Upload & Sell: Off
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The history of the Industrial Revolution is full of hucksters, cheats, and scofflaws, to be sure, and some of the most cherished inventors (like Thomas Edison) were masters of manipulation-- but the idea that patent law itself impeded progress is nonsense.
Intellectual property protections fueled the Industrial Revolution. The principle of patent is many centuries old, and the first US patent law was passed in 1790 by the first Congress, which led to one of the most famous patent cases in US history:
The biggest complaint about the cotton gin? "Hey, great idea! It will save me millions. But it's too expensive!!!"
It's not surprising that many people are ignorant of this history. It's disheartening, though, to see that photographers -- people who presumably have a self-interest in protecting their own intellectual property -- can be just as ignorant as the general population. I'll be sure to make note of the contributors to this thread who have given me permission to exploit their photograpbhs as my own, all in the name of "progress."
Bifurcator, you seem to be aware of these issues, and yet have no problem supporting and promoting people who are thieves. What does that say about you? From my perspective, that makes you even more ethically culpable than those who are simply ignorant.
Yes I agree with all of your points. Even to the point of my own conflicted behaviors and I offer no explanation other than the duality of good and evil we all possess and justify in whatever ways we may that our individual sanities be preserved. I actually do struggle with such decisions yet in the end I'm am found lacking for want and rationalization. I accept and tolerate a degree of evil within my nature especially when said deeds themselves are so easily confounded by the human condition. This purchase and thread is a perfect example; I know there is wrong in it yet for my own want of the thing with the justification that it is putting food on someone's table and shielded by the knowledge that I would never otherwise pay $600 for the same, I maintain a constitution of ethical integrity to an acceptable degree. Even if only determined by myself.
Perhaps an absurd point of irony in this; I'm related to the Whitney family, the very same who invented the cotton gin!
Let the shredding begin - barring ridiculous parallels of course...
I don't think we need to suffer too much pain over our purchase of a gimbal head similar to the Wimberley design. Based on the link below, the Wimberley gimbal head was introduced in 1991, meaning the patent probably expired by 2011. It seems like more than a coincidence that the $99 models are hitting the market now. In a similar vein, are we to to feel guilty for accepting a $10 generic drug instead of paying $120 to the original pharmaceutical company? Store brand, over-the-counter generics usually name the original products they are comparable to on their label. Should we only buy the original Bayer brand aspirin (patented in Germany in 1899)?
I, much like you, felt the need to wash, just to feel clean again, only to discover that my store brand generic soap says right on the label "Comparable to Dove" and was purchased at only half the price. It even looks and smells like the original. Will this theivery never end?
If I wanted the best and was willing to spend $600, I would have purchased the Wimberley head and would encourage others to do so, but for now the $99 model should do for me.
Please enjoy your gimbal head mount in good conscience without such inner conflict.
Edited on Apr 22, 2012 at 05:42 AM · View previous versions