Quote:
Originally Posted by Logseman
1) No, I wouldn't be angry in the slightest. I do find it tasteless to substitute someone else's name for mine: thus, I seeked permission from the original author of my translated texts, who publishes his articles in the C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society) under the CC licence I mentioned before.
|
The very fact that you say you find it tasteless, means that you are upset with them. You may say you wouldn't be angry, but we all know better because of what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logseman
However, I can't be angry about plagiarism like for suing people. I won't probably be able to avoid it before it happens anyway. The core word is that, "preventability". People do what they can get away with. I wouldn't publicise anything if I feared to be copied or stripped from my work, because I can't impede those things to happen. It'd be a blessing if they did, actually. I wish everyone would read my translation of "Intellectual Property: A Libertarian Critique" even if it was mercilessly self-attributed by 200.000 people. In fact, it would mean it's good enough for people to value and try to "steal" it.
Keep this in mind: if someone plagiarises me and such plagiarism doesn't actually bring big revenues to him or her, noone will take the bother to sue, as it will most probably remain undetected and, if detected, the prospective sum doesn't compensate the cost of suing.
Nevertheless, if the ill-intentioned copy does bring huge revenues and media attention, I do have proof to show the farce and expose the plagiarist, like that German unknown blogger who was copy-pasted by a "young talent".
If said "talent" had sold 500 copies and won 0 awards, it's highly improbable that the blogger would have said anything in public, even if he had actually discovered the cheat.
It's not the authors who sue, usually, for they don't get the lion's share of the revenue. It's the big publishers who have to feed their rising overhead costs, their subsidized transport costs and their lobbies who benefit utmostly from copyright, as the Sonny Bono Act proved in all its glory.
|
Here you point out the fact that if the work did well enough to make substantial money, you would have the copyright. That tells me that you would indeed try to make money off the work, if only you could. That means you really should not be stealing from those people who what you wish you could do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logseman
2) You ask if I would pay for things. Yes, if I like them. Sigil's and Calibre's authors have a donation with my name on it, as does the C4SS. The fansub group I do translations for has my money as well. Meg Cabot would get one if she had a donation site.
Nevertheless, the fact that I would pay for them doesn't mean I have any obligation, moral or of any kind, of doing so. It's my money, and it's mine so that it satisfies my own needs. I, as a consumer, have the duty to enjoy as much content as possible while paying as less money as possible. Only so will the producers learn to lower their prices and give better service. Domesticated consumers who overpay for things, bear with the encumbrances of bad programs and justify their behavior as "morally correct" are the ones who cause harm to their fellow consumers and the producers as well, who keep selling flawed products since they see people buy them anyways.
All of this surprisingly verbose response refers, by the way, to the goods subject to the so-called "intellectual property". For goods made of physical matter, things are different, and I'm quite sure we're all in complete agreement for those.
|
Your second point was plain ludicrous. You do have not only a legal obligation to pay for the items you steal, but a moral one as well.
It is also stupid to think you have a DUTY to enjoy as much content as possible for the least cost. The DUTY you have is to obey the law.
If you want to help society by getting the producers to lower prices and give better service, you can do that through a variety of legal means. You don't have to steal from them.