copyright

George Lazarette
Posted 13/08/2009 - 11:12 Link
Lemmy, I wrote that the theft of the picture, if the person would not have bought it otherwise, has COST you nothing. Cost as in MONEY.

That is not a moral statement; it is a factual one. It is not arguable.

Coming to your analogy. In the case of the image, you still have your image. You have lost no money. In the case of the camera, you no longer have the camera. It will cost you £xxx to buy another.

That is why your analogy is flawed.

I too would be irritated if somebody used my images without permission, and especially if they passed them off as their own. But irritation and COST are different things.

You have decided to read into my post various things that weren't there, then jump to conclusions about my stance on the morality of intellectual property theft.

Please take more care before leaping into print.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
lemmy
Posted 13/08/2009 - 16:41 Link
Maybe you should put your argument to Adobe, as I said. I think you will find they argue it. It is the usual argument put by pirates to justify pirating anything. Of course it has a cost. And it does have a moral dimension.

Where we differ is the word cost. You think that cost means only money. It does not. Take a look at the OED. Cost is time and effort too.
George Lazarette
Posted 13/08/2009 - 16:47 Link
lemmy wrote:
Maybe you should put your argument to Adobe, as I said. I think you will find they argue it. It is the usual argument put by pirates to justify pirating anything. Of course it has a cost. And it does have a moral dimension.

Where we differ is the word cost. You think that cost means only money. It does not. Take a look at the OED. Cost is time and effort too.
You are being both ridiculous and offensive. There is no COST to you in ANY form in the scenario I described.

For you to insinuate that my argument means that I am condoning theft is extremely offensive, and I had hoped you might have seen fit to apologise. Clearly you are lacking mannners as well as logic.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
johnriley
Posted 13/08/2009 - 17:02 Link
Gentlemen, you are discussing different things. Before this goes awry, let's not let this become an srgument?
Best regards, John
lemmy
Posted 13/08/2009 - 23:46 Link
If someone wants my work they can ask my permission or pay me.

If they take and use it without either of those things they have stolen it, in my opinion and in law.

Any rationale for justifying that or in any way seeking to say it doesn't matter, on cost or any other grounds appears to me to be unacceptable.

I am perfectly happy for someone not to mind if their work is ripped off but I do not want that rationale applied to my work. That's it.
Aero
Posted 13/08/2009 - 23:50 Link
johnriley wrote:
Gentlemen, you are discussing different things. Before this goes awry, let's not let this become an srgument?
A word to the wise, John. It always becomes an argument.

Al
George Lazarette
Posted 14/08/2009 - 00:25 Link
It's like listening to a stuck record.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo