Ted Rall for April 27, 2009

Ha ha, nailed it.

In some circles, that is called stealing.

Concerned Human; Ditto.

“I am sorry to say it but I am one of those people who want it for nothing, mostly because I can’t afford it otherwise.”

If I don’t have a job is it OK if I claim your work as mine?

If I can’t afford a car can I take yours?

plnelson; “If I can’t afford a car can I take yours?”

Nope, but just ask and I’ll drive you where you need to go.

“Hey, plnelson, how much did you pay to see this cartoon? How much did you pay to make that comment?”

Nothing. But that was the choice of the cartoonist and the people who run the website. Artists and musicians have the right to CHOOSE to give the fruits of their labor away, but we don’t have the right to steal it if they didn’t.

Money for nothing; chicks for free.

I studied physics, not law but it is my understanding that you can quote from material you are reviewing or commenting upon. I’m not sure about the parameters, but I think it is limited quotes being sure your readers understand you are quoting.

I learned about the Beatles through the comics before the day I heard “I Want To Hold Your Hand” on the elevator at KYW Cleveland. Now I learn about replication, which may have something to do with downloading songs and movies–which I do not find to be fast or easy. What else can I replicate? To get a subscription-only article, I have to request it through the Case Library and pay an annual fee for the privilege. The democratization and dissemination of knowledge I am all for.

lavocat; The best things in life are free; women who actually enjoy sex are the best ones.

As someone who someday hopes to make a living through Art, I have to say that I FULLY believe in protecting intellectual property. The Deconstructionists and the Historicists were full of baloney when they proclaimed the Death of the Author, that a given work of art is the (inevitable?) result of societal influences rather than the expression of an artist/author’s intent. “Information wants to be free” is a valid sentiment in many ways, and the whole PURPOSE of the Internet was to provide scientists and other idea-dependent professionals with easy and free access to each others’ findings, but creative arts are a different matter; they’re often too personal to simply throw out into the aether where anybody can grab it and claim it as their own. If you’re working on a cure for cancer, yeah, it helps when everybody pools their “information”. But if you want to write the Great American Novel and go about it by stealing paragraphs, characters, and plots from other published works without attribution, that’s reprehensible and fraudulent.

“Ideas” may want to be free, but the individual EXPRESSION of those ideas through a work of creative art must be at least provided the OPTION of copyright protection.

That being said, there is also the doctrine of “Fair Use”, which allows (in some cases) reproduction of small parts of copyrighted material without having to receive permission or pay royalties. In the music industry, I believe they’ve codified a specific length of prerecorded material that may be sampled by another musician. Also, copyrighted materials may be used (sparingly) for the purposes of parody or commentary. If Stephen Pastis wants to have Jeffy from Family Circus appear in Pearls Before Swine for a day or two as a chain-smoking alcoholic, he doesn’t need Bil Keane’s permission to do so. But if he introduced Chain-Smoking Jeffy as a recurring character, Bil would no doubt sue (and win).

Fair Use considerations are compromises, and I don’t know exactly what their limits are. But if you’re trying to make your living by ripping off somebody else’s creation (mass producing bootleg Calvin and Hobbes t-shirts, for example) then you are a reprehensible thief.

Well said, fritzold. stewiez, wail on. At least Rall has a little that is intellectual as opposed to you who has nothing. If you think irrelevance is frustrating now, wait until after the 2010 elections.

Rall is an agitator and a prvocateur, no doubt about it, and he clearly relishes that role. McCoy no doubt relishes doing the same thing on the other side. Where Rall has it all over McCoy, though, is that he doesn’t pull his punches just because (in all likelyhood) he voted for the guy who’s now in. Did you EVER see McCoy publish anything REMOTELY critical of Bush/Cheney? All of you who accuse the left of genuflecting before Obama should take note. Rall is a highly-skilled cartoonist/commentator, and even when I DO think he goes to an extreme I have no doubt that there’s thought and substance behind his arguments.

Pearls Before Swine- Jeffy as an alcoholic chain smoker just drops in occasionally- brilliant! Publicity for both comics.