Your example isn't exactly on point (for one thing, restaurants include charges for condiments and such in the amount they charge) because IP is not like tangible property. If IP is condiments, then its a magic bottle that can never be used up.
"Nobody has the right to take what the artist made public and earn individual profit from it." I think thats a nice story (I mean that honestly :) ) but there are a lot of instances where such things do happen, let's just consider the public domain. Even if the artist was totally against it, once they are gone and their work enters into the PD, then it can be turned into a profit. The thing I'm concerned about is that how long it takes something to enter the PD, as it is ever changing and pretty arbitrary. I bring this up because how can we say that something is legally (morally, maybe not so much, some people might still respect the artist's wishes) wrong during the 69th year after the artist's death, and then magically it's okay in the 70th? In commenting on this thread at all, I'm just trying to point out that its a complicated situation that is not black and white.
" Nobody has the right to invade my private expressions of emotion and creativity that are not shared publicly and gain profit from it." I agree, but putting things on the internet is considered publicizing it. SHOULD someone take it? no. but you don't have the legal right to stop any particular person from looking at it, right? Beyond looking, what they can do with your works is the subject of this debate.
"Paid work is even more of a violation - as it really does steal income from the artist." I agree. You say 'more' of a violation, meaning that if not for this factor, maybe the situation wouldn't be as bad...I don't think we actually disagree all that much on the issue as a whole. Perhaps I just went too broad with my arguments from the start.
no subject
"Nobody has the right to take what the artist made public and earn individual profit from it." I think thats a nice story (I mean that honestly :) ) but there are a lot of instances where such things do happen, let's just consider the public domain. Even if the artist was totally against it, once they are gone and their work enters into the PD, then it can be turned into a profit. The thing I'm concerned about is that how long it takes something to enter the PD, as it is ever changing and pretty arbitrary. I bring this up because how can we say that something is legally (morally, maybe not so much, some people might still respect the artist's wishes) wrong during the 69th year after the artist's death, and then magically it's okay in the 70th? In commenting on this thread at all, I'm just trying to point out that its a complicated situation that is not black and white.
" Nobody has the right to invade my private expressions of emotion and creativity that are not shared publicly and gain profit from it." I agree, but putting things on the internet is considered publicizing it. SHOULD someone take it? no. but you don't have the legal right to stop any particular person from looking at it, right? Beyond looking, what they can do with your works is the subject of this debate.
"Paid work is even more of a violation - as it really does steal income from the artist." I agree. You say 'more' of a violation, meaning that if not for this factor, maybe the situation wouldn't be as bad...I don't think we actually disagree all that much on the issue as a whole. Perhaps I just went too broad with my arguments from the start.