

http://kotaku.com/5343843/heeeeeeeello-monday-ban-monday

You should! I want to see how long i last. I should have been baned like three times by now. It could be fun, like a game.

Now sit back all and let me work my magic. Im about to turn into the most PC person ever to live. My posts will all suck and this website will be a shrine to the sucking that is my posts and I.

[Eric21ND]

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

[silverhandorder]

I just want to see people's opinions on this. I'm writing a book and I'm planning on selling it as an ebook, and maybe even having it published later on. I'll probably start selling it through my website for around $19.99 when it's finished. This book will go toward helping me setup my future.

My question is, do you believe in principle that it should be ok for somebody to download my book without offering me any kind of value or monetary exchange in return?

I'm just curious to hear what people have to say on this. If this was the case, it would probably discourage me from wanting to finish writing my book, because I'd be worried that I wouldn't receive compensation for my investment of time and energy in creating it. On the other hand though, I've heard research that claims books that are being pirated receive increased sales compared to books that are not being pirated. If this is true, then allowing your work to be pirated by others actually benefits the creator through increased sales. The only cause I can think of why this would be the case is that word of your book spreads more quickly because the information is easier to access. That coupled with the fact that more people will buy your book legally than pirate it will lead to increased sales.

So I'm torn on this issue. I have a desire to protect my profits, but does closing off access to my work help protect my profits, or does it actually decrease my profits by not allowing my work to spread to as many people as possible? That's an important question in my opinion.

The reality is that you will have your book pirated today. If you offer only paper version it will probably not be pirated. It would be easier for someone to buy it for 20$ than to scan it and upload it. There is one exception which is if the book gets popular someone will put the trouble into scanning it and uploading it.

I think the best strategy is to offer the book in ebook format and anyone that likes it will most likely donate, by either buying e version or sending you a donation if your have something on your site that accepts donations. If it goes viral you will get a lot of sales. If it does not than you not going to recoup your time investment either way.

[BrendanWenzel]

I've learned a lot from everyone today. Not sure why half this stuff is on this thread. Now I understand Bruno's comment right after I posted the original post. Here's my thoughts after all this.

My #1 beef is with people that redistribute other people's work under their own name with commercial intent. Linking to their own website and getting email addresses is considered commercial intent because email addresses are now considered a very valuable business asset. Look at Groupon for a great example of the value of email databases.

As far as using videos I've made, go ahead and use them. Please make sure my channel url is the first thing in the description and we have no beef. Don't even have to ask. It's not that we're looking for fame or riches. We are just looking to get credit for the work we do so people that like it will know who did it. We aren't charging anyone a dime for anything and only doing this to further the Ron Paul cause. Is it really that much to ask to get credit for work we do?

[Razmear]

I'm very anti-IP, but shit like this just pisses me off. A thread from tonight in General Politics:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312947-Greenville-SC-Suspect-Pulled-Over-Preached-to-Then-a-Citation-From-GOD!
has a video that is prepended and appended by ads and is obviously stolen from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QA9HbtbBqwY
The poster even commented on the original before stealing it.

Sharing to spread the word is one thing, stealing for profit is a different matter all together.

humming: If I had a Hammer.....

eb

[jmdrake]

I'm very anti-IP, but shit like this just pisses me off. A thread from tonight in General Politics:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312947-Greenville-SC-Suspect-Pulled-Over-Preached-to-Then-a-Citation-From-GOD!
has a video that is prepended and appended by ads and is obviously stolen from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QA9HbtbBqwY
The poster even commented on the original before stealing it.

Sharing to spread the word is one thing, stealing for profit is a different matter all together.

humming: If I had a Hammer.....

eb

In the end does the word care about how it gets spread? I probably would never have seen that video if you weren't so angry about its commercialization to post it here. ;) Ultimately YouTube could fix this through technology if they wanted to. There is a "remix" tool that lets you remix your own videos. Say if it let you remix other people's videos? Then if someone clicked on your remixed video it should give the original author some sort of credit automatically too as well as a link to the orginal(s) video(s).

[silverhandorder]

As far as you tube tools is concerned you should be able to video reply with someone else's video or suggest that the video appear in video reply box. This way one does not need to steal.

Also I don't know if they have this or not but they should allow someone to put their play lists on the main page. So aggregate sites could just link to videos of others. Youtube should also come with disclaimer that video put on youtube becomes public property and that unless it is a law (copy right would unfortunately be one of those things) infringement that it will not be removed if others have it Favorited.

[IndianaPolitico]

Ok, I just uploaded my new Money Bomb video. It hasn't gone up in views like usual, and I have found out why. Someone else has downloaded it, and re-uploaded it as their own. This has pushed my video completely off of the YT search, and "his" copy pops up instead! He claims he "remastered" it, but all that he did was download, and re-upload. If he wanted to share it, all that he would of had to do is send out a YT bulletin, and favorite it! I believe this is against the YT terms of service. What do you think I should do?

[silverhandorder]

Can I get the links for both videos?

Anyways Youtube is a private company and you do have a valid grievance, people passing off your work as their own. So file a complaint.

[IndianaPolitico]

Can I get the links for both videos?

Anyways Youtube is a private company and you do have a valid grievance, people passing off your work as their own. So file a complaint.

Mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwRLjT5kR-w
Copy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTJVW-954I

[r3volution]

all of ur utoob are belong to me !

[Birdlady]

Yeah that would definitely tick me off. He is claiming fair use, but this is not fair use at all because it is copied in its entirety. He probably thinks getting around plagiarism means you only have to change 1 word and keep the rest of the paragraph the same. You can flag the video as inappropriate and select infringes my copyright if you really want.


Ok, I just uploaded my new Money Bomb video. It hasn't gone up in views like usual, and I have found out why. Someone else has downloaded it, and re-uploaded it as their own. This has pushed my video completely off of the YT search, and "his" copy pops up instead! He claims he "remastered" it, but all that he did was download, and re-upload. If he wanted to share it, all that he would of had to do is send out a YT bulletin, and favorite it! I believe this is against the YT terms of service. What do you think I should do?

[Chainspell]

Yeah that would definitely tick me off. He is claiming fair use, but this is not fair use at all because it is copied in its entirety. He probably thinks getting around plagiarism means you only have to change 1 word and keep the rest of the paragraph the same. You can flag the video as inappropriate and select infringes my copyright if you really want.
yeah those morons need to be taught a lesson about respecting other people's work. and I dont mean verbally. beat them up until they change their ways. I have no patience at all, that's why I look up to Ron Paul, coz he is sooo patient.... I believe in force.

Youtube doesn't protect your videos if someone re-uploads it unless you threaten to sue and even then that's a muddy road. You can cite that your video was uploaded first and all they have to do is look at the date. That's why even tho I hate it I put my name on my videos at the very end so I can further support my claim.

[Birdlady]

If I made a video, I wouldn't have issues with someone reuploading as long as I was given credit. A link to my channel would be good too.

If any of you are making videos and not putting your name in the actual video itself, then start. However, if you put it at the very tail end, that can easily be removed, so stick it some place where it isn't intrusive, but also not easily removed. :)

[Chainspell]

If I made a video, I wouldn't have issues with someone reuploading as long as I was given credit. A link to my channel would be good too.

If any of you are making videos and not putting your name in the actual video itself, then start. However, if you put it at the very tail end, that can easily be removed, so stick it some place where it isn't intrusive, but also not easily removed. :)
hey nice youtube channel! subbed :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbcItGgDkLU
man you have a crazy incredible voice... its awesome that you're a ron paul supporter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQnhqt0gWO4
I can almost see that one being used in a Ron Paul video

you should change your sig to say that you have these for people to use in their videos. such a waste if nobody notices :(

[LibertyEagle]

Mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwRLjT5kR-w
Copy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTJVW-954I

I hope you flagged him for infringing on your copyright.

[Revolution9]

Watermark them in the lower right hand corner and include the domain if necessary.

Rev9

[Birdlady]

Thank you so much!

Do you think if I did some vocal covers of patriotic songs people would want to use them? I was thinking about working on some patriotic songs and then ppl can use them as they wish, but I would like to at least be given credit as the singer.

I'm trying to figure out which ones are in the public domain. People can use my covers, just remember technically speaking vocal covers are an infringement of copyright... I don't want to be hypocritical here. lol ;)


hey nice youtube channel! subbed :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbcItGgDkLU
man you have a crazy incredible voice... its awesome that you're a ron paul supporter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQnhqt0gWO4
I can almost see that one being used in a Ron Paul video

you should change your sig to say that you have these for people to use in their videos. such a waste if nobody notices :(

[silverhandorder]

Mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwRLjT5kR-w
Copy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTJVW-954I

Yeah a very grimy thing to do for that person. I would say report his video.

However from the point of view of spreading the video it is still beneficial for spreading. More audience. So see what is you want more.

[IndianaPolitico]

I hope you flagged him for infringing on your copyright.
I did, usually YT takes care of it in a few days, nothing yet though. Good news is though, my video is back on the front page, and his is gone.

[Chainspell]

Thank you so much!

Do you think if I did some vocal covers of patriotic songs people would want to use them? I was thinking about working on some patriotic songs and then ppl can use them as they wish, but I would like to at least be given credit as the singer.

I'm trying to figure out which ones are in the public domain. People can use my covers, just remember technically speaking vocal covers are an infringement of copyright... I don't want to be hypocritical here. lol ;)

I think you should put it in your sig atleast that you can do covers and you take requests! So awesome that you play MMOs too

[Number19]

Copyright is pure evil...In a "free" society, your opinion would be less objectionable. Intellectual theft could be easily settled with guns.

[fearthereaperx]

I did, usually YT takes care of it in a few days, nothing yet though. Good news is though, my video is back on the front page, and his is gone.

Why not ask him to take it down first?

[dusman]

Thank you so much!

Do you think if I did some vocal covers of patriotic songs people would want to use them? I was thinking about working on some patriotic songs and then ppl can use them as they wish, but I would like to at least be given credit as the singer.

I'm trying to figure out which ones are in the public domain. People can use my covers, just remember technically speaking vocal covers are an infringement of copyright... I don't want to be hypocritical here. lol ;)

Yes, please. ::Swooning::

[MarcNY]

Lol these comments are funny!

[fearthereaperx]

I'm very anti-IP, but shit like this just pisses me off. A thread from tonight in General Politics:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312947-Greenville-SC-Suspect-Pulled-Over-Preached-to-Then-a-Citation-From-GOD!
has a video that is prepended and appended by ads and is obviously stolen from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QA9HbtbBqwY
The poster even commented on the original before stealing it.

Sharing to spread the word is one thing, stealing for profit is a different matter all together.

humming: If I had a Hammer.....

eb

Those ads popped up because of kenney chesney being played in the background. Chesney's record company is actually making money on it.

[fearthereaperx]

Those ads popped up because of kenney chesney being played in the background. Chesney's record company is actually making money on it.

and the orginal uploader isn't even the copyright holder

[Birdlady]

I fixed my sig and I'm working on America the Beautiful right now. Probably won't get done until at least tomorrow unless I can squeeze in some more time tonight. It's almost done, but at the last minute I decided to add a harmony line. If you think this is new thread worthy, then go ahead and make a new one. I am willing to put in the time to sing the songs as long as people would appreciate and use them.

PS. Yes I am a gamer. Always have been for some reason. I'm a dork! :p Last time around I made a Ron Paul stamp in TF2 and ran around pasting it in every game I was in. lol


I think you should put it in your sig atleast that you can do covers and you take requests! So awesome that you play MMOs too

[Revolution9]

In a "free" society, your opinion would be less objectionable. Intellectual theft could be easily settled with guns.

I like this and will use it often against those who advocate IP theft because a free society to them means everything should be free for them.

Rev9

[The Free Hornet]

I deleted my post now that I see Rev9 is banned. Anyone interested in my opinion can ponder on the absurdity presented here:
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
[no, I don't believe everything I read at snopes]

[Chainspell]

I fixed my sig and I'm working on America the Beautiful right now. Probably won't get done until at least tomorrow unless I can squeeze in some more time tonight. It's almost done, but at the last minute I decided to add a harmony line. If you think this is new thread worthy, then go ahead and make a new one. I am willing to put in the time to sing the songs as long as people would appreciate and use them.

PS. Yes I am a gamer. Always have been for some reason. I'm a dork! :p Last time around I made a Ron Paul stamp in TF2 and ran around pasting it in every game I was in. lol

lol i have a tf2 channel

yeah the sig looks good!

[Razmear]

Those ads popped up because of kenney chesney being played in the background. Chesney's record company is actually making money on it.

I was referring to the ads for E Global Foods that were pasted at the front and end of the same movie posted by the (maybe not) original uploader, not sure what Chesney has to do with it, or who he even is.

eb

[Revolution9]

I deleted my post now that I see Rev9 is banned. Anyone interested in my opinion can ponder on the absurdity presented here:
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
[no, I don't believe everything I read at snopes]

I got banned for telling an sports idol worshipping animal cruelty advocate what may metaphorically happen if he visited my neighborhood. I took one in the penalty box for the pleasure of telling the clown his attitude was worthless and troublesome. What could you have changed because I was "banned"?

Rev9

[The Free Hornet]

I got banned for telling an sports idol worshipping animal cruelty advocate what may metaphorically happen if he visited my neighborhood. I took one in the penalty box for the pleasure of telling the clown his attitude was worthless and troublesome. What could you have changed because I was "banned"?

Rev9

I assumed you were banned for talking about how you will use guns against forum members who advocate a position with which you disagree.


Originally Posted by Number19:
"In a 'free' society, your opinion would be less objectionable. Intellectual theft could be easily settled with guns."

I like this and will use it often against those who advocate IP theft because a free society to them means everything should be free for them.

Rev9

If you think you still have a leg to stand on, please use it to hop away.

[Revolution9]

I assumed you were banned for talking about how you will use guns against forum members who advocate a position with which you disagree.



If you think you still have a leg to stand on, please use it to hop away.

Lord snappin' armpits..you take a metaphor that has a connotation to it that if IP theft is condoned then guns may happen into play to those who are willing to protect them... you don't think that is true then try to breach Los Alamos and grab a nuke program..nothing but ones and zeroes to an IP theft advocate... and try to turn that into a blunt cudgel and swing that thing at me. A word of advice..your cudgel was much too heavy to smash an ephemeral metaphor.

BTW..I know what post I got banned for so yer apparently caught gossipmongering with yer pants down..<--yet another metaphor just in case you take that literal.



Rev9

[The Free Hornet]

Lord snappin' armpits..you take a metaphor that has a connotation to it that if IP theft is condoned then guns may happen into play to those who are willing to protect them... you don't think that is true then try to breach Los Alamos and grab a nuke program..nothing but ones and zeroes to an IP theft advocate... and try to turn that into a blunt cudgel and swing that thing at me. A word of advice..your cudgel was much too heavy to smash an ephemeral metaphor.

BTW..I know what post I got banned for so yer apparently caught gossipmongering with yer pants down..<--yet another metaphor just in case you take that literal.



Rev9

To summarize, you believe copyrighted information is personal property. OTOH, you believe a threat of violence against "advocates" of so-called IP theft is a metaphor. OK.



In a "free" society, your opinion would be less objectionable. Intellectual theft could be easily settled with guns.


I like this and will use it often against those who advocate IP theft because a free society to them means everything should be free for them.

Rev9


Sorry about your ban today. You had the right of it this time but you need to remember to treat statesmen with utmost respect however unstately their behavior may be. Respect your superiors.


Material from a different IP thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-Intellectual-Property-rights&p=3507038&viewfull=1#post3507038):

You can create and sculpt and torture the character. The issue begins when you start SOCIALIZING my idea to put profits in your pocket. You are stealing from me. What I see from this argument is that I should give up art and do drywall. But..My ART is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CREATED. I also see that your kind have no problem socializing/stealing others work but are against socialism. Next argument.

Rev9


For our betters who are not statesmen, this is a reminder. I have always taken the threat of arms against advocates seriously. This one by Rev9 wasn't aimed at me personally. My on thread complaint (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312864-Respect-Other-People-s-Work-and-Don-t-Steal-It&p=3527290&viewfull=1#post3527290) was removed when I saw Rev9 banned.


Edit: This post is not a request. Rather, it is a statement that I'm glad to see truth prevail - however little - as it did today. Rev9 got the short end of stick.

[sailingaway]

When I know it isn't the original, I try to find the original when I put one on the front page.

[sailingaway]

To summarize, you believe copyrighted information is personal property. OTOH, you believe a threat of violence against "advocates" of so-called IP theft is a metaphor. OK.







Sorry about your ban today. You had the right of it this time but you need to remember to treat statesmen with utmost respect however unstately their behavior may be. Respect your superiors.


Material from a different IP thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311991-Intellectual-Property-rights&p=3507038&viewfull=1#post3507038):



For our betters who are not statesmen, this is a reminder. I have always taken the threat of arms against advocates seriously. This one by Rev9 wasn't aimed at me personally. My on thread complaint (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?312864-Respect-Other-People-s-Work-and-Don-t-Steal-It&p=3527290&viewfull=1#post3527290) was removed when I saw Rev9 banned.


Edit: This post is not a request. Rather, it is a statement that I'm glad to see truth prevail - however little - as it did today. Rev9 got the short end of stick.

I'm not quite sure what happened there, or what you are talking about re Rev 9, and I assume it was from whatever thread he was last posting in. However, I do think if someone works on a production it is theirs in a real sense, as a potter's pot is theirs. Both were created from work, and I don't see a problem with that, personally.

[The Free Hornet]

I'm not quite sure what happened there, or what you are talking about re Rev 9, and I assume it was from whatever thread he was last posting in. However, I do think if someone works on a production it is theirs in a real sense, as a potter's pot is theirs. Both were created from work, and I don't see a problem with that, personally.

The context is intellectual property and stolen in that context is almost invariably a reference not to theft but copying. Likewise, defending is a reference to preventing copying not taking the author's original or copies. It may be immoral, illegal, a copyright violation (rules vary), fraud, but it is not theft.

The crux of the issue - IMO - is the one-size-fits-all and heavy-handed approach that has become IP law. That heavy hand includes penalties for copyright violation that FAR, FAR exceed actual physical theft of goods. In fact, a guy in the UK just go 4 years in jai (http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/august/website-operator-jailed-for-four-years-for-conspiring-to-defraud-copyright-owners/)l for conspiring to commit copyright theft. Had he actually committed copyright theft, he would have gotten 2 years.

We are not far off from where 'conspiring to conspire' will be a crime punished worse than either conspiring itself or doing whatever-the-hell it is we were so worried about to begin with.

[sailingaway]

I didn't say the laws shouldn't be different, just that there is ownership there and when you take the benefit of its use - by copy or otherwise - when you didn't do the work, you took something. Dilution without compensation uses value created by the creator. USING a potter's pot without permission isn't ok either.

[soulcyon]

@IP laws, they suck but if you don't want people copying your work there are better ways to protect them other than making laws.

[awake]

Better bring enough for everybody.

Lol...Hold me a seat...

[The Free Hornet]

I didn't say the laws shouldn't be different, just that there is ownership there and when you take the benefit of its use - by copy or otherwise - when you didn't do the work, you took something. Dilution without compensation uses value created by the creator. USING a potter's pot without permission isn't ok either.

Labor unions formed largely because entrenched workers saw people with different color and language diluting the value of their work. To compete, they didn't so much focus on improving their productivity or their skills, but rather using force of law or outright force to eliminate competition.

This is not about the potter's physical artwork, brushes, the wheel, or the pot. This is more like buying his pot, giving it to your cousin, and your cousin - being quite clever - figures he could put 'ears' on a pot too (handles). Nothing is taken. If 'ears on a pot' is such an earth-shattering creation, it is incumbent on the potter to keep it a secret - not on us to financially support police forces and their pensions indefinitely so competing potters can't make use of that idea.

Given the nature of the racket, ought not the potter - not his customers - pay for the police? The potter doesn't even get us to agree not to copy the damn pot! He goes to a third party - the government - and uses them to get concessions that he otherwise might not get in a direct negotiation.

[sailingaway]

Labor unions formed largely because entrenched workers saw people with different color and language diluting the value of their work. To compete, they didn't so much focus on improving their productivity or their skills, but rather using force of law or outright force to eliminate competition.

This is not about the potter's physical artwork, brushes, the wheel, or the pot. This is more like buying his pot, giving it to your cousin, and your cousin - being quite clever - figures he could put 'ears' on a pot too (handles). Nothing is taken. If 'ears on a pot' is such an earth-shattering creation, it is incumbent on the potter to keep it a secret - not on us to financially support police forces and their pensions indefinitely so competing potters can't make use of that idea.

Given the nature of the racket, ought not the potter - not his customers - pay for the police? The potter doesn't even get us to agree not to copy the damn pot! He goes to a third party - the government - and uses them to get concessions that he otherwise might not get in a direct negotiation.

it depends on how it was used. Improvements, yeah, but how about just using something and your product wouldn't be as good without it?

I disagree with you on fundamental points here. I understand where you are coming from; I just disagree. I suspect neither of us is going to convince the other.

[RickyJ]

Respect Other People's Work and Don't Steal It

But according to Paul Ryan sometimes you got to against your principles in order to uphold your principles. So sometimes you can steal stuff to uphold your principles. :D

Yeah, copyrights should be honored, but unless you are trying to make money off of it, it shouldn't really matter a whole lot if someone steals it, unless they do it for personal gain.

[RonPaulMall]

Intellectual Property is not property, so nobody has an moral right to prevent another person from copying and posting their work.

I do think there is a "civility" and "respect" argument to be made. Within certain contexts I agree 100% that as a matter of common courtesy, you shouldn't repost someone else's work if they specifically make such a request. But I'm not sure Youtube is such a context. First, it isn't a tight knit community. A site like this is sort of like a club and most people at least try to get along and respect each other. Youtube is a massive and anonymous free for all. Secondly, there is problem with the platform itself. Youtube is well known for their capricious deleting of material at the request of Big Business or Government. Re-Posting, especially to other sites, is a way of preserving material that should be seen. Several years ago, I stumbled upon what I considered the best set of promotional commercials I had ever seen. It was a group of web ads done to promote S2 of Gossip Girl online. The music utilized was great- a hauntingly manipulated version of Bananarama's Cruel Summer, a punkish remix of Rock Lobster that to this day I can't locate, as well as Plastic Bertrand's classic Ca Plane Pour Moi and Billy Boy on Poison's On My Way. When I went back to watch these masterpieces of art again a few months later, I was devastated to find that most of the music had been changed (I guess because whoever put the videos out at Warner Brothers never secured the rights or the deal The WB made only secured the rights for a short while) and one of the more risque ads had been severely edited (probably because it involved a small child as the punchline and some suit at The WB got finally got around to watching it and got nervous). So that was it. Best ad campaign in history deleted forever. Had a been smart and downloaded this stuff it could have been preserved and circulated forever. You never know when Youtube might pull the plug on something. And you never know when the original uploadeder might pull the plug either. It is just too risky to allow great art to be at the mercy of these two variables. Youtube Re-Posters, annoying or disrespectful as they may be at times, generally serve the greater good.

[heavenlyboy34]

@IP laws, they suck but if you don't want people copying your work there are better ways to protect them other than making laws.
This^^

The "copying=theft" argument always makes me lol. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of law, praxeology, and economics.

[awake]

Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum; if people are not allowed to copy all non physical arrangements, including pixels, then computers must be made illegal for their ability to do so. As well any one who repeats a quote or idea from some one else owes them a royalty check or must say good things about them by law, or face a fine or jail. Hell, Your parents should be arrested for thinking of the idea to try and have you...its was some one else's idea first to procreate.

Since the wish to abolish copying of non physical things is absolutely ri·dic·u·lous in its totality, and would render humanity extinct if every attempt to copy were made illegal, than this must mean that the little doses of IP poison we are subject to are harmful to human efforts to maintain life in the most efficient manner possible.

I could plagerize Rothbard's work as a full time endevour...but I will be forever open to the person who points out that I just copied it and that I was a fraud all along. No law required.

[Natural Citizen]

Change is an open source phenomenon. So...hmm.

[DerailingDaTrain]

//

[Salvial]

It's the nature of the beast. Don't like it? Produce dvd videos and hand them out, brand the video cleverly, or contact gooTube, but don't try to criminalize their behavior. You're waging a dangerous and losing battle and fighting against voluntary networking and innovation.

My recent EP focused a lot on this issue. A song called Cyber Wardrums specifically.