chaotic_nipple: (Default)
chaotic_nipple ([personal profile] chaotic_nipple) wrote2007-04-26 05:08 pm

Todd Goldman is still an Art "Thief"*.

Cross-posted to [livejournal.com profile] legos

"Oh, what a cool picture!"
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

"I think I will draw the exact same one and put my name on it!"
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

For an explanation, go here, and for vast amounts of other meme-sheep art, check out the links here. Hmm, people may think the term "Meme-sheep" is insulting. How about "Meme-slut" instead? ;-)

*Why did I put the word "thief" in quotes, you ask? Simple: I don't believe that so-called "intellectual property" has the same moral status that real property does. "But artists deserve to be paid for their work!" you say? You're right, they do, but so do cab driver, and no one would claim that a customer who cheated a cabbie out of his fare was "stealing" a ride the same way that a shoplifter steals physical goods. Both are equally wrong and damaging to the victim, both deserve equal punishment, but they are _not_ the same.

Personally, I think we would be much better off thinking of art, software, etc. as "Intellectual services" instead. Much less cognitive dissonance involved.

[identity profile] soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com 2007-04-26 10:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I disagree that art isn't property. I will say that if you don't pay for your ride, you are stealing. You are stealing a service yes, but you are stealing the product of that service, a ride. You have not stolen in infinite object, necessarily.

And if someone steals my art, or my photographs, then yes, they are stealing, because if I cannot use that product, they have taken it from me. They have taken my ability to produce that image and use it in my business, regardless of whether I can prove it's stolen or not. Whether they take the physical image or not, if they take an image that is recognizably mine, and slap their name on it, they're a thief.

[identity profile] chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com 2007-04-27 12:06 am (UTC)(link)
Why don't we still pay royalties to Shakespeare's distant heirs, then? If "intellectual property" were real property, how can you ever justify "robbing" those heirs by placing the work in the public domain? Why shouldn't patents be eternal too?

[identity profile] chaotic-nipple.livejournal.com 2007-04-28 05:49 am (UTC)(link)
OOOOh! My brain just had a thought! If _you_ choose to participate in the meme, you should just take a close-up photograph of your computer screen and then download that! :-)
ext_14357: (pixel-stained)

[identity profile] trifles.livejournal.com 2007-04-26 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)
*Subliminal device, on!*

You should totally submit the link for this to BoingBoing.

*Subliminal device... we've got other work to do. Let's go.*

The decision of who owns "Intellectual Property"..

[identity profile] anysia.livejournal.com 2007-04-27 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
is made by who makes the loudest threats and has the better lawyers. :/