Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ZetaX]

In Britain a couple hundred years ago toll gates were made to charge people to use the roads to transfer goods to and fro the ports for trading. The people who owned these toll gates could get a nifty bit of profit for essentially being doormen to the roads. By the time the industrial revolution kicks in railways and canals render the turnpikes obsolete because the toll gates are inferior to both canals and railways and the inefficient regulation of the roads is proving to be hurting free trade.
In any case all the turnpike trusts went out of business, the middle man was eliminated and the locals celebrated by throwing the gates open, symbolic of their new found freedom.

The internet has done what the canals and railways of old have done and thrown open the intellectual gates of humanity to unending freedom and inane distractions; why do people like the random guy in your example earn themselves immunity to having to adapt to the changing world where no others have such a privilege? How is that a loss that demands the closing of the gates? Hell, I've got a friend who used to manufacture CD-ROMs. Key word here is used to, because he realized that no one was buying CD-ROMs anymore and if he didn't find another career soon he'd be made redundant; even more relevant is that CD-ROM sales are down because everything is digitized now. Should he have attacked people making digital purchases whilst clinging to CD-ROMs, or was he right to adapt?

Again: The whole example is one for the worth of information and its loss by sharing. It is not about any of the other stuff you want to insert into it; especially not about long term effects, morals or whatever nonsense people not reading it properly mentioned so far. I said that several times now and that's why I said that you should read those posts.

Machines can do a lot on their own nowadays and I do not see how an accident involving a falling meteor is any different than an accident of a cow running into your car. Both are out of human control, and if you want to argue like that you will have to explain why the monkey incident is any different.

Quite frankly it baffles me how you continue to compare living, breathing, thinking creatures to inanimate objects. An animals thinks, even if rudimentary in most cases, and acts; a man, who is also an animal, thinks and acts.

What is this, some kind of pre-version of that announced PETA flame¿
Are you seriously raging about me comparing cows running in front of your car with meteors falling, as both are random events that could happen to anyone¿ How the heck should there be a difference between animal, machine or completely inanimate object if it comes down to something like a random event¿

Claiming that any action involing anything not human can be reduced to some random natural event is honestly insulting.

Now you are claiming that saying that some events are random is insulting¿ What.

[GlyphGryph]

As for the matter of the image. I wouldn't know the first thing about whatever laws apply to this kind of situation, so I can only comment on what I find morally right. The way I see it the monkey in question and the photographer are both directly responsible for the creation of the image. The photographer for setting up the equipment, the monkey for taking the actual photograph. The degree of which is a matter of debate, but clearly a cut of the profits made on the image rightly belongs to the animal who took the picture, but since they have no notion of nor use for money their profit should go towards the conservation of their species. I'm sure the monkey would appreciate it.

The photographer didn't set anything up in this case, though.

[Loud Whispers]

Again: The whole example is one for the worth of information and its loss by sharing. It is not about any of the other stuff you want to insert into it; especially not about long term effects, morals or whatever nonsense people not reading it properly mentioned so far. I said that several times now and that's why I said that you should read those posts.

1. I already addressed that no value is lost and you have not replied on this point.
2. The long term effects, morals and other such "nonsense" are a part of this debate whether you like it or not, because things like morals and the long term effects are not nonsense.

[ZetaX]

1. You gave this pedantic difference between value and price (which for me, a non-native speaker, doesn't even exist). If it makes you happy you can replace value by price everwhere.

2. This is just a strawman argument. My sole goal was to argue that information has a nonnegative value (or prize, whatever) which may decrease by sharing. I did that.
Now you claim that it also has to satisfy several other conditions. No, it doesn't. It is doing it's job just fine. You only argued that my example does not work if one wants to speak about long term effects (and some people lacking any imagination disputed it on the guardian being morally wrong, obviously lacking the minimal imagination necessary to replace "doom" by "loss of $100" or whatever) and such; yes, it does not work for that; because it isn't required to!
And thus those things are just nonsensical if applied to the example. Morals and such may be relevant to the monkey photograph, or to the question whether copyright is ok as is, but it is not for this one.

[GlyphGryph]

The value of information can be just as easily increased by sharing as well though, and is NOT the same as price.

Example:
Info that one person desires and can be sold for $100 dollars is significantly less valuable than information that can be sold to a million people at a penny a piece, despite having a significantly lower price. I mean, the idea of moving more units at a lower price and thus deriving more value from your production chain is pretty common to all industries, but is absolutely crucial to a functioning knowledge economy.

Plenty of things have value that don't cost anything - sunlight, rainwater, that delicious blackberry bush in the park.

Plenty of things demand prices that aren't in line with it's value (that box of rocks you paid for expecting to be a hard drive. Whoops! Lol at Best Buy)

In fact, if price wasn't different from value, trade wouldn't exist! The whole point of economic exchange is that you can get more value than you're paying for! (Otherwise, why the heck would you give them any money!?)

Conflating the two is honestly just super weird, and I don't know of any language that doesn't distinguish between the two concepts. Price is a property of an economic exchange, not a product, and while the value of a product can certainly influence it, value is situational and FAR from the only meaningful factor in determining price.

[ZetaX]

My dictionary translated both the same. I already got your distinction the first time (I am not even doubting it) and I already told you to do the necessary replacements. No reason to be that insistent...

[GlyphGryph]

...this is the first time you've ever responded to me. And the first time I made the distinction.

So no, you did not "get my distinction the first time".

You haven't responded to any of the things I've actually said before that though, so if you want to start doing that, that would be cool too!

[Jelle]

As for the matter of the image. I wouldn't know the first thing about whatever laws apply to this kind of situation, so I can only comment on what I find morally right. The way I see it the monkey in question and the photographer are both directly responsible for the creation of the image. The photographer for setting up the equipment, the monkey for taking the actual photograph. The degree of which is a matter of debate, but clearly a cut of the profits made on the image rightly belongs to the animal who took the picture, but since they have no notion of nor use for money their profit should go towards the conservation of their species. I'm sure the monkey would appreciate it.

The photographer didn't set anything up in this case, though.

Not at all, the man made travel arrangements, brought his hardware into the jungle and spent a lot of time interacting with the monkeys. Without his work there would be no images.

[nenjin]

With my loathing of selfies and the whole selfie culture, I can't wait til this fucking story goes away. Either give the guy his 10 minutes of fame, or don't, w/e, dear media just please quit acting like I should give a shit a monkey took a selfie. Congratulations, now celebrities and unwashed, poo-flinging primates are finally on the same level as god intended.

[GlyphGryph]

Jelle, none of tht is setup. Which is a good because if that counted as setup photographers would almost never get exclusive copyrights to anything, since it would go to the camera manufacturers and retail outlets who made the photo possible, or the people who build the frameworks others then use to create software.

There was no intent and no setup here. There was fortuitous circumstance. You don't get to copyright acccidents, only creative acts, and for photagraphy that means scene setting and framing of the photo, neither of which he did here (framing applies to mechanical camera btw, means copyright goes to the guy who set them up). There has to be intent and creative effort. Providing hardwate is not creative effort.

Again, if he had *given* his camera to a monkey to get some shots, he could argue creative intent. A monkey stealing his camera does not count.

What creative act is being incentivized by granting him copyright?

[Jelle]

There was no intent and no setup here. There was fortuitous circumstance. You don't get to copyright acccidents, only creative acts, and for photagraphy that means scene setting and framing of the photo, neither of which he did here (framing applies to mechanical camera btw, means copyright goes to the guy who set them up). There has to be intent and creative effort. Providing hardwate is not creative effort.

Did you actually watch the interview with the man? He explains how he set up the camera and introduced it to the monkeys. Maybe he's making it up or maybe not, but based on his story his camera was not stolen but the whole thing was planned.

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

We are at Throbbing level.

Perhaps I should have seen it coming, seeing as this is about intellectual property laws, and it is being discussed on the internet. Nobody can agree what anything means, or even what we are arguing about anymore. Everything is a strawman from the opposing point of view. I think everyone needs to take a few steps back and do some deep breathing.

[Loud Whispers]

Who even says lulz anymore?

[Reelya]

Who even says lulz anymore?

lulz

Loud Whispers said lulz.

[Loud Whispers]

I copyright a future song I intend to make: "What does the LW say?" Original content donut steel.