Also all of this is assuming that any duplicated content is inherently stolen, when it could in fact be public domain, fair use, legitimately licensed, distributed under Creative Commons, etc.
In theory, yes. But people will still be unreasonably angry if they say "go ahead and copy" and then a big corporation copies it and makes millions of dollars and you are entitled to nothing.
Honestly, I fail to see what this adds over a well chosen creative commons attribution.
So there's two different concepts. One is original creative output, which is copyrightable. The other is information, which is not copyrightable.
If you find something verbatim identical in a bunch of different places, you've got a strong case that it's just information, because if it were original creative output it wouldn't show up identically in multiple places.
If it turns out everyone was plagiarizing a single source, but you were unaware and took down the offending content when asked, you won't have much in the way of legal liability.
You have four examples of using replicable stuff that has been shared publicly, and you call two of them stealing.
All I can take away from this is the absurdity of intellectual property laws in general. I agree with the GP, if people are sharing stuff, it's fair game. If you don't want people using stuff you made, keep it to yourself. Pretending we can apply controls to how freely available info is used is silly anyway
Regarding your last paragraph, could you expand a bit on why you believe that copying creative content does indeed remove something from the author?
I guess the usual argument is that a copy of something cannot, by definition be theft. The author still has the object in question.
Sometimes people counter by saying that a potential sale has been lost, but you can’t steal something that you didn’t have in the first place (the sale). The assumption that someone would have otherwise paid always seems to me a bit of a stretch.
I guess you have thought about this more than i have so I’m curious as to what you’ve come up with.
A work doesn't have to be identical to be considered a derivative work, which is why we also don't consider every JPEG a newly copyrighted image distinct from the source material.
As an example of a plausible scenario where copyright might actually be violated, consider this: an NGO wants images on their website. They type in something like 'afghan girl' or 'struggling child' and unknowingly use the recreations of the famous photographs they get.
Your scheme would apply for any sort of licensing, permissive or not, and is certainly not constrained to using creative commons.
It's also flawed in the same, albeit weak, manner: the source it was stolen from predates the stolen copies, and so can show its true provenance. Of course, if it wasn't published or otherwise registered, no one would know.
It's a bit rich to say “Any unauthorised copying or reproduction will constitute an infringement of copyright”, and literally the next paragraph: “No copyright infringement is intended”
They have a copy, you through your action cause it to be duplicated to your machine. You make the copy, they present their copy to be duplicated without license. You both commit tortuous malfeasance unless you can claim an exclusion such as (in the USA) for news reporting or certain educational uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_...).
I’m sure I can find an example of one that’s exactly the same copy. Regardless the writer gets the exclusive right to publish all drafts as part of their union won separated rights. Also your point about treasured copies would apply equally to any book, movie, or music but I don’t think if someone posted their free top 40 mp3 download site on hacker news in 2022 it would have the same reaction. I get that you want this to be a “victimless crime” but… it’s not. Sorry that’s inconvenient for you.
Actually, plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things. For example, it is possible to plagiarize something that is not copyrighted, and many forms of copyright infringement wouldn't fit the definition of plagiarism.
That is generally quite bad assumption to make. Safer one would be to assume that everything is under copyright unless indubiously demonstrated otherwise.
I think the OP is about copyright infringement and plagiarism, which is a form of fraud. I do not justify it but it is not theft.
I don't think the world has much to benefit from plagiarism, but I think the benefits of copying others' work and building upon them freely far outweigh the downsides.
It's called a creative commons attribution license. Personally if we operated under the assumption of "once it's released, it's gonna get copied" then entertainment would be released in a completely different fashion.
reply