Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: F22RaptorDude on January 17, 2012, 11:37:36 PM
-
We can't let them shut down the internet, please sign this
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ (https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/) Google has started its protest, their logo is blacked out on the google home screen. Please we can't let this happen
-
Come on you have to be more convincing then that. Why would it interest me to sign this petition what is it about. Why does it interest me. Sell your idea.
-
google will sell my info to anybody that gives them money. I wish there was a law that would stop that.
semp
-
google will sell my info to anybody that gives them money. I wish there was a law that would stop that.
semp
Are you worried about your fetishes being discovered? I'd pay google if I didn't already know it was midgets and sheep! :banana:
-
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxbd5hJ5Vv1qdbxh4.jpg)
-
If this bill is passed, the majority of the Internet will be blocked.
http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa
-
If this bill is passed, the majority of the Internet will be blocked.
http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa
Looks like it is already happening
Link fail...
-
Looks like it is already happening
Link fail...
:rofl
-
:rofl
Oh look, now it's working
I think they are practicing :noid
-
I don't feel that it is possible for me to discuss this topic without violating rule #14.
-
We can't let them shut down the internet, please sign this
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ (https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/) Google has started its protest, their logo is blacked out on the google home screen. Please we can't let this happen
Straight from the horses mouth!
Well, not really a horse, more like a baby blue happy colored mini version of a noble animal.
-
I don't feel that is possible for me to discuss this topic without violating rule #14.
Pretty much.
-
Thus the reason I haven't discussed it here. But I'm opposed to both actively.
-
Indefinite detention of US citizens, SOPA and PIPA, and a $100 per flight tax?
Bunches of good ideas lately.
-
Man oh man do I want to climb into this one!! But Skuzzy busting me for a week - I am due for a good suspension - isn't in my game plans right now.
So let me just say, in a manner I think skirts right around Rule #14 like Bill Clinton on an Intern...where do I sign?!?!
:bolt:
Boo
-
Man oh man do I want to climb into this one!! But Skuzzy busting me for a week - I am due for a good suspension - isn't in my game plans right now.
So let me just say, in a manner I think skirts right around Rule #14 like Bill Clinton on an Intern...where do I sign?!?!
:bolt:
Boo
Click my link and its on the right side.
Indefinite detention of US citizens, SOPA and PIPA, and a $100 per flight tax?
Bunches of good ideas lately.
They must be having to many to drink at "our" all expenses payed dinner parties :mad:
-
Please go here and sign the petition against web censoring
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
-
Mojang Joined the fight, the Minecraft Home page is down to protest :rock :rock :rock
-
:headscratch:
-
Signed
-
Signed
Thanks
-
Wouldn't you know it, Obama just saved the Internet for a month. Nothing political here so its not breaking rules, he simply said he won't support the bill so they will re open it next month, so for now enjoy your internet http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/)
Edit the white house stated if they re tried the bill they would veto it unless it was more define in what it would do
-
If this bill is passed, the majority of the Internet will be blocked.
http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa
Kind of an exaggeration, but the concern is real. By the way, IN...
-
Doesn't matte the whole debate is over, doesn't matter anymore unless they can get more supportes which there may be a few thousand, but up against millions they look like nothing so yeah case closed i'm no longer replying on this topic
-
Right now, I can get music, software, movies, pictures, or any other material in digital format on the net for free. Granted, I need to scan everything because they definitely aren't coming from a known/trustworthy source, but it is still ripping off someone, somewhere. I'm in favor of something in place to prevent this from happening, aside from far reaching bills like this or RIAA witch hunts.
If the bills were re-written to allow companies like Google no additional work or overhead, Congress would pass it easily and we wouldn't have much of a say. The media companies lobbyists didn't anticipate the incredible backlash that is coming from Google/Wiki/etc. I guarantee that a rewritten SOPA that minimizes large companies liability is going to pass Congress eventually and there is little we can do about it.
It reminds me of a line from a movie, "It is one big s**t sandwich and we all have to take a bite." At least people with a clue will know how to bypass many of the 'safeguards' they may put in place.
-
Right now, I can get music, software, movies, pictures, or any other material in digital format on the net for free. Granted, I need to scan everything because they definitely aren't coming from a known/trustworthy source, but it is still ripping off someone, somewhere. I'm in favor of something in place to prevent this from happening
I agree 100%. I am a professional photographer. My work is my property. Selling it is how I pay my bills. When somebody grabs it and uses it without my permission, they are stealing from me.
Unfortunately, much of the opposition to this current Bill (which I am not comfortable with in its current form) seems to be young people who don't want the ability for them to steal music to be taken away from them.
Something will make it into law. We can only hope that whatever it is will do the job that needs to be done without infringing on honest free speech.
-
Right now, I can get music, software, movies, pictures, or any other material in digital format on the net for free. Granted, I need to scan everything because they definitely aren't coming from a known/trustworthy source, but it is still ripping off someone, somewhere. I'm in favor of something in place to prevent this from happening, aside from far reaching bills like this or RIAA witch hunts.
If the bills were re-written to allow companies like Google no additional work or overhead, Congress would pass it easily and we wouldn't have much of a say. The media companies lobbyists didn't anticipate the incredible backlash that is coming from Google/Wiki/etc. I guarantee that a rewritten SOPA that minimizes large companies liability is going to pass Congress eventually and there is little we can do about it.
It reminds me of a line from a movie, "It is one big s**t sandwich and we all have to take a bite." At least people with a clue will know how to bypass many of the 'safeguards' they may put in place.
As long as they don't mess with you tube I'm good, they do their best to keep copywritten stuff off of their but with hundreds of thousands of uploads a day its hard to keep up with, i'm all in agreeance with this bill cause alot of people like you said are getting ripped off, but this was just to far for everyone
-
IF IT DID happen i would be pissed, but would love reddit getting shut down.
-
IF IT DID happen i would be pissed, but would love reddit getting shut down.
I'm good if Face book would get shut down, A reason to get my off that awful site that consumes all my time, i'm fine with anything but you tube being shut down
-
i'm no longer replying on this topic
As long as they don't mess with you tube I'm good, they do their best to keep copywritten stuff off of their but with hundreds of thousands of uploads a day its hard to keep up with, i'm all in agreeance with this bill cause alot of people like you said are getting ripped off, but this was just to far for everyone
I'm good if Face book would get shut down, A reason to get my off that awful site that consumes all my time, i'm fine with anything but you tube being shut down
-
:rofl :rofl Cause I figured it would jump into a political discussion which it didn't
-
A major concern is the legal mechanism to make a determination. It should go through the courts, not the AGs office. One note, the White House made this statement after House leadership said DOA.
Boo
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQhNE65wmg
-
IF IT DID happen i would be pissed, but would love reddit getting shut down.
Why is that?
-
I agree 100%. I am a professional photographer. My work is my property. Selling it is how I pay my bills. When somebody grabs it and uses it without my permission, they are stealing from me.
I don't see how this bill would help you in any way whatsoever.
-
So what the hell is all the fuss about? As far as I can see, It's just an expansion of copyright laws that are already in place. Is it similar to the whole Lars Ulrich and Napster thing just on a larger scale? As far as I am concerned, copyright laws that apply to books and tangible material should apply to the web as well. Now how would this shut down the internet again?
-
So what the hell is all the fuss about? As far as I can see, It's just an expansion of copyright laws that are already in place. Is it similar to the whole Lars Ulrich and Napster thing just on a larger scale? As far as I am concerned, copyright laws that apply to books and tangible material should apply to the web as well. Now how would this shut down the internet again?
I have a feeling that's what it amounts to, however I don't know for sure. I signed the stupid petition a few months back when it went around, as they make it sound like something super scary. However, after getting umpteen emails from them between now and then asking me to sign more stuff, and call my senators ad nauseum, I finally asked to be removed from their email list.
I personally agree with you, but at the same time it's something that shouldn't have to exist (if in fact it would even do so much damage as they say it would), but after hearing about it for months I just don't want to mess with it anymore. If they really want it passed, I figure my shallow pockets isn't going to persuade them either way.
-
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/sopa/sopa.gif)
Had to do it... Hopefully you get the message :)
-
:D :aok :lol
-
I fear we will not change anything until we have lost everything.
-
LOL, that's great.
-
:rofl :rofl
-
Amusing, but whoever made it did steal the image of Oprah. Somewhere there is a photographer who makes a living capturing and then selling images like that. The image is his property. He paid thousands of dollars for his equipment. He may have paid thousands of dollars just to have the right to take the photographs at whatever event that was.
What gives anyone the right to google Oprah images and then simply copy the image and use it for whatever they want without asking for permission or paying for it?
It is theft. It is a violation of CURRENT copy right law.
You might think that it is harmless, but if copy right laws don't apply to this kind of theft, why should they apply when a when a website uses the image?... Or a newspaper?... Or a magazine?...
Where is the line of protection for the photographer?
I haven't read the SOPA/PIPA legislation, so I can't really comment on it one way or the other, but this naive view that you should be allowed to do whatever the heck you want on the internet without regard to copy rights is simply shortsighted and illustrates the juvenile nature of most of the opposition to SOPA/PIPA. It's a lot of "Oh Noez! DOn't take my youtubez away! My freedomz of speechz!"
-
A persons image is not automatically protected by copyright law. You can't make a judgment about copyright infringement unless you know the source of the material.
-
I dont get it... :cry
-
Amusing, but whoever made it did steal the image of Oprah. Somewhere there is a photographer who makes a living capturing and then selling images like that. The image is his property. He paid thousands of dollars for his equipment. He may have paid thousands of dollars just to have the right to take the photographs at whatever event that was.
What gives anyone the right to google Oprah images and then simply copy the image and use it for whatever they want without asking for permission or paying for it?
It is theft. It is a violation of CURRENT copy right law.
You might think that it is harmless, but if copy right laws don't apply to this kind of theft, why should they apply when a when a website uses the image?... Or a newspaper?... Or a magazine?...
Where is the line of protection for the photographer?
I haven't read the SOPA/PIPA legislation, so I can't really comment on it one way or the other, but this naive view that you should be allowed to do whatever the heck you want on the internet without regard to copy rights is simply shortsighted and illustrates the juvenile nature of most of the opposition to SOPA/PIPA. It's a lot of "Oh Noez! DOn't take my youtubez away! My freedomz of speechz!"
Yet you have. :headscratch:
I've always figured you for a pretty smart guy and, as such, should know that nothing is copyrighted until a copyright has been applied for and granted.
I believe that the current fee is ~ $25 USD.
Not a bad price if one gets a chance to photograph Jesus.
Seriously, you should read it. It's not pretty. It is deeper than losing youtube, etc.
As a musician, I completely understand how you feel about your art but, as with any other type of censorship, it must be done carefully.
-
A persons image is not automatically protected by copyright law. You can't make a judgment about copyright infringement unless you know the source of the material.
Was the image...
1) Created by the Government?
2) Published before 1989 without a copyright notice? After 1989, notice is no longer required, copyright is implied.
3) Published before before 1963 for some images, published before 1923 for all?
4) Ineligible for copyright? (If there is any artistic component such as lighting, camera angle, composition, etc then the image is eligible for copyright. Almost all photographs are eligible.)
5) Dedicated to Public Domain? Only if the photographer issues a written notice specifically dedicating it to the Public Domain.
If the answer is NO to all of the above questions, then the photography is copyrighted.
-
I've always figured you for a pretty smart guy and, as such, should know that nothing is copyrighted until a copyright has been applied for and granted.
This is misleading. Registration of a copyright with the government is not required for copyright, it simply provides prima facie evidence of copyright allowing the copyright holder to collect statutory damages and attorneys fees.
In this country, the registration can even occur after the infringement has already occurred, allowing the copyright holder to sue for actual damages and lost profits.
So, if you think not applying for a copyright on a photograph means that anyone can take it and use it however they want, you are incorrect.
I believe the fee for registering a copyright is $35. But that isn't per image. I know a few guys who are still doing a lot of national news and celebrity stuff who register their work annually as a collection. So, everything they did for the entire year gets registered for $35.
Personally, I do not. The type of work I am doing these days and the way I have structured my fees make it so I am not really that interested in enforcing my copyrights. I make my money on the initial sale, then I don't worry about it anymore.
If I ever got into celebrity type work, that would change.
-
This is misleading. Registration of a copyright with the government is not required for copyright, it simply provides prima facie evidence of copyright allowing the copyright holder to collect statutory damages and attorneys fees.
In this country, the registration can even occur after the infringement has already occurred, allowing the copyright holder to sue for actual damages and lost profits.
So, if you think not applying for a copyright on a photograph means that anyone can take it and use it however they want, you are incorrect.
If one can prove that one is the originator of the material, of course.
However, there is also something in this country called due process. The way the current SOPA/PIPA is written, this would be circumvented.
-
If one can prove that one is the originator of the material, of course.
However, there is also something in this country called due process. The way the current SOPA/PIPA is written, this would be circumvented.
That proof is simple these days for professional photographers.
As I said, I haven't read the SOPA/PIPA, so you may be correct about it circumventing due process. I agree that that is wrong.
That said, all the little kiddies who are freaked out because they are afraid they are going to lose their YouTube, they need to understand that unlawful use of copyright material is likely to be cracked down on hard in the near future, and the music industry is leading that charge. YouTube is definitely in the cross hairs. SOPA/PIPA may not be how it is done, but something will be coming.
The little kiddies need to be educated on what the law is, so they aren't surprised when it smacks them upside the head. :D
-
See Rule #14
-
Dichotomy,
I just want to restate that I am not taking a stand on SOPA/PIPA. I don't know enough to do so intelligently.
But wow... I am the little guy, and according to you I shouldn't ever put any of my work out where the public can see it? Because if I do I should just expect it to be stolen and used without my permission?
And at what point does a company become large enough that they should lose their legal protections? Who gets to decide where that line is?
I agree that due process must be respected in however these copyrights are enforced. So maybe SOPA/PIPA may very well be the wrong approach. I don't know.
But all this big talk about the little guy and the evil corporations has no place whatsoever in the law... Period. The law should be the law, without regard to whom it is being applied.
-
Dichotomy,
I just want to restate that I am not taking a stand on SOPA/PIPA. I don't know enough to do so intelligently.
But wow... I am the little guy, and according to you I shouldn't ever put any of my work out where the public can see it? Because if I do I should just expect it to be stolen and used without my permission?
And at what point does a company become large enough that they should lose their legal protections? Who gets to decide where that line is?
I agree that due process must be respected in however these copyrights are enforced. So maybe SOPA/PIPA may very well be the wrong approach. I don't know.
But all this big talk about the little guy and the evil corporations has no place whatsoever in the law... Period. The law should be the law, without regard to whom it is being applied.
Should be...
It isn't, though...
-
But wow... I am the little guy, and according to you I shouldn't ever put any of my work out where the public can see it? Because if I do I should just expect it to be stolen and used without my permission?
I say you run the risk of it being used without your permission. That's the rub for you isn't it? If you put it out there you might as well expect that somebody is going to use it without your permission. If you don't nobody knows who you are. This is a position I have quite a bit of empathy for. As I stated above you have to decide if you want to take legal action if you find somebody using your work without your permission. That's a long and expensive process as I'm sure you're aware.
Again. I simply not for more laws that will be misapplied and poorly managed in order to satisfy the wants of large corporations. But, as previously stated, something will more than likely get passed under the radar as a rider to another law that will be equally pervasive but unseen or noticed until it goes into effect.
-
That said, all the little kiddies who are freaked out because they are afraid they are going to lose their YouTube,
No one really cares, unless it affects them directly.
I read story where a developer was working on a program to revolutionize word processing, back when Wordperfect was king. Unfortunately (and stupidly) this developer left the software on a FTP which was accessed and the entire completed program was 'sharewared' all over the net. Can you imagine working on something for a year or more, only to see it made close to worthless overnight?
A persons image is not automatically protected by copyright law. You can't make a judgment about copyright infringement unless you know the source of the material.
That is true, your image is not protected unless you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (ie you're in a bathroom). Once someone takes a picture of you in public, that image belongs to the photographer.. just be happy that you're not a celebrity.
-
See Rule #14
-
But it should be. Do we give up on even trying because there are inequities in the system?
<SNIP>
And that's as deep as I want to get into that. I don't want to get Skizzified.
Too late
The golden rule.
He who has the most, gets to make them...
-
Too late
The golden rule.
He who has the most, gets to make them...
this is more true than you know. The owner of my companies wife (city councilperson for over 15 years) sometimes runs off with diarrhea of the mouth about wealth such as 'if you're rich you can get away with murder in this city'. Just the kind of morale boosting thing to say to a guy who was just thinking of whether to pay the mortgage or his electric bill out of this weeks check.
-
I don't feel that it is possible for me to discuss this topic without violating rule #14.
Nope.
:bolt:
-
:uhoh :cheers:
Nope.
:bolt:
Apparently not... :(
-
Looks like we flew too close to the sun PF.
So, how about those niners? ;)
-
See Rule #14
-
It is theft.
It is not theft. It may be copyright infringement (note there are legitimate uses for images in other material where copyright may not apply, such as satire).
Copyright infringement has never been nor ever will be theft or stealing. It is purely copyright infringement. If you pick up a DVD in walmart and walk out without paying... that is theft.
-
Really good discussion.
For me the question is that of enforcement. These bills gave incredible power to the Attorney General's office/Justice Department that currently resides within the judiciary.
We are beginning to see both ideological sides of the spectrum distrust the judiciary and seeking superjudicial means to resolution. Bad ideas in my opinion but where they are going.
Boo
-
It is not theft. It may be copyright infringement (note there are legitimate uses for images in other material where copyright may not apply, such as satire).
Copyright infringement has never been nor ever will be theft or stealing. It is purely copyright infringement.
You know what, you're right from a purely legal point of view. It is not considered theft legally (I have retracted the text in red, see below. Copyright infringement is in fact considered theft in the eyes of the Federal Government, even when there was no monetary gain or expectation of gain. There are severe penalties and instances of Copyright infringement can be investigated by the FBI.), because the government does not (yet) arrest people for copyright infringement and put them in jail (But they do! So I retract this also! In fact, it is believed that criminal prosecutions for copyright infringement are on the rise and are expected to increase greatly in the relatively near future.) It is a civil matter, at this time that if the infringement can be proven willful, becomes criminal (theft).
But in practice, I personally don't understand how downloading copyrighted music (for instance) without paying for it is any different then walking into a music store and shoplifting the same music.
I believe it is more a case of the law hasn't quite caught up with the digital age. But it will.
Furthermore, it is parody that can be covered by "fair use", not satire. Unless the satire also has elements of parody, which of course would be argued in the court. There is a relatively interesting discussion of it here...
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf
So, for my purposes as a professional photographer, use of my images for pretty much anything beyond an actual parody of my work would not be covered by fair use. Thus, copyright infringement. If deemed to be willful copyright infringement, it could be prosecuted in a Federal Criminal Court.
EDIT to add
Title 17 of the United States Code does make provisions for Criminal copyright infringement in certain circumstances...
This Title 17 Copyright law can be found here... http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
EDIT TO ADD MORE
Furthermore, the federal No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) of 1997 expanded the criminal portion of copyright law to include willful infringements even when the infringer had NO gain or expected gain from the infringement.
Would like to point out the word THEFT in the name of the Act. So, it seems that willful copyright infringement is THEFT in the eyes of the Federal Government. I retract my retraction and reaffirm my opinion that copyright infringement, when proven to be willful, is in fact theft in the eyes of the law. A person convicted in a Federal Criminal Court of Criminal Copyright Infringement can receive a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine per infringement. Then of course, the injured party would be able to seek a civil judgement for their losses and damages as well.
You can find the wiki on the NET Act of 1997 here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
-
In case anybody is as completely bored as I am and wants to read the bill you can do so here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577167040770940440.html
-
You know what, you're right from a purely legal point of view. It is not considered theft legally (I have retracted the text in red, see below. Copyright infringement is in fact considered theft in the eyes of the Federal Government, even when there was no monetary gain or expectation of gain. There are severe penalties and instances of Copyright infringement can be investigated by the FBI.), because the government does not (yet) arrest people for copyright infringement and put them in jail (But they do! So I retract this also! In fact, it is believed that criminal prosecutions for copyright infringement are on the rise and are expected to increase greatly in the relatively near future.) It is a civil matter, at this time that if the infringement can be proven willful, becomes criminal (theft).
But in practice, I personally don't understand how downloading copyrighted music (for instance) without paying for it is any different then walking into a music store and shoplifting the same music.
I believe it is more a case of the law hasn't quite caught up with the digital age. But it will.
Actually it is parody that can be covered by "fair use", not satire. Unless the satire also has elements of parody, which of course would be argued in the court. There is a relatively interesting discussion of it here...
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf
So, for my purposes as a professional photographer, use of my images for pretty much anything beyond an actual parody of my work would not be covered by fair use.
EDIT to add
Title 17 of the United States Code does make provisions for Criminal copyright infringement in certain circumstances...
This Title 17 Copyright law can be found here... http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
EDIT TO ADD MORE
Furthermore, the federal No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) of 1997 expanded the criminal portion of copyright law to include willful infringements even when the infringer had NO gain or expected gain from the infringement.
Would like to point out the word THEFT in the name of the Act. So, it seems that willful copyright infringement is THEFT in the eyes of the Federal Government. I retract my retraction and reaffirm my opinion that copyright infringement, when proven to be willful, is in fact theft in the eyes of the law. A person convicted in a Federal Criminal Court of Criminal Copyright Infringement can receive a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine per infringement. Then of course, the injured party would be able to seek a civil judgement for their losses and damages as well.
You can find the wiki on the NET Act of 1997 here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
Well....
Today, you can :D
-
Today, you can :D
Thank goodness I didn't need it yesterday! :rofl
I linked to the wiki because it is quite a bit easier to read then the actual NET Act of 1997, since the NET Act is mostly about adding to and altering the language of the previous law. It takes a lot of switching back and forth between documents to really get a good feel for what it is designed to do. Which is to provide criminal penalties, even to pimply teenagers who think that the "interwebz" makes it ok to willfully take somebody elses intellectual property without paying for it.
-
But in practice, I personally don't understand how downloading copyrighted music (for instance) without paying for it is any different then walking into a music store and shoplifting the same music.
Because if you go into a music store and steal a CD, you've taken a chunk of plastic and paper that, for each individual instance of its existence, required that materials be procured and worked into a physical entity. A CD is not a piece of intellectual property, it's a physical thing- something that the record store payed for, that the label payed to have manufactured, and that the factory payed for the materials for. If it's stolen it's not still there. It's gone. Whereas if you make a copy of something, it's still there- you just got it for free, but whoever had it previously still has it.
That's why piracy isn't theft- it's piracy. Whether or not it's moral, and how more or less moral it is than theft can be argued ad nauseum, but it still remains that it is not theft.
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/2008/8/27/12/27311d2d7c84e8f3e3f5036ed08d198b.jpg)
It's also something that's here and will not go away, since as soon as any legislation passes people will start figuring out ways to worm around it, and it'll be good as if it hadn't been passed in the first place in 6 months. The industries that are most affected by this, particularly the music and film industries, are just going to have to redefine themselves.
-
Because if you go into a music store and steal a CD, you've taken a chunk of plastic and paper that, for each individual instance of its existence, required that materials be procured and worked into a physical entity. A CD is not a piece of intellectual property, it's a physical thing- something that the record store payed for, that the label payed to have manufactured, and that the factory payed for the materials for. If it's stolen it's not still there. It's gone. Whereas if you make a copy of something, it's still there- you just got it for free, but whoever had it previously still has it.
That's why piracy isn't theft- it's piracy. Whether or not it's moral, and how more or less moral it is than theft can be argued ad nauseum, but it still remains that it is not theft.
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/2008/8/27/12/27311d2d7c84e8f3e3f5036ed08d198b.jpg)
It's also something that's here and will not go away, since as soon as any legislation passes people will start figuring out ways to worm around it, and it'll be good as if it hadn't been passed in the first place in 6 months. The industries that are most affected by this, particularly the music and film industries, are just going to have to redefine themselves.
Well the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 seems to equate copyright infringement of digital material with theft.
It strikes me that through the use of semantics, there is a group of people who are trying to make copyright infringement more acceptable by insisting that it isn't theft because no physical item has been taken. Well, even if I agree that it should be called piracy rather then theft, piracy is also a criminal act that can be punished with prison and/or large fines.
At the very least, it IS considered Electronic Theft by the Federal Government.
My personal opinion is that if we are going to insist upon calling it piracy rather then theft, we should re-adopt the traditional penalty for piracy. Which, I believe, is hanging by the neck until dead... Ye olde hempen jig! Then for the most infamous of perpetrators, their body left in an iron cage to rot away over the course of as long as two years.
By the way, did you create that picture yourself or pirate it from some other web site? Was there a written release into the Public Domain with it?
-
Would like to point out the word THEFT in the name of the Act. So, it seems that willful copyright infringement is THEFT in the eyes of the Federal Government. I retract my retraction and reaffirm my opinion that copyright infringement, when proven to be willful, is in fact theft in the eyes of the law. A person convicted in a Federal Criminal Court of Criminal Copyright Infringement can receive a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine per infringement. Then of course, the injured party would be able to seek a civil judgement for their losses and damages as well.
You can find the wiki on the NET Act of 1997 here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
It's not theft. While officially the act can be cited by its short name containing word theft, the official full title is:
"An act to amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes."
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—
``(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
``(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
``shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.´´.
-
Well the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 seems to equate copyright infringement of digital material with theft.
It strikes me that through the use of semantics, there is a group of people who are trying to make copyright infringement more acceptable by insisting that it isn't theft because no physical item has been taken. Well, even if I agree that it should be called piracy rather then theft, piracy is also a criminal act that can be punished with prison and/or large fines.
At the very least, it IS considered Electronic Theft by the Federal Government.
My personal opinion is that if we are going to insist upon calling it piracy rather then theft, we should re-adopt the traditional penalty for piracy. Which, I believe, is hanging by the neck until dead... Ye olde hempen jig! Then for the most infamous of perpetrators, their body left in an iron cage to rot away over the course of as long as two years.
By the way, did you create that picture yourself or pirate it from some other web site? Was there a written release into the Public Domain with it?
You now have a copy of the image in your browsing cache, have you now pirated it?
I didn't save the image and rehost it, either. I just hotlinked whatever site I found it hosted on. Should that entail piracy? Is there anyone in Congress who has any idea what hotlinking is? Probably not.
Due to the nature of digital images 'pirating' them beyond actually using them commercially is so intensely grey that it's probably impossible to garner any color from it.
-
It's not theft. While officially the act can be cited by its short name containing word theft, the official full title is:
"An act to amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes."
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—
``(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
``(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
``shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.´´.
Curious why you bolded the "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement"? It isn't key to the discussion of copyright infringement being theft or not.
Photographers, such as myself, use professional photographic papers which have a copyright warning all over the back of the prints. Most photofinishers rigorously respect our copyrights. There are several professional photographer associations that have fought and won some pretty large suits against photolabs. The smart ones won't even think about copying our prints for one of their customers.
We use Copyright Warnings on our web sites. The phrase, "Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited by law" appears all over my web site.
We layer as many warnings in as many places as possible, including copyright marks and overlays etc. We make it pretty darn hard to miss that the copyrights belong to us. To get around them and have an image that is usable for much of anything, it takes a pretty determined and willful act. We do everything possible to let everyone know that making a copy of our work is a violation of the law. Proceeding to do it anyway crosses the threshold of being a willful act.
On a side note, I find it interesting how this is one of those areas of the law that ignorance of the law is in fact an excuse. I expect that there will be a lot of changes coming to copyright law over the next decade.
-
So, for my purposes as a professional photographer, use of my images for pretty much anything beyond an actual parody of my work would not be covered by fair use. Thus, copyright infringement. If deemed to be willful copyright infringement, it could be prosecuted in a Federal Criminal Court.
As a professional photographer, you probably have a website with some of your 'copyrighted' images on display.
If I visit your website, viewing your images, am I stealing? According to you, I do.
If I embed image from your website, ie wrap the image URL between the URL tags here in the forum, am I infringing your copyrights?
If, lets say somebody living in Iran, copies your images to his/her hard drive, would you suffer any monetary damages?
-
Of course, does SOPA or PIPA really have any bearing on the 'piracy' of photography? I'm pretty unaware of megaupload, mediafire, Pirate Bay, etc. being involved in the mass distribution of pirated photography, or of anyone that pirates photography for home use. One of the problems with using photography as an example here is how fundamentally different it is from music, film, and software.
-
Of course, does SOPA or PIPA really have any bearing on the 'piracy' of photography? I'm pretty unaware of megaupload, mediafire, Pirate Bay, etc. being involved in the mass distribution of pirated photographyor of anyone that pirates photography for home use
Porn pics?
One of the problems with using photography as an example here is how fundamentally different it is from music, film, and software.
No difference really.
-
As a professional photographer, you probably have a website with some of your 'copyrighted' images on display.
If I visit your website, viewing your images, am I stealing? According to you, I do.
If I embed image from your website, ie wrap the image URL between the URL tags here in the forum, am I infringing your copyrights?
If, lets say somebody living in Iran, copies your images to his/her hard drive, would you suffer any monetary damages?
From the little research I have done in the last ten minutes, cached material is generally not considered infringement due to its temporary nature. Once you make a copy form the cached material for print or retransmitting, you are pirating.
I never said you were stealing by viewing images on a website. If you copy one of my images from my website and use it on your website, or make a printed copy, then you most certain are infringing my copyrights.
My understanding is that using URL tags to use one of my images on another website is actually in fact infringing upon my copyright. But linking to my website is not. So, using that image you used in the way that you used it, (if not a Public Domain) would apparently be infringing upon the rights of the person who created it.
If someone in Iran copies my images, I think I do suffer monetary damages. Seeing as how my business is selling those images. That person is using my images without paying for them like a regular customer. Where that person is located is moot. Of course, getting a legal remedy for those losses is unlikely because copyright law varies considerably from nation to nation. I do believe I could file suit in a US Court under US Copyright law but it is unlikely that the case would succeed for obvious reasons.
Do you believe that I have no rights to the images that I capture, simply because I do business on the internet?
-
Porn pics?
I suppose you could find porn images on megaupload or mediafire (although I think it's against the terms of use... but then again piracy is in the first place), but Pirate Bay literally does not have an option to search images, and I don't think any other torrent tracker does either. You can find a lot of videos though...
For an image to be displayed on the internet your computer has to make a copy of it. It generally keeps a copy of it for easy use. Photography also has more much more intrinsic value of being printed on paper versus music, video, or software which have literally no added value by being printed on physical media.
-
Curious why you bolded the "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement"? It isn't key to the discussion of copyright infringement being theft or not.
You named that act as being an example of how copyright infringement equals theft. Later you changed the tune to that of willful copyright infringement.
We use Copyright Warnings on our web sites. The phrase, "Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited by law" appears all over my web site.
We layer as many warnings in as many places as possible, including copyright marks and overlays etc. We make it pretty darn hard to miss that the copyrights belong to us. To get around them and have an image that is usable for much of anything, it takes a pretty determined and willful act. We do everything possible to let everyone know that making a copy of our work is a violation of the law. Proceeding to do it anyway crosses the threshold of being a willful act.
Now you know why I "bolded" it. No matter how many warning you put on, and whether I willfully copy one of your images, it most likely would not be willful copyright infringement, unless you could convince us that low resolution watermarked web image is valued over $1000.
-
No difference really.
Honestly, the biggest difference is that it is easier for a photographer to make it difficult for someone to use the work. Copyright overlays are the best tool for making an image less useful on the internet. We protect against hard copy prints with the overlays as well as low resolutions. An image on a website can look pretty good for display purposes, but too low of a resolution to get a tolerable print.
Photographers don't have the technological hurdles that music (for instance) has...
-
Now you know why I "bolded" it. No matter how many warning you put on, and whether I willfully copy one of your images, it most likely would not be willful copyright infringement, unless you could convince us that low resolution watermarked web image is valued over $1000.
Well the low resolution and watermark are tools that we use simply because it is so hard to enforce our rights.
As for value, you would be amazed at what tabloids pay the papparazzi guys for celebrity images. Literally tens of thousands of dollars if it is a juicy shot of somebody who is famous (or infamous) enough at the time.
A likely scenario would be a gossip blog who copies a papparazzi image from a site that paid the photographer for the image, then uses it on their own website. The low resolution isn't an issue, and there often is no watermark or a small copyright mark in a corner. The willful act would be intentionally cropping the copyright mark out of the image, or photoshopping it away.
-
Frankly, I don't see a difference between piracy and theft. Let me put in this in simple terms, imagine if someone was able to recreate Aces High by copying the AH software and park the game off shore. In addition, they charged $5 a month instead of $15 and gave current Hitechcreations customers a month free for switching to their service.
If you wouldn't consider that stealing, you need to examine your life.
-
Well the low resolution and watermark are tools that we use simply because it is so hard to enforce our rights.
As for value, you would be amazed at what tabloids pay the papparazzi guys for celebrity images. Literally tens of thousands of dollars if it is a juicy shot of somebody who is famous (or infamous) enough at the time.
A likely scenario would be a gossip blog who copies a papparazzi image from a site that paid the photographer for the image, then uses it on their own website. The low resolution isn't an issue, and there often is no watermark or a small copyright mark in a corner. The willful act would be intentionally cropping the copyright mark out of the image, or photoshopping it away.
That is, however, using copyrighted material to add value to your product, and getting money for it, rather than just pirating for personal use.
-
My understanding is that using URL tags to use one of my images on another website is actually in fact infringing upon my copyright. But linking to my website is not. So, using that image you used in the way that you used it, (if not a Public Domain) would apparently be infringing upon the rights of the person who created it.
How so? No copies were made. It might not be ethical, but if you follow the letter of the law, it's not copyright infringement.
If someone in Iran copies my images, I think I do suffer monetary damages. Seeing as how my business is selling those images. That person is using my images without paying for them like a regular customer. Where that person is located is moot. Of course, getting a legal remedy for those losses is unlikely because copyright law varies considerably from nation to nation. I do believe I could file suit in a US Court under US Copyright law but it is unlikely that the case would succeed for obvious reasons.
You don't suffer any monetary damages. U.S. persons may not engage in trade or financial transaction with Iran unless authorized by OFAC or expressly exempted by statute. I doubt your images would be exempted from sanctions.
Do you believe that I have no rights to the images that I capture, simply because I do business on the internet?
You have rights as defined by copyright laws. I'm just pointing that often lawmakers (and majority of copyright holders) have no knowledge of how delivery technologies work, hence we get blanket measures to protect RIAA and MPAA and everyone else becomes a victim in the process.
DMCA already gives them plenty of tools. No need for SOPA and PIPA.
-
Photographers don't have the technological hurdles that music (for instance) has...
There are no technological hurdles. Music industry has plenty of tools to protect and deliver their product. They just got too greedy and too restrictive. They should adjust just like most everyone else. No need to protect them above the current law.
-
Frankly, I don't see a difference between piracy and theft.
It's like saying armed robbery is the same as murder. They are both wrong, one can lead to another, but they are not the same.
-
No need for SOPA and PIPA.
Agreed. Video game piracy is an issue that effects me directly because I work in the gaming industry and our games are favorites of pirates. While I think those that pirate games/music/movies are nothing more than thieves, SOPA and PIPA are not the ways to go about combating it. You don't cut off your arm to take out the splinter in your hand.
ack-ack
-
Here we go:
http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/
It would seem the current laws in place allow for this to be handled. It goes through the normal means, allows for due process, etc. Ironic, while some are pushing for complete overreach of the internet we have something like. There must be more to the whole story and this from Time may not be disposative, but certainly lends to the argument that we do not need a new law.
Boo
-
Here we go:
http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/
It would seem the current laws in place allow for this to be handled. It goes through the normal means, allows for due process, etc. Ironic, while some are pushing for complete overreach of the internet we have something like. There must be more to the whole story and this from Time may not be disposative, but certainly lends to the argument that we do not need a new law.
Boo
Most of the time we don't need a new law. Then again Time tends to be biased on a lot of issues.
-
Do you believe that I have no rights to the images that I capture, simply because I do business on the internet?
I believe you have all the rights in the world to that for the record and I did some research into copyright law today because another photog rubbed my nose in my ignorance of it or, shall I say, the changes in it since I had to deal with copyright. *edit didn't read far enough down... good to know you're low res and watermarking Dave.
Here's a way I 'think' SOPA and PIPA could even potentially harm the AH boards. We've all seen pages scanned from books posted here. The way I understand it if the books creator or copyright owner was made aware of this the site could POTENTIALLY be blacklisted. That's the kind of stuff that bugs me about the potential breadth and scope of government interference with the internet.
-
I believe you have all the rights in the world to that for the record and I did some research into copyright law today because another photog rubbed my nose in my ignorance of it or, shall I say, the changes in it since I had to deal with copyright. *edit didn't read far enough down... good to know you're low res and watermarking Dave.
Here's a way I 'think' SOPA and PIPA could even potentially harm the AH boards. We've all seen pages scanned from books posted here. The way I understand it if the books creator or copyright owner was made aware of this the site could POTENTIALLY be blacklisted. That's the kind of stuff that bugs me about the potential breadth and scope of government interference with the internet.
Ya, I do everything I can to make the images on my website as useless as possible to the guys who think that it's ok to take them and use them as long as it is only for their personal use. That concept is pure BS, in my opinion.
Honestly, SOPA/PIPA could potentially harm the AH Boards. There is all kinds of material posted up here that certainly is an infringement on a copyright somewhere. I don't feel that it is the government's place to "blacklist" and then block a site without some form of due process.
But that said, the copyrights still exists and there is a great deal of intellectual property getting used around here without permission. That bothers me too, because I live on the other side of that story most of the time.
I don't know what the answer.
-
Me neither bro. FYI Megaupload just got shut down.
-
We use Copyright Warnings on our web sites. The phrase, "Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited by law" appears all over my web site.
Here's something for you to ponder. Under the SOPA intent if you took a photo that contained say a frame or poster from a movie that I owned the rights too, and that was in the background of the image - I could complain that you infringed on my rights and have your website take down. There would be no due process, your website would be down until such time as the dispute was resolved.
If your website was hosted offshore I could block people getting to that website. How do you feel about that possibility?
Once again I re-iterated, as a photographer I cannot see how the SOPA or PIPA laws would help stop people 'stealing' your work.
-
Here's something for you to ponder. Under the SOPA intent if you took a photo that contained say a frame or poster from a movie that I owned the rights too, and that was in the background of the image - I could complain that you infringed on my rights and have your website take down. There would be no due process, your website would be down until such time as the dispute was resolved.
If your website was hosted offshore I could block people getting to that website. How do you feel about that possibility?
Once again I re-iterated, as a photographer I cannot see how the SOPA or PIPA laws would help stop people 'stealing' your work.
Once again I will tell you... Again... That I have not read SOPA/PIPA, and under no circumstance should you take anything I have said in this thread or anywhere else as support for SOPA/PIPA.... Again...
My beef is with all those people who don't get that it is wrong to take my work and use it without my permission, even if they are only going to use it in the privacy of their own home for their own personal use. It is wrong.
Just for the record, your poster in the background is a very sketchy claim of infringement anyway. Unless the poster in the background can be proven to constitute a "substantial" part of the photograph and not merely incidental, you would have little to no luck claiming infringement. In my case, I hold press credentials. In the purpose of reporting and recording news, it doesn't matter what is in the background. :D
Press credentials are great for all kinds of things. I haven't paid to get into a college level (or under) sporting event for 15 years. And that includes Division 1 sports.
-
Just for the record, your poster in the background is a very sketchy claim of infringement anyway. Unless the poster in the background can be proven to constitute a "substantial" part of the photograph and not merely incidental, you would have little to no luck claiming infringement. In my case, I hold press credentials. In the purpose of reporting and recording news, it doesn't matter what is in the background. :D
Well, you don't get it, under SOPA-PIPA it wouldn't matter if it's substantial or not, neither would matter your credentials. You'd be offline until you could prove you're not infringing copyright.
-
Well, you don't get it, under SOPA-PIPA it wouldn't matter if it's substantial or not, neither would matter your credentials. You'd be offline until you could prove you're not infringing copyright.
You guys aren't getting that I don't support SOPA/PIPA and never throughout any of this conversation have I supported SOPA/PIPA. I got what he was trying to say, it simply is not consequential to what I have been trying to say this entire time.
I do believe, you can read early in this thread where I said that any short circuiting of due process would be bad...
-
Once again I will tell you... Again... That I have not read SOPA/PIPA, and under no circumstance should you take anything I have said in this thread or anywhere else as support for SOPA/PIPA.... Again...
My beef is with all those people who don't get that it is wrong to take my work and use it without my permission, even if they are only going to use it in the privacy of their own home for their own personal use. It is wrong.
Just for the record, your poster in the background is a very sketchy claim of infringement anyway. Unless the poster in the background can be proven to constitute a "substantial" part of the photograph and not merely incidental, you would have little to no luck claiming infringement. In my case, I hold press credentials. In the purpose of reporting and recording news, it doesn't matter what is in the background. :D
Press credentials are great for all kinds of things. I haven't paid to get into a college level (or under) sporting event for 15 years. And that includes Division 1 sports.
Can I get a copy of one of those credentials? ;) :D
-
You guys aren't getting that I don't support SOPA/PIPA and never throughout any of this conversation have I supported SOPA/PIPA. I got what he was trying to say, it simply is not consequential to what I have been trying to say this entire time.
I do believe, you can read early in this thread where I said that any short circuiting of due process would be bad...
So what are you asking for then?
imho you will never stop misuse of your content. That is a fact of life you deal with, just like all retailers accept 'shrinkage' (aka shoplifting) will always occur - they can do things through regular legal channels to minimize the impact (plus there are some website smarts you can do to stop casual copiers). The web has it's pro's and con's, if you don't like people copying pasting from your website take your website down.
-
A bit deeper view and discussion on the matter. Everyone gets their opinion, this is worth considering.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/internet-regulation-the-economics-of-piracy/
Boo
-
Why is that?
because reddit is like a bunch of 2 year olds who parents wont buy them a candy bar at the store.