If you publish an art piece on Deviant Art or on your own blog site, and you ask your viewers not to copy or use your art for any reason, are you being selfish?
Think about it for a moment. If the answer is no, consider this:
This Earth was created by Yahushua Ha'Mashiach or Jesus the Messiah -- being, in all things, Yahweh. True, we helped in its creation, but Yahweh was the one who acted on behalf of God the Creator in order to physically create the world.
Ostensibly, the raw materials of this Earth belongs to him by default. So, by default he is the real owner of the Creation and everything in it. However, he placed us here on this earth and he gave us Dominion over all things pertaining to this Earth; meaning we can hold property belonging to him in the real place.
Let me stress this: He owns everything: Everything above the Earth (the atmosphere), everything on the Earth (except us), everything below the Earth (the natural resources), and everything under the Earth. Yet, he allows us to use the Earth as we see fit even though we were put on this Earth to transform it into a better place for all. He allows us to use the Creation according to our Desires.
Why then, should you ask your fellowmen not to use your creations, which are much more easily copy-able thanks to the Internet, after you publish them? Why publish your creations in the first place if you don't want to your fellowmen to use them? Aren't you effectively stealing your work back?
Are you better than God, who is allowing us to use his creation? Or do you fear your fellowmen? Maybe you fear notoriety? Should you be publishing your work at all?
Just think about that.
6 comments:
I agree. If you have some wealth, and I want it, it is right for you to deny me the use of your wealth? After all, that is really God's wealth. In fact, I should be able to stay at your mansion, and drive your car too. My righteous desire is to drive your car. Who are you to deny me the use of that car, the material of which was placed on this earth by God, to satisfy my desires?
You're twisting it to Rivalrous goods. There's rivalrous goods, which are made of matter, and there are non-rivalrous goods, which are made of energy.
A rivalrous good is property because it is made with matter. That is why if I steal your car, you don't have a car. A non-rivalrous good is made of energy, which is why if I copy your book - you still have a copy and I have a copy too.
Energy is infinite, while matter is finite. A good artist can package his creation -- made of energy -- into a book, a CD, or a computer, or even a car. But the energy is still energy, so it can still expand into the mind of everyone.
Rivalrous goods are protected under "Thou Shalt Not Steal" while non-rivalrous goods are protected by the Law of Gratitude.
Do you understand now?
So only those who produce tangible goods (that are not easily stolen) are entitled to profit from their effort. Writers (books), artists (artwork), astronomers (knowledge), inventors (technology), etc, all of whom can have the products of their labours easily copied or stolen, must provide you the fruits of their labours at no charge. Without the ability to control and profit from their efforts, explain again how those people will be feeding themselves and their families?
Patent holders are also fair game. A scientist who expends tens or thousands of dollars to develop an industrial process has no right to control and profit from his invention, and must share that process freely with all corporate comers, who can then profit without having to pay for the cost of developing the process in the first place.
Elton, you seem like a very sincere and nice person. You really don't see the fundamental danger in your proposal to deny copyright and patent protection to those who create? You can't see that what you are advocating is the anarchistic distribution of all intellectual property?
You might both read and consider the 53 quick pages of Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property before going any further.
It will serve you well.
Truly, it did serve me well.
I read all 53 pages. It advocates robbing authors, musicians, artists, inventors and scientists of the fruits of their intellectual labours, and includes a less-than-two page appendix of "questionable patents and copyrights".
There are over 6 million patents. The author was able to find a dozen that were of dubious value, none of which, to my knowledge have anyone clamouring to steal. A method for shocking fraternity candidates with electrodes, from 1906? I don't see a huge demand for that particular invention.
Oddly, the author failed to provide a single example of a questionable copyright.
I gather this is a notable example of scholarship in the Libertarian community.
Thank God "non-rivalrous goods" like books, art, music and inventions are protected under patent and copyright law.
Elton, if I can't convince you, perhaps its time for a little James 1:5.
The person who covets the artwork but doesn't want to cough up the cash to use it is the one who is selfish.
Post a Comment