Is Copying Wrong? - Copy-me
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- A webseries debunking the myths of copying.
Indiegogo: igg.me/at/copyme
Why is copying wrong in the first place? Copying doesn't make you the author of the piece, nor does it equal stealing. It's just copying bytes of information.
SOURCES, ATTRIBUTIONS AND MORE INFO AT:
copy-me.org/201...
You can also find us here:
/ copymeorg
/ copymeorg
copy-me.org/
SUBTITLES BY:
Pierre-Henri Basin, Lucas B. Lança and Lucano Vera, Olli Paakkola, nilocram, dzatochnik, Adam Busch, Emilia Givropoulou
.
Want to help with the translations? Please visit:
copy-me.org/con...
I'm going to be sending this to a friend who is entirely against the idea of piracy and file sharing. Awesome video.
Don't. It leaves a lot of important questions unanswered. Maybe they will answer those in future videos, but I bet this one will not convince your friend.
***** why would it need citations? It's just logic. I don't have to prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2.
***** I hope you're joking but sadly I don't think you are. So I won't even bother.
How do we make sure that the authors have their cost of creation properly covered and are adequately rewarded for their work ?
I consider "pirates", atleast the digital kind. To be a sort of digital archives. Saving pieces of the past for future generations.
Great first video! I've been following this ever since I donated on Indigogo. Can't wait to see more!
Thank you so much for such an informational video. I can't wait to show this to my friends because they all think that pirating/downloading things for free is illegal.
Synthalsis is illegal, but law is made by humans and this is the beginning of this change - change thanks to with many will profit and a handful privileged will suffer
Synthalsis You can download the music, but you can't distribute it.
came here from pirate bay they put your channel on there main page
Can I upload this video to ny channel?
Creative Commons Licenses (creativecommons.org/licenses/) have a common motto: "You already have permission". So yeah, go crazy :)
Just copying in itself couldn't be something wrong. Just imitating someone can't be seen as wrong. Like if I build a boat and you want to also build one, would that be considered immoral? Or if I sang a song and you also wanted to sing that, would that be immoral? It only becomes a moral aspect when the art becomes more complex and time consuming. Then it's sort of like cheating, like you ran a like a mile and someone just got lifted to the same point by copying, aka. achieved the same results. The copier doesn't need to go through all the creation work, they got the end results. Which although not depriving the artist of his work, may be seen as unfair from the artist view like "I did all this and you could just get here for free!?" like climbing a mountain and then after that, all copiers could just teleport or fly up to the top.
I don't think it is very productive to argue from the standpoint that because those claiming file sharing causes certain businesses to lose money is difficult to prove, that it should be dismissed. File sharing is good regardless of whether anyone loses or gains money. File sharing is the unrestricted spreading of information without a price tag. Instead of conflating it with stealing, those making such accusations should demonstrate why deliberate restriction of resources of any kind serves collective human health and productivity. If your economic model is based on the deliberate restriction of plentiful resources, then it needs to be redesigned.
why are there thumbs down?!
Same I should tell that to my fake friend that copying is wrong but on the other hand she is lowkey confused
C'mon guys why did you use the enemies' moniker "theft" to frame your debate? Or Property? Why did you include those words in your video's opening?? Don't you know the moment you use these terminologies, you lose. because the natural consequence of property is that copyright must be correct and the sharers ought to be arrested. The framing of it is the MOST important, because that is where the winners and losers are decided. You won't convince ANYONE if you frame your episode one like this.
The correct way to frame the copyright debate is that artists are given the 'privilege' to partially control other people's use of their equipment through the use of force for a LIMITED TIME. This power granted to them not because it is lawful, but as an incentive to promote the "encouragement of learning" (statute of anne 1710).
In other words it is a "temporary evil" (US supreme court 2011) with which the public is willing to tolerate in the hopes of achieving greater spread of knowledge. This being the only justification possible for a 18th century coercive monopoly to continue to exist in 21st century. (whose justification we now strongly strongly suspect).
We know this because If property rights exist, then obviously authors do not have the power to invade and control, to exercise PARTIAL AUTHORITY, over their customer's own equipment.
"IF YOU DARE CONTINUE TO USE YOUR DELL AS YOU SO WISH..."
It is the exact contradiction of property rights.
Anyway I am really disappointed I help funded this.
If I have a brand, let's say Ralph Lauren and I make polo shirts and then someone takes one of my shirts, makes an infinite amount of copies and then give them away to other people for free doesn't that mean that I loose possible customers?
Apparel and the entire fashion industry are excluded from copyright laws. Brands like "Ralph Lauren" and "Abercrombie" only have control over the public usage of their registered trademark names. This is why you see their brand name prominently displayed on their products, as that is essentially part of the product you are paying for (sometimes most of the cost, lol).
Nonetheless, the vast majority of clothing is free of brand names, and no style of clothing or color arrangement is exclusive to a given fashion designer or corporation. The fashion industry is a perfect example of a market for an artistic physical commodity that manages to _thrive_ without copyright laws. Even the trademark thing is unnecessary as it is merely a loophole used by corporations in order to increase their profit margins.
All digital information, files, ebooks, videos, music, etc... can be represented by a single number. I'm not talking about the binary zeroes and ones, but rather the regular digits 0 to 9, that you are used to. These numbers are very long, but ultimately that is what they are.
Due to copyright law, some numbers are illegal. About 10 years ago or so, there were tshirts sold with some of these illegal numbers. The idea of owning a number, is as ridiculous as the idea of owning a color.
Note: some corporations have started trying to "copyright" colors through new loopholes.
Have artists ever heard of art shows, conserts ? Coping spreads awarness of these people and more people are likely to come to a show (just saying)
Still don't get, how authors can earn money.
Think about this, I have a collection of many movies in my home, I love movies, I'm a big fan and I enjoy a great movie, but how many of those movies do you think I saw until I bought it and I played on my home? I want to know if I like it before I spend money on it, sounds understandable right? It's the same with books, music, almost anything, I won't spend money on something that I don't know for sure i will like it and enjoy it. How many times have you watched a movie in a friends house and like it so much you bought it? Or how many times have you downloaded a cd of an unknown band and love it so much so you became fan and bought their stuff?
The key of being successful doesn't lays on locking all your content and charge money for people to see, lays on making great content, so great that people will actually spend money on it. Companies are charging ridiculous amounts of money for people to see creative content, but the artist only gets a little share of that profit, they fear that if people can get this content without paying they will lose profit and it's sounds about right, it's a logical business model, but then again we live in a changing era, take Radio Head for example, In Rainbows, their seventh album, was available for online download, you could pay whatever you wanted, 1 cent or 1000 dollars, even though some people downloaded the cd for free obviously, In Rainbows sold more than their previous album Hail to the Thief, not to mention they got more share of that profit.
The bottom line is that we need to change the way we see the world, the old business models that once worked so well are not usable in this time, there are some pretty interesting ideas out there, copyleft and creative commons are the start of this revolution, it's not perfect yet but is pretty good.
Fabricio Mendez Most of the project I'm aware of, where author distributed it for free, but made a donation button inside project, or on project website, failed in financial sense. There is exceptions, but very few exceptions.
Also I live in a country with high piracy. In this culture, for a lot of people paying for music or movies is like throwing money in toilet. I mean, a have a lot of friends, who probably haven't bought a single licensed DVD or Music CD in their life, including people with decent salaries.
***** Of course, I get it, it's a risky way of doing things but as time pass by it seems like it's the right way to do it. It's not instantaneous nor is easy, it's a process and we all need to work on this model to make it work, there are some things left behind to resolve and some issues that we, as a society, need to address, as this video suggests we need to focus on the real problems instead on focusing on the ridiculous problems that our laws seems to focus this days like how the companies are going to make (more) money.
On the next issue we need to be aware that the fact that some people wont buy any of this stuff is simple, their prices are overrated, like you said a lot of people you know think that buying a movie for x quantity is ridiculous, well that is because in fact it is ridiculous, companies keeping prices so high is actually the reason all this started. The fact that all companies keep their prices on the same level allows them to charge you whatever they want.
But let's imagine we, by some miracle, get rid of all the greedy companies, still I'm aware not all people buy all creative content, there are some people who wont by any means spend money on your work but still want to have it and there is a simple solution on that matter. Knowing not all people want to buy your stuff (name it whatever you want, a cd, a movie, a shortfilm, a book) you need to start seeing this public not as your consumers but your advertisers, it's simple as this, the best advertisement is people talking about whatever content you created, if one guy downloads a free copy of your cd, or a pdf of your book, you wont make profit of him, it's obvious, but if this one guy talks about your content with another 10 guys chances are at least 3 of this guys would spend money on your content, and there you have it, you received 3 potential consumers. We see this business model in action today, sometimes poorly handled, in twitter or facebook, companies make a profile or a fan page, which won't cost anything and make buzz about their products, people talking about it makes their product known.
Of course we are in an early stage, it's not safe to say someone would be successful if they make their content all free, we need to work some things out yet.
***** I'm not justifying pirating, don't get me wrong, I want the author to receive a profit of whatever their create. Pirating was born because companies charged ridiculous amounts of money for content, money the author of that content did not received, not even a fair part. Im justifying a new way of thinking, a new business model and I'm not the only one, of course I'm not saying he have the answer right now, that there are not some issues to address, but they are definitely not the ones that people are addressing right now.
All the laws that protect the author are not meant to protect them in reality, it's sad but true, piracy is not going to stop, we need to change the game rules, same rules that are so outdated that are not working today and won't work in the future, not matter how many laws they make. If we can start acknowledging the author instead of acknowledging the company that distributes their work we can find new better ways for them to make profit of their works.
Plus this is not only about money, sharing is what made the world what it is today, sharing cultures, creative content, music, knowledge, everything. Sharing and transforming is what makes new things, new ways of thinking, new content and improves creativity. Remember no one creates out of nothing, if I make a song I created it by inspiring myself with different musical references, if I make a movie I inspire myself with directors I look up to, I copy their stye so I can generate mine. I'm a designer, if I make an illustration and some take it and modifies it, makes a new one using mine as a start, it won't meant that person stole it from me, it means that person changed mine product to make a new one, my creation helped creating a new one, and that by no means hurts me or my creation, why? because mine is still mine, is different from the new one. An example is remix of a hit song, it doesn't matter that it exists, it doesn't hurts the original song, people are still going to hear the original, the remix is a different creation, a re-imagining of that song by someone, same as covers on youtube, by the way that you think, if someone records themselves singing a cover of a song they are stealing that song from the creators because they didn't payed the rights to it.
The best things in today's world were created by sharing and community work, open source, copyleft, creative commons, are behind some of the most interesting projects.
***** I completely understand your way of thinking and you make great points, points that I admit must be taken seriously on the discussion of the matter. We need to see and understand all points of view so we can, together, come to terms of how to resolve this issue.
Love these, hope you keep them coming!! ;)
Great video. I will save this one.
Hey copy-me, did you have the video without the women's voice, to make Audio translation ? (i'm french, and the script is ready).
Hi, I'm not from the copy-me team, but I suppose I could remove the audio track from the video file for you (since the license this video is published under allows remixing and redistributing it, there shouldn't be any legal problems with that). Only thing is, that also removes the background music - if you know where to find the music or if you want to use different background music, that shouldn't be a problem. But I don't think it's that easy? In case removing the audio track would be helpful to you, though, just let me know, then I'm going to upload it for you somewhere.
tor lan ^^ Thanks but no, I know how to remove sound from a vidéo, I just need the voice track. Sorry, anyways, it was kind ^^'
Copying files 1:1 (perfect copy) himself introduced in Microsoft Windows and innte systems.
Copying of money or thing of 1:1 (perfect copy) is impossible in reality only virtually.
"Piracy is not theft, If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world. There is no such thing as a 'lost sale'. Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed ship date?"
-marcus "notch" persson, creator of minecraft
Yeah...
Did you know that according to the copyright law if you SHOW the content of a dvd you bought to your wife that lives with you, but didn't pay for it, both of you can get up to 5 years in prison + paying a up to 200.000$ fine.
Because you cant show the contents of a dvd to someone else that didn't buy it without infringing the law, therefore being able to suffer up to what I showed above.
Besides happy birthday to you is copyrighted. Did you know it was originally recorded in the late 1800's? And thought no one remember the name of who originally recorded it, or who she sung it, or that she was a she, and it's a popular song THE COPYRIGHT STILL HOLDS UP AFTER 100 YEARS.
And you do remember that company that almost managed to copyright candy and saga, words she did not created nor are immediately associated with their brand. That is waaaaay more serious than a internet thing.
Actually patents and copyrights expire 50 years after the death or discontinuation of the party that held the copyright...
Well i'm not sure when the girl died, but I know that the song has about one century and that % sure it is still copyrighted.
Copying isn’t bad because a form of stealing is like taking it and the owner not having it
Although I agree with the concepts discussed in this video, the logic is completely flawed. Ultimately, it cannot be your decision about how an author's content is distributed. If an author goes through all the legal trouble of putting together copyrights and patents for their work, then that should tell you that no matter how great copying is, they do not want any part of it. And really, who are you to tell the author how THEIR work is to be distributed?
who are you to the tell the distributor weither or not they can distribute stuff in the first place? its a free country bro
this is really well designed ! what software would they use ?
It's not theft
where can i find educational CC videos?
Hope you make a video about the bullshit that is the copyright law soon.
Happy birthday to you? NOT IN PUBLIC DOMAIN! Candy, saga? WORDS 100% COPYRIGHTABLE!!!!!!! (Btw I think people didn't understand how serious that is and treated as just internet stuff)
Good luck with the indegogo. Would love to help but a 14 year old doesn't really have paypal.
I agree the current copyright laws are wrong, but your argument is wrong. The act of copying itself isn't wrong. The act is wrong depending on what you are copying. An infinite amount of recourse does not justify copying it without permission of the owner. If I wrote a song, since I am the creator, it is mine. If I released the song on iTunes, and you bought it and uploaded I somewhere for other to download, I am definitely losing on profit.
Sharing allows Authors to remove a lot of intermediaries. Also, this way the authors will make more money.
I'm all for copying pretty much anything. Just give credit to OP,and things are good.
Ah but what if OP does not want their material copied without their consent? It is not your place to tell OP how they have to distribute their work.
Many youtubers make youtube videos for a living. There are parasites who copy their videos exactly and post it on their channels. Even if the copier gives credit to the youtubee, that act takes viewership away from the original creator, and it affects them negatively. But you know what? Since credit was given, fuck it.
I get the general idea behind this and in part I agree with the exception that I believe content creators should be given a choice of allowing their content to be shared/copied/re-purposed, etc. I say this because this is something that happens to be on a regular basis.
I am a visual artist. My work is CONSTANTLY stolen and used without my permission for the commercial gain of others. Bands stealing my images to make album covers, flyers, etc. Various businesses stealing my images to advertise all sorts of products and so on. My ideas are also very often stolen and turned into products that generate money for the thieves. This means that after I spend years and tons of money bringing an idea to life, someone can just skip all the work, steal my idea and commercialize it.
Despite copyright laws that are in effect, I can't pursue these people because I simply don't have the time and money necessary to do so.
The thing about my work is that it consists exclusively of digital images which I sell as prints. BUT anyone can take the image and make a print of it as well for free, so the incentive to buy my prints decreases significantly. The answer that "placing a donate button on my site is going to generate revenue" is a slap in the face considering everything I just mentioned.
So please explain to me, how exactly is removing copyright laws good for me and what is my incentive to keep creating when everyone that sees my work can consume it for free, or worse yet, profit from it?
Marius Budu As we see it, the problem you're facing is not that your work is being copied with or without permission, but that you're not being paid for it. Which is perfectly reasonable.
So look at it this way: you are in the business of making digital stuff which you or other people can easily copy. It's not something you can really control, right? But you also use this realm to get inspired from other people's ideas. You easily reach more people and audiences which you would have never been able to reach otherwise. The medium brings you a lot of advantages, not just those disadvantages you talk about.
Digital files, as Cory Doctorow puts it, "are verbs, not nouns". You copy them, it’s in their nature. There's no way you can stop it and things will only get easier to copy and transfer.
So how can you make a living with digital exclusive stuff? One solution REALLY IS that donate button, even if you brush it aside. People copied your works and never gave anything in return because they didn't have any other option. If you want lesser "rampant copying", you should try to give them that option. And any other one you can think of. Like giving them other incentives to pay for your work and receive other bonuses. Sending them a print along side that digital file. Anything. It is being able to empathize with your audience and understand what they want and how they want it. And there's plenty you can do. We did that with this whole webseries (crowdfunded on Indiegogo) and we are now freely distributing it without any sort of monetary exchange.
> We don't assume we have all the answers, so be sure to check out how other people make a living with digital works: teamopen.cc/all/.
> There's www.patreon.com/ where people can become your "patron" and donate money for each new thing you make.
> There's also flattr.com/ which works as a "like button" through which people give their appreciation with small amounts of money.
Just try them out for size. Plenty of websites out there.
The one thing to remember is that the less control you want, the bigger the impact you'll see.
PS: As a side note, ideas are not copyrightable and not protected by any other law. They're like the wind. You can't catch them and nobody can own them. You can't "steal" other people's ideas and no one can "steal" yours. The fact that you couldn't (or didn't know how) to monetize that one idea is not a copyright nor an artist problem. We're sorry to say it's just how the free market works. You can't pretend to own an idea.
Also, i'm copying this video. I'm bored.
Balance and harmony means to Give & Take; when you take something without giving anything back your are upsetting the balance. Copying without permission from the creator is wrong.
I really like what you guys are doing, but I don't think its fair to say that it's impossible to prove that a particular piece of digital media that was copied could have instead been sold for money. Obviously, a song or a movie is worth something in the current model, however tenuous that model may be. I think that instead, you can say that more value can be unlocked by sharing than by locking something down.
BASED
Total BS.
The part about "somebody loosing money because of copying" was not really answered; instead, you just used a very weak and false fallacy and tried to turn the table over. Let me give you an example:
I want to watch a movie, like the Avengers. I can:
* go to the cinema
* buy the dvd
* download it of the internet.
If I chose the last option, the people who worked to create the content would not receive shit. It is only fair to receive money for a work you have done. If it was not intended to be for its money, it would have been released for free from the very beginning. Just like open source softwares.
Let me put it this way, if the creator of the content wanted to keep the thing to himself/herself, you would not be able to use it at all. They want to sell it for the profit. If you don't want to pay for it, you can turn to a product which was released for free originally.
But, you cannot find many sorts of content/product for free. You know why? Because it costs a whole shit load of sweet money to create them. If the creators don't make any off it, how can they continue to create? You, yourself, for instance. If you could work for free, you wouldn't turn to inddiegogo. You want to distribute your product for free? Very good! That's so kind of you. But you cannot say everybody should do that. That's why I call people like you hypocrites.
Bottom line: if you use something without the owner's consent, you are a thief. making these beautiful videos will not help.
+Saman Bahrampoor Their problem is that they don't see the creators of the content as persons and owners of that artwork, they see them as computers copying things, because they confuse bits with ideas, but it's one thing to draw a dot, and a different thing to draw a portrait and the difference consists in the idea, the skill, the time invested, the thinking, the phisical work, the experience aquired over time and so on. Copying bits from one point to the other will steal all o these stuff from the author along with the work of art, which is the exponent of all of that effort. So it is stealling. Pure communism!
You could watch Avengers when it's on TV. Even if that's a legal way, it isn't making Josh Whedon any money. You could borrow it from a friend and watch it. Hell, you could find a copy on the ground one day. The idea that "every time you enjoy this without paying, it's like sucking money out of a poor artist's wallet" doesn't apply then why?
Are you under the impression that if a few people choose not to pay to see the avengers the crew and actors that worked on the movie won't get payed? Or do you think that all of them (who all worked hard to make the movie) get to share equally in the profits? Or do you think that Disney is going to take almost all of that money, funnel it through some tax haven and get out of paying almost any taxes?
The only argument why people couldn't use or enjoy your creative works is that it might lose you money. But if you can't prove that that's the case, even after years of different organizations and governments studying piracy, then you don't really have an argument. You are just saying that no one else gets to reap the benefits of stuff because you came up with it first. That's how five year olds argue.
I realize that everything can't be free, but we shouldn't let corporations dictate how we spread ideas and culture just because that's how things were when there weren't any other options. We should put the artists and consumers at the center of the discussion, not outdated business models.
This is really a philosophical point until we can see measurable results.
So let's be scientific and test it. Let the US have full copyright revocation on data for 5 years. Then let it have full copyright protections for 5 years.
Then we can make honest comparisons.
Let me say that authors incentive is payment so if they eventually don't get the desirable payoff they will stop creation of innovative goods. At the same time if someone creates something and distributes it for free the market will not be competitive so we will lack of innovation and we will have a slow increase of technological advancements. in my point of view the kind of products they should have a price but low one since they products with extremely low marginal cost and they are easily accessible to the whole world
Fallacious argument on two fronts: While the arguments for copying are good, the authors actually get paid for their creative act multiplied by how much is distributed, if authors are not sustained in this way they may decide not to create anything n the first place & copying looses it's value if it copies.. nothing. The video provides an argument but not solutions or alternatives. Statement with no follow up.
Having said this, there is a very good argument about having non-essential middle men eliminated especially with the emerging alternativre funding methods being sough.
PS. Never start a video with an assumption.