The ethics of violating "abandoned" copyrights

Great Debates
161

Starving Artist, gotta make my nightly ramble short this time, but wanted to touch upon something before I log off for a while:

Yes. I think it takes more imagination and skill to know what to take out of a painting or picture. I love doing deeply (scary-deeply) detailed works, but I also love doing the loose, “elegant” (for lack of a better word) works that are lighter and looser (and thank you for your kind compliments on my work!). :slight_smile:

I think it takes imagination to understand that this line can go, but that can stay. Or this brush stroke can represent so much more than a million fussy detailed ones can.

Not to say that I don’t love scary realism, because I do. But I love the impressionistic look. It’s genius, in my mind.

Another tale (before I log off) I’d like to relate (since I’m such a windbag): Years ago I took two semesters of drawing under Burne Hogarth, who was sort of a legend for many artists. Some of us in the class were typical nobodies, but since it was The Master we are talking about here, big name artists came out of the woodwork to attend his class. I remember the guy who wrote the “Rocketeer” comic books (that later became the movie) was there, and also some guy who did art for Disney and was featured in the TV Guide was there. It was a pretty impressive set of students.

I was a typical student—not crappy, but not outstanding (I held my own), and I was so awed and thrilled to see these others students in Hogarth’s class. They were really fantastic. But after a while, I discovered that just because I was a “nobody” and they were “somebody,” it didn’t mean I had no strengths and they had no weakenesses. For instance, the Disney big shot guy (who was the sweetest guy ever) had trouble with faces. He couldn’t get them looking right. During a lecture on how to draw the face, Hogarth pointed Mr. Disney-Big-Shot to my drawing, to show how it was supposed to be done. (And Mr. Disney-Big-Shot was keenly interested in learning and not at all resentful.) Did that mean I was better than Mr. Disney-Big-Shot? Of course not. But it just meant that I had a strength there.

Another guy had this fabulous rendering technique—so smooth, so slick, so polished—I loved his work. Then I realized one day that while I loved his work, there was nothing actually wrong with my looser, more animated, crosshatchy drawings either. They were just different. And this same guy (Mr. Smooth-Rendering) showed that sometimes, he was just a little too rigid and stiff in his understanding of things.

I don’t know exactly what the significance of this tale was, other than to say that just because you feel like a “newbie” at times, it doesn’t mean that you don’t have innate strengths. And, just because someone else is an “established” big shot, it doesn’t mean that their work is flawless. And that, I suppose, you should NEVER assume that just because you are a “lowly newbie” that you have nothing to be proud of, or to feel confident about. And, yeah. Sometimes it’s better to be you, instead of Mr. Big-Shot. For instance, as much as I loved Mr. Smooth-Rendering’s stuff, I realized that I loved it because it wasn’t something I could do, or would do. In reality, I didn’t want to draw like Mr. Smooth-Rendering. I just admired his work.

Yes, I’ve heard of WetCanvas, and occasionally post over there. (I don’t use the same username and tend to try to keep the two personas separate, but email me if you want to know my username and I’ll meet you over there sometime!) :slight_smile:

Okay, enough rambling for now.

162

Aw, crap!..grumble, grumble…

You are very welcome. I did a Google search on your name to see if I could find more of your work and was disappointed not to find much. I did however find a website that you apparently started a while back and never completed. It’s located here in case you forgot about it: http://home.earthlink.net/~yosemitebabe/.

I particularly like the painting (or is it a drawing?) on the right. It reminds me somewhat of the work of this guy: NameBright - Coming Soon, yet another artist whose style I love but whose ability (currently, anyway) seems way beyond my reach. Oddly enough, I seem to think I could paint in a manner similar to Van Gogh much more readily than I could that of Tsar or Burdick. I’d be interested to know if you think this Van Gogh’s work is likely more in line with my natural abilties, or is it because Tsar and Burdick’s work may be actally more difficult to acheive?

Mine, too. Thank you.

Happily for me. :slight_smile:

(snip)

Thank you for that interesting story and its message. I can only try to imagine the pride you felt when your work was chosen to indicate to the Disney artist what he should strive for. That would probably be something that would stay with you for life. (By the way, was Mr. Smooth Frank Frazetta by any chance? I know that this is probably highly unlikely, but in case it was I’d love to hear more about him.)

Sounds good to me, but how does this (the meeting, that is) work? Do you have real time discussions or talk by posting like here?

163

Pardon me for not getting back sooner, I meant to, but got stuck fixing up dust spots, lots of dust spots—on some photographs. Had to get it done tonight.

It’s Photoshop! And thank you.

Oh wow. That guy is fabulous. Thank you for sharing that link.

I don’t think so. I think that some people are wired differently. I’d be more likely to painting like Burdick (not that I’m claiming to be as fabulous as he is) than I would of Van Gogh. I dream of painting like Van Gogh, but I don’t think it’ll ever happen.

Well . . . it didn’t change anything. I was who I was, and he was who he was. But I think that it made me realize that the lines were blurred. In that class, we all had our strengths and weaknesses. Just because I was a “nobody,” it didn’t mean that I had nothing to offer. And just because he was a “big shot,” it didn’t mean that he was without flaw. He knew that, but I guess I didn’t realize it until then.

It was just kind of trippy! :wink: I like to tell people about it just to emphasize that we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

No, no, not Frazetta! The guy was not a household name (and still isn’t) but occasionaly I’ll meet comic book officianados who recognize his work. He also has done a lot of book covers and stuff for science fiction. Since I said something ever-so-slightly critical of him, I won’t mention his name. (He was a great guy overall, don’t get me wrong.)

Just drop me an email, giving me your username there, and I’ll do the same. I don’t do chat (I never could get used to it), but I’ll try to participate in any threads you start or direct me to. I like the folks over at Wet Canvas.

(And I don’t know if I emphasized it before, I try to keep my persona here pretty private—though I guess if someone wanted to find out about any of us, they could—so I don’t usually give out much personal information on this board. But over there, I’m a little more relaxed.)

164

In other words, you do not believe in a free market where people can transact business with whom they please (granted the restrictions on discrimination and such), b ut instead advocate a scheme in which people have no right to decide what to do with their property. In other words, I have the right to unilaterally decide what someone else should do with their property, regardless of any input from them. Your argument that someone does not have a right to keep a work unpublished is at best naive. I have the absolute right over my property (subject to a few public policy exceptions such as arson, or animal cruelty) to do with it whatever I please in a capitalist society. This includes the right to be wasteful, as indeed many of us are. What makes intellectual property inherently different?

165

(Referring to the Ace edition of Lord of the Rings.)

Sorry for the late hit, but the Ace edition is not an example of copyright violation (or else Ballantine would have sued, not used the author’s plea.) The books, published in England but not in the Us, were shipped here and sold without applying for a copyrignt, which, if I understand correctly, made them public domain in the US under the laws of the time. Therefore Don Wollheim was legally within his rights to publish the books in paperback. How ethical this was is another matter entirely.

As of the early '70s Don and Elsie Wollheim were not at all apologetic about this, since they felt Tolkein would never have taken off in the US without the Ace edition. (This was straight from Elsie Wollheim’s mouth.)

BTW, a counterexample to the assertion that an unauthorized release destroys the commercial value of a propery is the case of the Dylan bootlegs. Though I owned some of the bootlegs, I was very happy to buy them on CD, both because of the improved quality and also to legitimize my tapes. I suspect there are a lot more legitimate copies of the “Albert Hall” concert than bootleg ones.

166

Not so. I believe the artist has every right to decide what he wants to do with his creation, but not what others can do with it.

I like a free market as much as the next guy. If you’re a widget manufacturer, and you want to stop selling widgets, I’d never consider forcing you to keep making them - just like I’d never consider forcing an artist to keep making intellectual works.

But when we’re talking about something that you’ve already made, that everyone else can use without you ever lifting another finger, they ought to be able to use it. If you want make a buck from them in the process by selling copies, then go for it; but if you don’t want to, step aside.

The fact that it can be copied and distributed freely. Everyone can have their own copy without any additional expense or effort on the creator’s part.

Physical property, like a car or a house, can only exist in one place at a time - there’s no way for me to borrow your car without depriving you of a car, or to throw a party in your living room without preventing you from having a quiet evening in the same room. Someone has to decide who can use the car or house at any given time.

The same is not true of intellectual works; there’s no inherent reason that anyone must decide who can use it. If you want to hang a picture on your wall, I want to wear the same picture on a T-shirt, and someone else wants the picture on his computer desktop, we can all have our way.

If there were a “cloning ray” that you could point at my car or my living room, and instantly produce a copy of it that you could use at your own expense without affecting me, then naturally I’d think of physical property the same way I think of intellectual property. I see no reason to make it any more scarce than it needs to be.

167

I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood what you meant. I didn’t mean to suggest that the desire to use intellectual works is comparable to the need to have heat in the winter, or that society wouldn’t function without those works (though it might come close with some of them - what if Microsoft snapped their fingers tomorrow and every copy of Windows suddenly erased itself?).

What I meant is that distributing works against the copyright holder’s will is as justifiable as distributing heat against the power company’s will - not because the need is so great, in this case, but because there is no effort or expense needed on the copyright holder’s part. If heat could be generated for free, then IMO it would also be justifiable to give it to everyone against the power company’s will, even if they had no overwhelming need for it.

Nah, they’d still have to contact him and pay for distributing his work. If he accepts money from someone else who makes their own copies of his work, then he’s effectively selling those copies, even though he isn’t making them himself.

Well, see, I’m not interested in the general “right” to restrict and condition access to intellectual work. That’s the whole point! I’m interested in the right to profit from one’s work, and therefore in the right to restrict access to those people who pay a reasonable price, but no further.

Yes. The goal is to move copies from the artist to an audience; if no copies are moving because no one will pay the outrageous prices, the work is effectively not for sale at all.

I hope you haven’t forgotten about this, Starving Artist. I would appreciate your answers:

168

Mr2001, I haven’t forgotten, but I’m afraid I have changed my mind. I haven’t really been giving this thread more than an occasional cursive glance since I wrote what you posted above, but from what I’ve seen I don’t really think it would accompish much.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I’ve come to believe you just like playing the devil’s advocate and you enjoy the mental exercise and sheer orneriness of holding to your position. I think you’re just playing with everyone here, and if not, frankly, much of what I would have said has since been said by other posters.

I will say, however, that I think perhaps you and yosemitebabe should get a room. (Didn’t Tracy/Hepburn start this way?) :smiley:

169

If electricity were available for no effort, there would be no power company. If you don’t like the power company’s terms, you can make the investment to provide yourself with your own electricity if you wish to use, and many do just this.

IMHO, in a free society, you do not have a right to the products of others without consenting to their terms, unless such terms would cause you undue hardship, such as our freezing homeowner, who needs electricity for that particular house to be livable and hasn’t the time to make other arrangements to heat his home before the situation becomes untenable.

For the same standard to apply to intellectual products, under this principle, you could not possibly have a right to the works of another. Given that you have your own brain with which to generate your own intellectual works, from where does the undue hardship arise for lack of the works of another?

You, apparently have a different concept of what right we have to each other’s efforts, the logic of which has proved completely elusive to me.

I ask you to explain to me how society functions under the system you describe.

But no one will pay his price for the work…

QUOTE=Mr2001]
Yes. The goal is to move copies from the artist to an audience; if no copies are moving because no one will pay the outrageous prices, the work is effectively not for sale at all.

[/QUOTE]

…and by this standard, why should the publisher not distribute it?

These two quotes set up a mutually contradictory situation as I see it.

170

While I must admit it’s fun to be the devil’s advocate, I’m disappointed that you doubt the sincerity of my beliefs. I wouldn’t be spending this much time in yet another copyright thread if I didn’t honestly believe what I was saying.

If we ever entered the same room, I think something like this would happen. :wink:

First, let me point out again that I don’t believe undue hardship is necessary to justify making copies of a work without the creator’s permission.

Now, while all electricity is equal, and the electricity you generate with a solar panel or windmill can replace the electricity you get from the power company, the same isn’t true of intellectual works you create on your own. If you have a camcorder, you can make your own movies, but you can’t make Lord of the Rings or American Beauty. If you hear good things about Dave Mathews’ secret recordings, but Dave doesn’t want you to have a copy, you can’t just whip up your own with a microphone and a guitar.

I don’t have or need a right to your efforts if I want to copy your work, because I can make a copy with my own effort. You can ask for compensation, because I’m benefitting from your past effort, but it makes no sense for you to be able to tell me not to expend my own effort to make that copy.

Essentially the same as it does now. Did you have a more specific question in mind? :wink:

Forgive me, I’m not familiar with book publishing contracts.

If David sent his manuscript to a few publishers, offering them the rights to publish it for a certain price (which he won’t negotiate), and they all declined that offer, then they’d have to make a case that his price is exorbitant and the manuscript isn’t really for sale. It’d be difficult, since he specifically offered it for sale, but if his asking price is out of line with what other publishers have paid for similar works, they might have a case.

OTOH, if even one publisher accepts his offer, his price is reasonable by definition. If David sells a single copy of his book to anyone, there’s a clearly defined reasonable per-copy price. That could be an easy way for him to protect himself - if he sells a copy to a friend, that’s evidence that he isn’t sitting on it and that his price is reasonable.

171

No need for disappointment. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs, however, they are contrary to tenets accepted and held all over the world and which aren’t about to change, and you (mischeivously, I think) refuse to accept their validity.

You might as well be arguing that there’s no need to stop for stop signs or stop lights if no one’s coming or that it’s okay to drive faster than the speed limit because the road you’re on is wide and smooth and no one’s coming. Laws are used to prevent anarchy. And *someone * is bound to disagree with the validity of any law or rule if it runs contrary to what would be in their individual best interest. But if everyone could decide what course of action is appropriate based on their own beliefs, the world would be in chaos. In my opinion, you simply refuse to acknowledge and agree with the concepts that have been accepted around the world as to the validity and necessessity of copyright protections as they currently exist. I disagree somewhat with the time limitations, but I can certainly see the need for copyright protections as they are rather than how you propose.

So what are you saying…that sparks would fly? :smiley:

172

You act as though I’m the only person who thinks this way. While my POV might not be popular here on the SDMB, there are plenty of like minds on forums like Slashdot, where believing copyright to be an unjustified restriction on free speech is nearly as common as preferring Linux to Windows. Judging by the popularity of P2P services, abandonware, and emulators, I don’t think the validity of copyright is as widely held as you claim.

And there you go again - “mischievously”, as though I believe what I do just because of spite. Is it really that hard to believe that I’ve thought about my position, considered the arguments against it, considered the relative unpopularity of my viewpoint, and still come to a different conclusion than you have?

I don’t think those positions are as rare as you imply either. Go on any freeway, and you’ll find hundreds of people who think it’s OK to drive faster than the speed limit.

173

Do these people seriously believe that all creative works, even unpublished ones in people’s homes, should be published (without the owner’s permission)? Do these people believe that all creative people have no “right” to refuse to publish their work, and have no right to set the price of their own work?

174

And if you don’t have what it takes to create the same quality of work, you pony up the dough to the person who does. Again, you seem to me to be operating under some notion that those with less talent or well-developed creative skills have some sort of inalienable right to the products of those who do.

I have posited that in a free society, rights to the labor of others without agreed compensation does not exist except in extreme, life-or-death situations.

You however, have some other idea of how such a right could arise. I await from you a coherently stated, well-justified basis for such a right.

Neither am I familiar with such contracts. I’m simply applying the system you have described to a potential real-life situation. If no one offers to pay David to publish his book, and one of the publishers later finds they still have a copy of the manuscript of the book (which is still not available commercially), then under the criteria you have described in this thread, they have every right to distribute as many copies as they like without even giving David a second thought.

Your reply seems to suggest that David may have a court battle ahead of him to try and prove that he still had a right to profit from the work under your system, which there is decent potential for him to lose. Under current US law, that would not happen in David’s lifetime.

Under your scheme, I do not see why David would ever send out the manuscript at all, nor necessarily why he would even take the trouble to write it in the first place. You have yet to address this. Why should David or anyone risk creating under these circumstances?

How is your plan a better way to advance the arts and sciences than existing law?

175

And when you provide a description of the basis of these rights to others’ creative output, I hope you come up with something better than this variety of the “50 Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong” defense.

176

I’m a bit familiar with publishing contracts, and I could look at the ones my wife has, and get more familiar, but I don’t see how what either of you is talking about has anything to do with them.

First, there is a convention that any ms sent to a publisher remains the property of the author. The publisher has no right to distribute it until a contract is signed. Second, the rights of the publisher to reproduce the work are defined by the contracts. Some have the rights revert to the author if the book is out of print for a certain period. The details of these are complicated, which is why some authors have agents and lawyers.

The price is freely agreed upon by both parties. If too high, no publisher will bite, if too low the author might go elsewhere. An implication that if an asked for price being too high allows the publisher to distribute the work for free puts a cap on what an author can expect.

People making copies is another argument entirely - but it seems independent of contracts.

177

No, it isn’t hard to believe, and I don’t think you do it *just * out of spite, but I do think you do it *somewhat * out of spite. And to be honest, I’m kind of surprised that you seem to take my comments so much to heart. You almost sound wounded.

I think a person can hold certain contrarian beliefs that are sincere and still derive a certain amount of pleasure by driving people crazy with them, and I think much of what’s gone on here is along that line. People have explained to you over and over why things are the way they are regarding copyright protections and where your opinions are off base, at least to the way of thinking of the vast majority of people who feel current copyright protection is correct, needed and valid. And I would point out that those who make the copyright laws think these protections are necessary and valid as well.

You have refused to see their points and have argued your beliefs over and over back at them, also to no avail. You won’t change their minds, they won’t change yours, and unless the laws somehow get changed to accomodate your point of view, nothing else will change either. You can either accept the laws as they are or risk the consequences. All the talk here isn’t going to gain you any converts, nor is it going to gain you the supporters you’d need to effect a change in the law.

So usually, when things get to this point and it becomes obvious neither side is going to convince the other, the sensible thing to do is to agree to disagree and get on with life.

That’s right! They *think * it’s okay, but just like here, it’s not. They annoy the other drivers (and in this case, put other drivers’ lives at risk), and they expensively run afoul of the law if they get caught…just like you.

And I hope you’ll rethink it the next time you’re inclined to post something like the comment immediately above. The “but everyone else is doing it” defense makes you sound immature, and even worse could prompt someone else to say “If everyone were jumping off a cliff, would you do that too?” However, I won’t. :smiley:

178

Starving Artist, you are so much smarter than me. :wink:

I think the thing that has many of us (particularly me) aggravated is the absolute willingness to ignore or brush under the rug the real consequences of his ultimate wishes. When asked about some roadblocks to his grand plan, he suggests more laws, lawsuits (after someone has had their work swiped, for instance), and so forth. A favorite solution for him is, “Well, they can write a new law for that!”

Many people can debate this or that about copyright law—is it too long? How long should it be extended? And so on. Now, I may disagree with some of them, but they won’t cause me too much aggravation because most of them acknowledge that the artist is an individual with emotions (yes, that dirty word), motivations, and a sense of dignity. Most people will concede that these things need to be taken into account.

But Mr2001 does not adequately do this. It’s almost as if he thinks that artists are some kind of creative candy store, always spewing out more goodies. It’s a little like a child proclaiming, “All candy should be free!” without realizing that if this were so, all the candy factories and stores would go out of business. Candy stores don’t work like this, and neither do artists.

Either he’s just deliberately avoiding the real consequences of what he proposes (artists getting out of the business), or he truly does not get it. Does. Not. Get. It. Like maybe he thinks that all creative works are so fun and easy and we all just spew them out with no effort, and we’ll keep on doing that, no matter what. This may be the root of what he appears to Not. Get. At. All. That it’s work, our work, and we don’t do it so that it can automatically “belong” to everyone else.

179

A lot of them do, yes. Like I said, believing copyright to be an unjustified restriction on free speech is nearly as common as preferring Linux to Windows in places like that, and copyright is what would prevent you from publishing a creative work or let you establish a price. There’s a lot of overlap between the free software community, P2P users, and random “information wants to be free” people.

Even if you can create the same quality of work, you can’t create the same work.

I am operating under the notion that everyone has a right to use what they can obtain without causing any extra effort or expense for another person. Talent doesn’t enter into it; Dave Mathews has just as much right to listen to my unpublished works as I do his.

Generally, I take it as an axiom that if I can use something without depriving you of the ability to use it as you see fit, then I have the right to do so. If you disagree, all I can really do is point to others like Thomas Jefferson who believed essentially the same thing.

The phrase “rights to the labor of others” is misleading; if I make a copy of a picture or song you created, you haven’t lost the fruits of your labor, nor do you have to expend any more effort as a result.

I see where you’re coming from. Maybe something I thought was implied wasn’t really clear: If David is willing to sell his work in good faith at a price that his audience can reasonably be expected to pay, then he must be compensated for the use of his work, and anyone who distributes it is responsible for making sure he has been compensated, or making sure he’s not interested in selling it.

If David offers to sell his work to the publishers, and they decline, but they decide later that they want to distribute it anyway, it’s up to the publishers to show that he’s not willing to sell it at a reasonable price.

He only has to go to court if they distribute it without compensating him (just like under current law). If the offer he made to the publishers is similar to other offers that have been accepted, or if he can show that even one person has bought a copy of his work, I don’t see how he’d have any chance of losing.

Because if they’re honestly interested in getting paid when their work is distributed, they will be paid. The only people who have to worry about having their work distributed without compensation are the ones who make ludicrous offers (“this book can be yours for only $800 billion!”) just so they can claim their work is available.

Authors will have the same incentive to create as they do today, and they’ll also be able to build on the work of others who might prevent them from doing so today.

In my experience, most freeway drivers exceed the speed limit, and it’s the ones who drive slower who annoy other drivers and put lives at risk. Staying within the speed limit is certainly not a “tenet accepted and held” on I-90 between here and Seattle, or on I-90, US 395, I-205, I-5, I-80, I-880, etc. between here and San Jose. :wink:

I think I get your point, though.

Such delicious irony! You, among others, have essentially told me that my position is wrong because it goes against “tenets accepted and held around the world” - i.e. what everyone else believes. If everyone else jumps off the copyright cliff, I should too?

Do you see the problem with your matchmaking yet, Starving Artist? She has such a persecution complex that all she can do is make patronizing attacks like the above, which are totally unrelated to anything I’ve actually said in this thread. Communication is key to a relationship, but this “I! Shall! Respond! With! The! Same! Staccato! Outrage! No! Matter! What! You! Say!” attitude just wouldn’t cut it, and there’s no way I’d let her bring that cross to bed.

But that’s not the worst part. The worst part would be her sneaking into the living room every night to delete everything from my TiVo that I’d seen before. “It’s not for copying, it’s for time shifting! You already saw South Park last night. If you want to see it again, buy the DVD! Don’t you care about Matt and Trey’s feelings? They’re not running a candy shop, you leech!” :wink:

180

I’d like to see some cites proving this. Specifically, proving that many of these folks want to have people’s unpublished works subject to copying and publication via any random person who happens by them: (Sparklets water man, maid, neighbor kid wandering through . . . ). In addition, why don’t you offer up a poll in IMHO asking the “Information must be free!” crowd if they want it to extend that far.

Ah, the old bait and switch. You think you can avoid the subject by changing it and by making tepid jokes.

And what’s this about a “persecution complex,” oh you, who try to claim that anyone who doesn’t want to publish their work is “hoarding” it, and that their unwillingness to fork over anything they’ve done on demaind is the death of the public domain? Puuhleeze.

Why don’t we revist the thing that apparently is a big whoooooooosh to you: how artists feel about their work, and also, how they’d react if your grand scheme were to become reality. I see no evidence that you really understand the consequences of this. It is as if you see artists as some sort of unlimited supply of goodies, forever cranking out more stuff, no matter how intrusive and opressive you make it for them.

Or, would you like to put forth a compelling and well-thought out explanation of how you’d convince artists that they should keep on working, even though they couldn’t even set their own prices, couldn’t feel secure that the private stuff in their house would remain unpublished, etc. etc.?

As Lamia put it in that recent thread you started (that you’ve let sink like a stone, after everyone disagreed with your premise), copying someone’s unpublished works without their permission is “creepy.” How do you propose to compensate for this decidedly “creepy” factor, and also (as Lamia wisely put it) the borderline “sociopathy” of such a mindset?

(I did love Lamia’s posts on that thread… ;))