Comment by crusso
12 years ago
My question as well. I'd love to hear from the advocates of "It's digital, there is no cost to the content producer for others to make copies."
12 years ago
My question as well. I'd love to hear from the advocates of "It's digital, there is no cost to the content producer for others to make copies."
Even if they believe that, it doesn't make plagiarism and breech of contract okay.
Sophomoric semantic rationalization. Two different settings for copyright violation, but sure, just use synonyms and related concepts to make one seem bad and the other OK; gullible message board nerds ravenous for validation for pirating movies, music, and software will lap it up.
There's more than a semantic difference between moral and material interests. In fact most "internet hippies" I know wants strong moral protection for authors [0][1]. It's a fairly central concept in the copyright debate, not least since it's part of the universal declaration of human rights.
[0] http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/the-pirate-party-on-c... [1] http://the1709blog.blogspot.se/2012/05/pirate-party-plans-fo... [2] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/400/60/PDF/G0...
No. If you have a contract to get paid for work, it really doesn't matter whether you "own" the end product in any meaningful way. You should get paid according to the terms of the contract, even if it was just a verbal contract.
And taking credit for someone's work is not remotely the same as copying it without their permission, attribution intact. Can you not tell the difference?
The difference is the implicit agreement between the author and the agency, without which the former wouldn't have spent two months making those works.
There is also an agreement between you and artists that if you want to watch a movie or listen to a music cd you also pay for it.
When did I agree to that?
30 replies →
They are using his work to aid in selling their product. He should get a cut of that. It's not much related to Little Bobby downloading a movie.