"If you paint a beautiful painting I should be able to take an HD photo of it and put it on my desktop wallpaper at home with out paying the artist for royalties or perhaps I want it on my wall so I take an HD photo with my camera and paint the painting in enlarged format on my wall my self."
So many fallacies there. Wow.
1. Where is the painting? Is there a rule/law that prohibits the taking of a picture of the painting?
2. Taking a photo of it does not duplicate it, as the lighting will create specular highlights in the paint globs, etc., therefore, the analogy cannot be extended to the act of digitally copying a digital file.
3. Taking a photo for private enjoyment is not the same as then printing copies and selling them or giving them away.
The point is, if an analogy is used to make a case, be prepared to defend the analogy such that it is shown to stand up to a rigorous comparison of what it is trying to analogize to.
Hmm good questions.. I thought i was clear but I was not!
1. Its a theoretical painting(you already know that) and its theoretically in my neighbours living room and I just took a HDR HD photo of it so I can manually myself paint a replica of it in my living room... who knows maybe I'll just happen to have a huge party and get slammed with a bunch of "Royalties" bills for public display, if the person was okay with sharing I'd be allowed to duplicate it and share accordingly (of course not sell it unless their was some kind of services rendered like paper/ink costs, time costs, etc). I'm thinking like Copyright Vs GPL/Copyleft here but then again Richard opened up my mind on that pod cast on how to think of freedom so I'm still in an enlightenment mood --still learning.
2. Good point, Lets switch it to an example of a Digital Painting and I just copied the non-source file of his work on to my SD Drive. None of these actions were services rendered by the artist, it was no cost to the artist, how ever I think if i wanted to own the original Digital Painting, I'd imagine that a one time fee to own it would be in order.
3. True, but I'm pretty sure the argument going on the Linux Action Show was more about "How to make money by just giving/sharing away copies of data/art/code instead of charging per copy" in this case with the painting the money is with the original as that is where the services of time and skill was rendered as you said so your self taking a photo is not the same as the original (or exact copy of the digital file). There is no services rendered after the first copy of anything is sold, there is no ownership after more then two entities have a copy of restricted license its by a practical-definition of belonging to the public.
I may have got dizzy during the thinking of all this, copyright's lefts, free speech beeer..... head... spinn in.....
Show Posts
I'll be looking into this code shortly 
