If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
Mxsmanic writes:
Whisky-dave writes: How would you work out this financial compensation while you make 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or renting is the way to go. This type of compulsory licensing is already in place for cover versions of songs, which is why so many people cover songs written by others. It works just fine. Not at all clear on that. Musicians at all levels are pretty displeased with the system, and it's blocking use of music in a lot of cases due to the size of the ASCAP fees. -- Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net) Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
| So I see no justification for the public paying her way.
| | Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries, | regardless of whether they read books or not. That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out. You can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author can apply to libraries for a paycheck. You can borrow a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was worth buying a copy, and *if* that copy isn't already on loan. Then you have to bring that book back without keeping a copy. In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material legally and don't make further copies. | Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax | on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed | to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..), That's an interesting idea, though it's hard to translate it to different countries. I saw a TV show once about how in the Netherlands you can claim to be an artist and get supported. They showed warehouses full of paintings that the government had bought from painters as a kind of welfare payment. Maybe that's where your "information tax" is going: To put failed painters on the gov't payroll. (We have a saying in the US: "Nice work if you can get it.") You're not paying people outside the Netherlands with your "art tax", but I suppose that as long as you're only copying those paintings in Dutch warehouses, or playing songs by failed Dutch musicians, then you do have a right to take them. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
"Mayayana" writes:
| There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You | might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call | it theft. | But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright | infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when | copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will | actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing | information". | | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician", | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter", | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it? | That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the two views: Young people who don't know what it means to work for a living think that everything should be free. (It always has been for them, after all.) At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors, etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big deal about the presumed value of their creations. But much of what they're producing is essentially a business venture meant to profit by titillating some part of the public enough that those people will pay for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment, which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art implies something edifying and entertainment is really just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and attention. Well, I might agree about the definition -- but it doesn't matter. I *want* people to continue producing the type of entertainment I enjoy! And most of them won't if they don't get paid. In between the two extremes in the copyright debate are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is not a business venture. Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's some artistic value involved and not just some kind of unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar, a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons.... And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social commentary books. Do those people really deserve to make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them? They *do* deserve to make millions of dollars, in the only way such a question is meaningful: the path from the audience enjoying the performance, to the money leaving the audience's pocket, is about as short and direct as it ever gets. Society would not suffer much without them, I don't think. But society *would* suffer, terribly, if it were structured so people like us got to make that decision *for others*. How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse copyright was due to expire. It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction between art, entertainment and business before copyright law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would be missing the big picture. The trouble with this is that defining "art" and distinguishing it is completely hopeless. The other problem is that it's actually the "entertainment" category I really care about. -- Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net) Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On 2012-11-15 10:07:44 -0800, sobriquet said:
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-11-15 07:43:01 -0800, sobriquet said: Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information. What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except usually the bitstrings are much longer. These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures, etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings. We have been through your rationalizations at tedious length before. What you fail to address is, there is a big difference between "sharing", "dissemination of information", and "distribution" of an individually, proprietary, or corporately owned product or media file. It seems your mind is a corporately owned product of some sort. Far from it. If you were able to think critically and independently for yourself, you'd see through this obvious propaganda from the intellectual property mafia. Heck, we can't even seriously claim that we're living in a democracy, because people are brainwashed in school and by the media, rather than learning to think critically for themselves. So all this bull**** about voting for elected representatives in the government is just a phony show, while the government is actually a shady extension of corporate interests rather than a neutral institution that guarantees human rights. ....and your point is? Just another torrent of words to rationalize your criminal thinking. Just because a legitimate method of commercial distribution can be via the internet, does not make unauthorized copying, and redistribution via P2P sites, and subsequent unauthorized use, any less immoral and theft. There is nothing immoral about the distribution and reproduction of information. You might as well call education immoral. No, but there is certainly something immoral about advocating theft of intellectual property the owner has not made "public domain". If a creator of the image, music, movie, etc. choses to protect their property, and states so, any unauthorized use is theft and exploitation. Bull****. Here, I'll create a bitstring 001001011111010000001110001. Now that's my intellectual property and I can go out on the internet to find people who have it on their computer and I can sue and harass them. If you so chose. However you first have to establish that there is a market for your bitstring, and that it is desirable to own, just as those copyright protected bitstrings you want for nothing are something you covet. If there is a demand, the market and the creator/vendor will establish a price, which you can only avoid by stealing it. For now you have not established nor demonstrated any value for your bitstring, and until you do so it remains worthless, useless garbage, not even worth stealing. Those creative individuals and corporations have every right to be rewarded for their creative efforts regardless of your perception of their motives. Those files are far from being declared "public domain". They are public domain. I would check with Sony, Time-Warner, Disney, Geffen, Rhino, Asylum, BBC, Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, RIAA, etc. before making that sort of claim for their products and property. I doubt that any of the listed entities of individuals have waived their rights and suddenly become charitable in this regard. My government actually grants people the freedom to copy such creations (music, video, books, pictures, etc..) for personal use, regardless of how their original creators feel about it. Then your government appears to be a criminal enterprise, and I somehow doubt that. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, try making the same demand of a food vendor, restauranteur, food franchise, or farmer (individual or agri-business). Yet, the difference between such commodities and information is that information can be duplicated indefinitely free from additional costs. If I have a single loaf of bread, unless I'm Jesus, I can't easily multiply it to supply a million loafs of bread to a hungry crowd. ....and yet you would deny creators of images, movies, software, etc. the means to purchase the same food items. You sir, remain a thief at heart, and continue to rationalize your criminal intent. ...or for that matter any manufacturer of any product, from your clothing to the table your computer sits on, or the materials they are fabricated from, and designs they dare to retain copyright of. The difference being that physical tangible products like computers or articles of clothing are scarce because they can't be easily reproduced like information on the internet. Does that make theft of a desirable item any less theft? Would you prefer that all the creators and distributors of music, movies, and software only distribute their wares using media and methods which included strong DRM encoding? Just because some chose to distribute their products via the internet does not mean they have made them public domain. Even with image files on the great majority of sharing sites, the ownership and sharing options are retained by the creator. You must be visiting the wrong sharing sites then. When I refer to "sharing" sites, I refer to sites such as Flickr, Photobucket, SmugMug, Picasa, etc, or individual server sites where the owner/creator of said images uses such "sharing" services to "share" their images, which they still own and retain copyright. They don't expect their images to be freely exploited by individuals such as you, or corporate entities such as news agencies or print media. If you are referring to P2P sites such as BitTorrent and Pirate Bay there elements of their operations which are enabling of criminal behavior. Just because an image, movie, or software is downloadable via one of those sites, does not mean that it is not being stolen, or its use not exploited. For most truly "public domain" files creators would actually prefer some attribution and will let you know their feelings regarding that issue by including an appropriate statement in the copyright information field of the exif of their images. Consider that there is the simple honoring of a creator's request when they include a Creative Commons license to their work. I for example will use the CC "Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike" license notification. Read it, and try to understand it. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...3.0/deed.en_US That is just bull****. You can come up with any nonsense license you like, but whether people will take it serious is another matter. Nope! It isn't BS, and certainly not nonsense. It is a notice of the condition the owner of the image or document expects to be honored in return for making his/her image available to the "Commons". Most people just skip all that legal mumbo jumbo and press the OK button to accept a license without reading it, whenever they are confronted with that nonsense. Then they do so at their peril. All you propose remains a rationalization for theft. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On 11/15/2012 2:11 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
sobriquet writes: There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call it theft. But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing information". So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician", "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter", "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it? He forgets that the key to file sharing is that the first person posting, must have the right to share it. -- Peter |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet writes: So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician", "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter", "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it? Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed. As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem. And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway, so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties. So stealing from a corporation is OK? -- Peter |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:14:26 PM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
sobriquet writes: "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). " Any idea what such a system could be? In particular, how do you decide how worthwhile some fresh content is, in the face of people aggressively working to muddy the waters (as we already see on the web, in sites trolling for search hits to drive ad revenue)? Well, they already have such a system where I live in the Netherlands. But I suspect there is a lot of room for improvement and it is likely to work better when it's done on a global scale. But like other people have mentioned, there are technological solutions, like bots that traverse the internet and do pattern recognition to detect the nature of content and statistically monitor the relative popularity of certain creations, but there should probably be a kind of international institution that keeps track of who contributed to any particular creation. I might as well ask the proponents of traditional interpretations of intellectual property how one is supposed to assess who exactly owns the rights to impose a monopoly on the distribution or reproduction of any particular bitstring, as people can easily modify such bitstrings (change the included information about the associated license or whatever) before redistributing them online. -- Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net) Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:19:18 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
| So I see no justification for the public paying her way. | | Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries, | regardless of whether they read books or not. That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out. You can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author can apply to libraries for a paycheck. You can borrow a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was worth buying a copy, and *if* that copy isn't already on loan. Then you have to bring that book back without keeping a copy. In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material legally and don't make further copies. They offer free access to information, similar to how people can download information for free online. If I want to read a book, I have a number of options. I can buy the book at a bookstore and then I pay for the book. I can go to the library and read the book there for free. I can also go online and download that book for free in digital form from a p2p network. Whether I access the content of that book for free by reading it at the library or downloading a copy from a p2p network, in both cases I'm accessing the content of the book without directly paying the author of that book and yet in both cases it would be legal (at least in the Netherlands where I live). | Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax | on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed | to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..), That's an interesting idea, though it's hard to translate it to different countries. I saw a TV show once about how in the Netherlands you can claim to be an artist and get supported. They showed warehouses full of paintings that the government had bought from painters as a kind of welfare payment. Maybe that's where your "information tax" is going: To put failed painters on the gov't payroll. (We have a saying in the US: "Nice work if you can get it.") You're not paying people outside the Netherlands with your "art tax", but I suppose that as long as you're only copying those paintings in Dutch warehouses, or playing songs by failed Dutch musicians, then you do have a right to take them. Actually, I can download just about any content online for personal use, regardless of where it originated. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:29:26 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
[..] You sir, remain a thief at heart, and continue to rationalize your criminal intent. [..] That sums up your misguided position. Fine. As far as I'm concerned, you are a nazi who advocates a fascistic and unrealistic interpretation of intellectual property. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote: David Dyer-Bennet writes: So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician", "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter", "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it? Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed. As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem. And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway, so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties. So stealing from a corporation is OK? Corporations are the real criminals, because they abuse their influence on the government to subvert laws and regulations to suit their interests, at the expense of the rights of individual people (regardless whether they are creative or not). -- Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Copyright | Walter Banks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 78 | May 31st 10 06:33 PM |
Potentially discontinued cameras | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | March 26th 08 03:06 AM |
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? | Colin B | Digital Photography | 191 | January 19th 07 09:00 AM |
Possible Changes to the Copyright Law | - | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 2 | March 11th 06 02:50 AM |
Copyright - How do you do it? | C Wright | Digital Photography | 90 | January 18th 05 04:02 AM |