You don't steal the Intangible, it's reproducible without any effort on your part, when you Make up a Dance and then claim that others owe you credit, however small or it's "copyright infringement" they can roll their eyes knowing that monopolizing ideas is counter to freedom of expression and let you try to extort them for expressing an idea.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree philosophically, but that's not how law in the USA works. You and I might roll our eyes to see posting unlicensed Grumpy Cat memes be considered a form of "stealing", but that's how intellectual property law works.
I don't think the law says "stealing". Copyright laws have words that make more sense for the topic, such as unauthorised copying, reproduction, unlicensed distribution, etc.
Let's say I'm poor, I write every day, and I'm trying to make money by publishing one chapter a day in a premium site such as medium.com (where the readers have to pay a subscription fee to read unlimited publications). Every time I get a view and a vote, I get money. It's similar to here except all votes are worth the same.
I don't want someone's blog called "read medium for free" to re-publish my work. I would lose my profits because less people would pay to view it (why pay if it's available for free?).
Therefore, I choose a solution: I adhere to copyright laws and I publish my chapters under a License that says "you shall not re-publish this work without my authorisation".
It is simply a compromise that I hope will be fulfiled. Ideally, this is not a law but setting things straight with my readers. If one of my readers chooses to re-publish my work, they would be directly harming me and breaking the compromise.
I would then immediately cease to publish those works because it is not profitable anymore. My readers who do pay would be harmed, but I would have no other choice since I'm not making enough to make a living out of it and I need to look for another source of income.
A License here is a protection measure set toward the producers of content.
This can be extrapolated to copyright laws: they are there to protect the creators of content from the possible incursion by consumers in the unduly usage of the content (which would ideally be only things that harm the creator and the integrity of the content, such as reputation, income, etc.)
I wouldn't want someone to print it
If I publish a chapter to my novel everyday for the next 100 days and I want people not to print my chapters and sell them themselves because I'm trying to make money out of them (i.e. I'm doing it because I need the money)
As it's often said in Spanish "tus derechos terminan donde comienzan los del otro". Your rights end where the other person's rights begin. You have the right to shoot your gun, but not if you're pointing it toward the little granny who is walking her dog. She has the right to live just as much.
Juridical sciences use this balance to theorise about the creation of laws.
I know you hate laws, think they're rules imposed by some gang who took up the government seat and tells you what to do regardless of your acceptance of it. That's why I don't ever say "because it's illegal" when I talk about right and wrong. Laws change, but the basis of ethics remains the same as it is discussed regardless of what governments choose.
Licenses are compromises first, then rules, then laws. I am talking about licenses as compromises that the producer makes with the consumers. I make this under the condition that you will not do that with it. If I see you doing it, I will, by all means possible to me, try to stop you, and if I fail, I will consider you someone who broke the compromise and I will deny you all the benefits of my content as I see fit and take all measures of retaliation I can.
Because that's what a license is, just the way you don't go and piss on a dead body in front of the family. It's may be a victimless crime, but there's a social compromise that we stick to when we make decisions.
Tell that to @grumpycat LOL
USA be damned!! Another faceless corporation