Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Image Copyright Question
Options
Comments
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »No. Stop putting words in my mouth. :mad:
As I've said before, the price of ANY product is based on the cost of research and development plus the cost of duplication, combined with what the average sales might be (in order to recoup that) and what the market will bear.
Microsoft Office - for example - costs about €200. You can be damn sure that that cost is an average, because otherwise the cost would be a few million.
Yes, I've an objection to someone charging €800 for something that could (based on the other 3 criteria) be sold for €600.
But if €600 is a fair price based on the time and effort put in, averaged out so that the projected sales cover those costs plus the "rainy day" bit , then that's the fair price.
How much is Linux worth? HTTP? The JPEG standard?
Putting a lot of effort into something doesn't automatically imbue it with worth.Liam Byrne wrote: »Oh FFS! You're just attempting to muddy the f**king waters now.:rolleyes:
Go start another thread about whether a "single use" policy should cover the media something is delivered on, etc, or the pros and cons of a "fair use" policy - it's a different topic.
THIS thread is about using something that you HAVEN'T PAID FOR. AT ALL.
I don't need to start another thread, I'm well aware of the mechanics of the law in this regard. You haven't paid for the right to rip CDs and use them as you please AT ALL.
The fact that you're trying to rationalize your own behaviour and insist that intellectual property law applies as it suits you show the depths of your own hypocrisy and willingness to maintain double standards to fit your own desires.Liam Byrne wrote: »EDIT : In fact, your argument in relation to that is THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what's being discussed, because it comes under the debate that if you've paid for the delivery medium, then you're entitled to use what you paid for (the CD).
You're saying no, in an attempt to undermine my credibility.
Ironically, if you're saying that that doesn't apply, then you're killing lucideer's argument that - having paid for internet access (the delivery mechanism) he's entitled to grab whatever he wants.
I'm not making a moral judgement about your behaviour with regard to intellectual property, I'm just demonstrating that you mightn't be quite as righteous as you would have us believe.0 -
I don't need to start another thread, I'm well aware of the mechanics of the law in this regard. You haven't paid for the right to rip CDs and use them as you please AT ALL.
The fact that you're trying to rationalize your own behaviour and insist that intellectual property law applies as it suits you show the depths of your own hypocrisy and willingness to maintain double standards to fit your own desires.
Firstly, the word is "rationalise".
The fact that you are throwing out phrases like "the depths of your own hypocrisy" shows the agenda that you are attempting, and it's not going to work.
If you buy a software CD, you're entitled to one backup copy. In many cases, you're entitled to install it more than once, as long as you only use one copy at a time. You've paid for it so that you can use it.
Whether or not music comes under that has changed - even by RIAA regulations - a number of times.
But the important point - and the one you're choosing to ignore, despite it being a key part of this thread - is that IT'S BEEN PAID FOR.
That is NOWHERE NEAR the same as not paying for (i.e. stealing) it, or passing copies on to mates.0 -
So because it takes time, money, skill and effort to say... reproduce or copy a watch you bought from the jewellers, it's ok. But because you can reproduce software with the click of a button it's not ok. So as far as I can tell you believe that because it's so easy - it's wrong.Liam Byrne wrote: »If you invest in tools and spend ages RECREATING something that happens to be practically THE SAME, having examined and dismantled it then that's not a major problem for me.
But hitting a button to copy it IS. You've done NO WORK. Why should you be rewarded ?
So... take a CD. If I were to (a) spend time and energy writing some CD ripping software myself, from scratch so that I could use it to copy and redistribute CDs, or (b) buy CD ripping software (i.e. time, money, skill, effort spent reproducing), then by your logic above that would be OK?
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, honestly, but that's all I can surmise from what you've said above. It's the lack of effort pressing the "copy" button that makes it wrong in your view.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, the word is "rationalise".
Google doesn't think so, Firefox's EN-GB spell checker didn't alert me to my mistake, Wiktionary makes no mention of an alternate spelling. Was it really worth an attempt to call me out?Liam Byrne wrote: »The fact that you are throwing out phrases like "the depths of your own hypocrisy" shows the agenda that you are attempting, and it's not going to work.
What agenda am I attempting, or do you consider advocacy of rational discussion an "agenda"?Liam Byrne wrote: »If you buy a software CD, you're entitled to one backup copy. In many cases, you're entitled to install it more than once, as long as you only use one copy at a time. You've paid for it so that you can use it.
Whether or not music comes under that has changed - even by RIAA regulations - a number of times.
The RIAA has no jurisdiction here, the clue is in the name of the organisation. There is a concept of "fair use" that is enshrined in American intellectual property law, we have no equivalent provisons.Liam Byrne wrote: »But the important point - and the one you're choosing to ignore, despite it being a key part of this thread - is that IT'S BEEN PAID FOR.
So it's OK for someone to pay for the lowest resolution image on a stock photography website and then use a higher resolution copy of it because "it's been paid for".Liam Byrne wrote: »That is NOWHERE NEAR the same as not paying for (i.e. stealing) it, or passing copies on to mates.
What if our protagonist had bought the item in question before "passing copies on to mates", would that be OK because "it's been paid for"?So because it takes time, money, skill and effort to say... reproduce or copy a watch you bought from the jewellers, it's ok. But because you can reproduce software with the click of a button it's not ok. So as far as I can tell you believe that because it's so easy - it's wrong.
So... take a CD. If I were to (a) spend time and energy writing some CD ripping software myself, from scratch so that I could use it to copy and redistribute CDs, or (b) buy CD ripping software (i.e. time, money, skill, effort spent reproducing), then by your logic above that would be OK?
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, honestly, but that's all I can surmise from what you've said above. It's the lack of effort pressing the "copy" button that makes it wrong in your view.
I, too, would like to know at what difficulty level actions that you would otherwise consider theft become acceptable due to the amount of effort required to perform them.0 -
Do you think, after a studio has invested possibly millions of euro in producing a film they hope to make a profit on, that if someone copies the film and posts it online that you should be allowed to download and view or redistribute this film freely? Do you honestly see nothing wrong with this? I wasn't asking for the Pirate Parties view I was asking for yours.This is an interesting example to bring up. You may or may not be familiar with the Swedish Piratpartiet
Whether your first copy is legally obtained or not is irrelevant. You should not be (and are not) allowed to copy the watch either. The designers have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with a design that is popular, a design that people are willing to pay for. A design they want control over. It is their creation and surely they are entitled to that?Yes, there is an enormous difference. I shouldn't be allowed to do that, but I SHOULD be allowed to go into the jewellers, BUY a watch, and either create copies and sell the copies, or simply sell on the watch itself, or even to dismantle it and sell on the gold/whatever (see the recent "Gold Party" trend). Those are more equivalent to your digital example as the product must first be legally obtained before it can then be re-distributed.
If anyone is allowed to freely copy designs or indeed any intellectual properties for that matter, then these properties become worthless. Now how many films, albums, novels do you think will be produced in the future if this pirate party or people like you and charybdis have your way? How many TV channels do you think we'd have?
The premiership survives on TV rights. Lets say I'm legally allowed record and rebroadcast matches. Do you think anyone would pay for SKY Sports when they can watch it for free on my channel? Sky sports collapses - nobody pays for worthless TV rights - Premiership collapses. F1, the golf, World Cup... all the same. They all rely on someone paying a fee to view the product.
What the pirate bay are doing is illegal, or rather what their users are doing. For this reason many people will stay away from it. Many millions of people do not try to download music from these sources because they know it to be illegal. Now let's say tomorrow the law is changed and suddenly anyone can copy any design or work and pay no fee to the creator of that work. Overnight the Music and Film have lost all their income. How many films do you think they would make next year.
If I take the time and effort to create an image, you like this image and you want to use this image for your own means, can you give me a single good reason why you should be freely allowed to do so? I doubt it.
You say you are a web designer. I presume you charge a fee for this work. How would you feel if I copy your work and tell your customer to cancel the cheque as I'll sell your work to them for half the price or totally free maybe?
You obviously have your reasons for having the opinion you do but I think if you understood the repercussions of these opinions in action you might decide that things are actually better the way they are.0 -
Advertisement
-
There shouldn't be. Where did I say there should. There is not distinction between the creators of the respective products. If I buy a table from a carpenter, I take it home, examine the work closely, learn how it's put together, buy some wood and make another table - am I breaking the law? There is no distinction. That's MY point. You're the one arguing there should be a distinction.
.
There is a distinction. You're making another table. It's not the same table. It has an inherent value due to the time and effort involved in creating it. And duplicating it isn't going to (greatly) adversely affect the value of the original table.
Copying a digital image is different. If you can instantly make unlimited copies of it at no cost, then you're rendering the original worthless. Hence the need for the owner to determine what rights they're willing to grant. If
(If you could duplicate a table at will, with no effort, then the same would apply to the table. On the other hand, if you duplicate any physical items at will it wouldn't really matter, since there'd be no need for an economy.)
It basically boils down to, what is the image? If you think of it as just the arrangement of electrons that one particular copy consists of, then copying it doesn't affect it. But it's not - it has a value beyond that.
By your logic, if you duplicate a 50 euro note you should be able to legally spend it, since it has no value beyond its constituent elements - it's irrelevant that it has a defined representative value.Congratulations, you have broken the law and violated the principles of copyright you hold so dear.
There is no provision made in Irish law for the duplication of digital media (such as CDs). What you, in effect, had bought, was a limited license to use the CD in CD players that had adhered to the CD standard license. Copying the media for use on alternate devices violates the license of your use of the CD. You are stealing. How is this different to you "stealing a watch"? If you wish to listen to the music you ripped from CDs you legitimately own, you should purchase the tracks from a digital music retailer that specifically allows the use of their media on (a limited number of and technically arbitrary) computers and other devices.
I wasn't attempting to insult you or perform a character assassination, I just wanted to see if you were a hypocrite.
Wow, ad hominem agruments, way to argue your case!0 -
If that "someone" has legally obtained the film by purchasing it - with the studio profiting from that purchase, then yes. Why on earth not?after a studio has invested possibly millions of euro in producing a film they hope to make a profit on, that if someone copies the film and posts it online that you should be allowed to download and view or redistribute this film freely?
Let me guess: because the purpose of films is to make the studio money, not to provide people with entertainment? If this is your answer, I have already covered this profit-over-user-benefit centric view above.
Why? Again you're putting the sellers entitlement over the buyers - the seller should be providing for the buyer not the opposite. You seem to believe customers exist to provide businesses with business. This is backwards - businesses exist to provide customers with products.Whether your first copy is legally obtained or not is irrelevant. You should not be (and are not) allowed to copy the watch either. The designers have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with a design that is popular, a design that people are willing to pay for. A design they want control over. It is their creation and surely they are entitled to that?
Tons. Vastly more than we have now. The reason we have so few is because intellectual property makes the market next to impossible to enter as is and monopolies reign. TV rights are sold at billions - how on earth do you expect an independent entrant into the TV market to compete. Removal of that barrier would provide unending diversity in the market.Now how many films, albums, novels do you think will be produced in the future if this pirate party or people like you and charybdis have your way? How many TV channels do you think we'd have?
As for albums, Bono, and Jagger would lose out somewhat admittedly, while the likes of Glyder and Jape would actually be able to afford recording time not tied up by contracts with IP bandying RIAA affiliate monopolies.
Sorry but that whole statement is hilarious. Did I actually see "premiership" and "survive" in the same sentence? Do you honestly need me to tell you what's wrong with what you just said there?The premiership survives on TV rights. Lets say I'm legally allowed record and rebroadcast matches. Do you think anyone would pay for SKY Sports when they can watch it for free on my channel? Sky sports collapses - nobody pays for worthless TV rights - Premiership collapses.
Time Warner, Universal, Sony, etc. would lose a lot of income overnight. This is the very reason they're fighting the PirateBay tooth and nail. However you do not say "these specific enormous multinationals have lost their income" - you say "the Music and Film have lost their income". I'm not too sure what you mean by "the Music and Film", but if you're referring to all musical artists and film producers - trust me when I tell you the vast majority of musicians and filmmakers are not affiliated to the RIAA or the MPAA or any equivalent regional groups such as IRMA. And the vast majority of musicians and filmmakers would benefit a lot more from the absence of those groups, than it could ever possibly benefit from stopping online filesharing.Overnight the Music and Film have lost all their income. How many films do you think they would make next year.
How would you obtain a copy of my work? If you have not purchased it from me, I can only surmised that you somehow hacked into my computer/server and stole it. This is stealing. If you bought it off me, then you are free to tell my customer to cancel my cheque and sell it to them for half the price or totally free if you like.You say you are a web designer. I presume you charge a fee for this work. How would you feel if I copy your work and tell your customer to cancel the cheque as I'll sell your work to them for half the price or totally free maybe?
Redistribution is what I'm saying is ok to do. The product must still be obtained legally in the first place before you can redistribute it though.0 -
-
Yes Lucideer to make money. Believe it or not that is basis on which most businesses are founded. Wrongly or rightly - it's a fact. If they can't make money they cease to exist. If they don't exist then their produce also won't exist. I don't know how we're going to have "vastly more" TV channels showing programmes that don't exist or do you think the open-source community is going to provide them for free too? The large sporting events, yes including the premiership, heavily rely on these TV rights to exist. No TV rights - No sporting event. It's really not that hard to understand.If that "someone" has legally obtained the film by purchasing it - with the studio profiting from that purchase, then yes. Why on earth not?
Let me guess: because the purpose of films is to make the studio money, not to provide people with entertainment? If this is your answer, I have already covered this profit-over-user-benefit centric view above.
It's all well and good for these morons to vote in the likes of the Pirate Party thinking it will be great to be legally allowed to share films but what are they going to do when there's no new films to share? You may laugh at that thought but that is the inevitable outcome of legal movie sharing. Who's going to pay for it if they can legally get it for free? How are the studios going to make money? They aren't. And as I said, studios that don't make money, don't make movies.
Over and out.0 -
the seller should be providing for the buyer not the opposite. You seem to believe customers exist to provide businesses with business. This is backwards - businesses exist to provide customers with products.
I 100% agree, but a "customer" is someone who pays for a product. Therefore, by your own statement, the seller has no obligation to provide for others who haven't paid.The product must still be obtained legally in the first place before you can redistribute it though.
Aside from the fact that this completely contradicts what was said earlier re copying an image without buying it - i.e. obtaining it illegally - you are muddying the water.
You can "legally" redistribute the original. You can sell a book to a second-hand shop, or sell a car to a garage as a trade-in.
The issue isn't REDISTRIBUTING the original that you bought - it's redistributing illegal copies. If one person legally obtains a product, paying for it, they can sell it on if they wish, but they cannot sell COPIES of it.So it's OK for someone to pay for the lowest resolution image on a stock photography website and then use a higher resolution copy of it because "it's been paid for".
You might think so, but I never said anything even REMOTELY to that effect.
Ripping a CD is actually the reverse, because the "copy" is a LOWER resolution copy - so if someone pays for a higher resolution and then ends up using a lower resolution, then that's OK by me, and probably by any photographer.
But implying that I came even remotely close to suggesting that the reverse is applicable is a figment of your imagination.
As a matter of interest, why did you phrase it that way around (buying the lower res and using the higher) ? Why didn't you suggest the ACTUAL equivalent, instead of trying to imply that I suggested the above ?
Also - for the record - you can't upscale an image like that; increasing the size of a low-res copy gives you a larger low-res copyWhat if our protagonist had bought the item in question before "passing copies on to mates", would that be OK because "it's been paid for"?
Again, I don't even see how that question is relevant, because firstly the thread is about stealing a copy, not buying it, and secondly my answer would be obvious to anyone with half a brain from my posts.
If someone hasn't paid the photographer/developer/designer for it, then they're not entitled to it. PERIOD. In the above scenario, either the "mates" would be the equivalent of someone stealing it from a website, or the protagonist would be a "pirater".0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you think, after a studio has invested possibly millions of euro in producing a film they hope to make a profit on, that if someone copies the film and posts it online that you should be allowed to download and view or redistribute this film freely? Do you honestly see nothing wrong with this? I wasn't asking for the Pirate Parties view I was asking for yours.
Whether your first copy is legally obtained or not is irrelevant. You should not be (and are not) allowed to copy the watch either. The designers have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with a design that is popular, a design that people are willing to pay for. A design they want control over. It is their creation and surely they are entitled to that?
If anyone is allowed to freely copy designs or indeed any intellectual properties for that matter, then these properties become worthless. Now how many films, albums, novels do you think will be produced in the future if this pirate party or people like you and charybdis have your way?
You seem to think the only possible purpose behind create endeavour is to license the materials produced for profit. How familiar are you with the average deal a record company has with an artist with regards to sharing revenue from said artist's sales? The major record labels aren't interested in supporting an artist that they do not believe can support their business model and comfortably turn a profit for them in a relatively short space of time. Do you think this will endear them to culturally important artists who mightn't be fully appreciated in their own time?
Similarly, if a film is aired on a television channel I am legally permitted to receive, what is the difference between me going to the trouble of making a digital copy of the transmitted material versus downloading an equivalent set of data? If your answer is "the amount of effort involved", I suggest you rethink your argument.Woohoo! Unending diversity! And thus we drown in a sea of unlimited mediocrity.
Ah yes, because we have achieved the zenith of creative possibility with our current system.How many TV channels do you think we'd have?
Another excellent metric of available quality material.Liam Byrne wrote: »You might think so, but I never said anything even REMOTELY to that effect.
Ripping a CD is actually the reverse, because the "copy" is a LOWER resolution copy - so if someone pays for a higher resolution and then ends up using a lower resolution, then that's OK by me, and probably by any photographer.
But implying that I came even remotely close to suggesting that the reverse is applicable is a figment of your imagination.
As a matter of interest, why did you phrase it that way around (buying the lower res and using the higher) ? Why didn't you suggest the ACTUAL equivalent, instead of trying to imply that I suggested the above ?
My point was that you consider yourself entitled to use whatever format you choose for the material you've purchased a very limited limited license for but deny any other form of copyright infringement. Or do you think it's acceptable to make mp3 copies of CDs because of lossy compression?Liam Byrne wrote: »Also - for the record - you can't upscale an image like that; increasing the size of a low-res copy gives you a larger low-res copy
Really now? Who'uld'a thunk it?Liam Byrne wrote: »I 100% agree, but a "customer" is someone who pays for a product. Therefore, by your own statement, the seller has no obligation to provide for others who haven't paid.
Aside from the fact that this completely contradicts what was said earlier re copying an image without buying it - i.e. obtaining it illegally - you are muddying the water.
You can "legally" redistribute the original. You can sell a book to a second-hand shop, or sell a car to a garage as a trade-in.
Actually, under our current intellectual property law, a software provider can prevent the resale of a product by their licensing agreement. In fact, there is potentially a good case to be made against the resale of CDs and other forms of media on grounds of implicit licensing agreements. "Ownership" in this case is not as clear-cut as you seem to believe.Liam Byrne wrote: »The issue isn't REDISTRIBUTING the original that you bought - it's redistributing illegal copies. If one person legally obtains a product, paying for it, they can sell it on if they wish, but they cannot sell COPIES of it.
If one were to buy a license to downloadble software, how would you define a "copy"? If I wish to sell software I have bought a license for, how do I provide an "original" copy to a prospective buyer?Liam Byrne wrote: »If someone hasn't paid the photographer/developer/designer for it, then they're not entitled to it. PERIOD. In the above scenario, either the "mates" would be the equivalent of someone stealing it from a website, or the protagonist would be a "pirater".
How does this scenario treat gifts? If I decide I am no longer interested in using a piece of intellectual property for which I have bought a license, is offering it freely to another party the same as stealing?The premiership survives on TV rights. Lets say I'm legally allowed record and rebroadcast matches. Do you think anyone would pay for SKY Sports when they can watch it for free on my channel? Sky sports collapses - nobody pays for worthless TV rights - Premiership collapses. F1, the golf, World Cup... all the same. They all rely on someone paying a fee to view the product.
I was not aware that society's primary role was to preserve the financial viability of the Premiership and other sporting events. This explains why one is forbidden from bringing a camera to sporting events, lest you diminish the importance of watching a high-quality live feed of an event, when you can just watch some guy's rebroadcast some time later. Clearly the majority of sports fans are amenable to the deferred experience of events.What the pirate bay are doing is illegal, or rather what their users are doing.
A point sorely missed by the judge in their trial.For this reason many people will stay away from it.
They have a choice and their decision is legitimate and nobody can reasonably reprimand them for it.Many millions of people do not try to download music from these sources because they know it to be illegal.
Many millions of people do; sheer numbers is not grounds for rational argument.Now let's say tomorrow the law is changed and suddenly anyone can copy any design or work and pay no fee to the creator of that work. Overnight the Music and Film have lost all their income.
You could argue the point that the music and film industries have lost all their income, lost income relative to the amounts required to sustain their outmoded business models of repeatedly reselling the same content to the same users in different formats every 10-15 years.How many films do you think they would make next year.
How many films do you think get made per year without regard to extreme profit or large financial gain?If I take the time and effort to create an image, you like this image and you want to use this image for your own means, can you give me a single good reason why you should be freely allowed to do so? I doubt it.
Because you've been dead 70 years?You say you are a web designer. I presume you charge a fee for this work. How would you feel if I copy your work and tell your customer to cancel the cheque as I'll sell your work to them for half the price or totally free maybe?
How, pray tell, would you have accessed my work in advance of delivery and payment from my client? How is what you're suggesting any different than underbidding a competitor for a project?There is a distinction. You're making another table. It's not the same table. It has an inherent value due to the time and effort involved in creating it. And duplicating it isn't going to (greatly) adversely affect the value of the original table.
Copying a digital image is different. If you can instantly make unlimited copies of it at no cost, then you're rendering the original worthless. Hence the need for the owner to determine what rights they're willing to grant. If
(If you could duplicate a table at will, with no effort, then the same would apply to the table. On the other hand, if you duplicate any physical items at will it wouldn't really matter, since there'd be no need for an economy.)
Again, effort does not imbue a product with worth. If I were to purchase a table from a carpenter and make effortlessly made perfect copies freely available, would you feel differently?It basically boils down to, what is the image? If you think of it as just the arrangement of electrons that one particular copy consists of, then copying it doesn't affect it. But it's not - it has a value beyond that.
Do you think that if I performed a hexdump of an image, transcribed the data by hand and passed the resultant binary though a JPEG interpreter that I would have legitimate cause to call the image my own, because of the effort involved or otherwise?By your logic, if you duplicate a 50 euro note you should be able to legally spend it, since it has no value beyond its constituent elements - it's irrelevant that it has a defined representative value.
Currency is a legally enforced abstract concept, it only has worth when enough parties agree it does. The Department of Finance "duplicates" 50 Euro notes all the time.Wow, ad hominem arguments, way to argue your case!
It wasn't an ad-hominem attack, I was interested in seeing how strongly someone's purported adherence to intellectual properly law influenced their non-commercial existence; and besides, it would be far from the first or only ad hominem attack in this thread if it were one.Liam Byrne wrote: »my answer would be obvious to anyone with half a brain from my posts.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9642
Sorry could ya repeat that :rolleyes:0 -
Sorry could ya repeat that :rolleyes:Do you think, after a studio has invested possibly millions of euro in producing a film they hope to make a profit on, that if someone copies the film and posts it online that you should be allowed to download and view or redistribute this film freely? Do you honestly see nothing wrong with this? I wasn't asking for the Pirate Parties view I was asking for yours.
Whether your first copy is legally obtained or not is irrelevant. You should not be (and are not) allowed to copy the watch either. The designers have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with a design that is popular, a design that people are willing to pay for. A design they want control over. It is their creation and surely they are entitled to that?
If anyone is allowed to freely copy designs or indeed any intellectual properties for that matter, then these properties become worthless. Now how many films, albums, novels do you think will be produced in the future if this pirate party or people like you and charybdis have your way?
You seem to think the only possible purpose behind create endeavour is to license the materials produced for profit. How familiar are you with the average deal a record company has with an artist with regards to sharing revenue from said artist's sales? The major record labels aren't interested in supporting an artist that they do not believe can support their business model and comfortably turn a profit for them in a relatively short space of time. Do you think this will endear them to culturally important artists who mightn't be fully appreciated in their own time?
Similarly, if a film is aired on a television channel I am legally permitted to receive, what is the difference between me going to the trouble of making a digital copy of the transmitted material versus downloading an equivalent set of data? If your answer is "the amount of effort involved", I suggest you rethink your argument.Woohoo! Unending diversity! And thus we drown in a sea of unlimited mediocrity.
Ah yes, because we have achieved the zenith of creative possibility with our current system.How many TV channels do you think we'd have?
Another excellent metric of available quality material.Liam Byrne wrote: »You might think so, but I never said anything even REMOTELY to that effect.
Ripping a CD is actually the reverse, because the "copy" is a LOWER resolution copy - so if someone pays for a higher resolution and then ends up using a lower resolution, then that's OK by me, and probably by any photographer.
But implying that I came even remotely close to suggesting that the reverse is applicable is a figment of your imagination.
As a matter of interest, why did you phrase it that way around (buying the lower res and using the higher) ? Why didn't you suggest the ACTUAL equivalent, instead of trying to imply that I suggested the above ?
My point was that you consider yourself entitled to use whatever format you choose for the material you've purchased a very limited limited license for but deny any other form of copyright infringement. Or do you think it's acceptable to make mp3 copies of CDs because of lossy compression?Liam Byrne wrote: »Also - for the record - you can't upscale an image like that; increasing the size of a low-res copy gives you a larger low-res copy
Really now? Who'uld'a thunk it?Liam Byrne wrote: »I 100% agree, but a "customer" is someone who pays for a product. Therefore, by your own statement, the seller has no obligation to provide for others who haven't paid.
Aside from the fact that this completely contradicts what was said earlier re copying an image without buying it - i.e. obtaining it illegally - you are muddying the water.
You can "legally" redistribute the original. You can sell a book to a second-hand shop, or sell a car to a garage as a trade-in.
Actually, under our current intellectual property law, a software provider can prevent the resale of a product by their licensing agreement. In fact, there is potentially a good case to be made against the resale of CDs and other forms of media on grounds of implicit licensing agreements. "Ownership" in this case is not as clear-cut as you seem to believe.Liam Byrne wrote: »The issue isn't REDISTRIBUTING the original that you bought - it's redistributing illegal copies. If one person legally obtains a product, paying for it, they can sell it on if they wish, but they cannot sell COPIES of it.
If one were to buy a license to downloadble software, how would you define a "copy"? If I wish to sell software I have bought a license for, how do I provide an "original" copy to a prospective buyer?Liam Byrne wrote: »If someone hasn't paid the photographer/developer/designer for it, then they're not entitled to it. PERIOD. In the above scenario, either the "mates" would be the equivalent of someone stealing it from a website, or the protagonist would be a "pirater".
How does this scenario treat gifts? If I decide I am no longer interested in using a piece of intellectual property for which I have bought a license, is offering it freely to another party the same as stealing?The premiership survives on TV rights. Lets say I'm legally allowed record and rebroadcast matches. Do you think anyone would pay for SKY Sports when they can watch it for free on my channel? Sky sports collapses - nobody pays for worthless TV rights - Premiership collapses. F1, the golf, World Cup... all the same. They all rely on someone paying a fee to view the product.
I was not aware that society's primary role was to preserve the financial viability of the Premiership and other sporting events. This explains why one is forbidden from bringing a camera to sporting events, lest you diminish the importance of watching a high-quality live feed of an event, when you can just watch some guy's rebroadcast some time later. Clearly the majority of sports fans are amenable to the deferred experience of events.What the pirate bay are doing is illegal, or rather what their users are doing.
A point sorely missed by the judge in their trial.For this reason many people will stay away from it.
They have a choice and their decision is legitimate and nobody can reasonably reprimand them for it.Many millions of people do not try to download music from these sources because they know it to be illegal.
Many millions of people do; sheer numbers is not grounds for rational argument.Now let's say tomorrow the law is changed and suddenly anyone can copy any design or work and pay no fee to the creator of that work. Overnight the Music and Film have lost all their income.
You could argue the point that the music and film industries have lost all their income, lost income relative to the amounts required to sustain their outmoded business models of repeatedly reselling the same content to the same users in different formats every 10-15 years.How many films do you think they would make next year.
How many films do you think get made per year without regard to extreme profit or large financial gain?If I take the time and effort to create an image, you like this image and you want to use this image for your own means, can you give me a single good reason why you should be freely allowed to do so? I doubt it.
Because you've been dead 70 years?You say you are a web designer. I presume you charge a fee for this work. How would you feel if I copy your work and tell your customer to cancel the cheque as I'll sell your work to them for half the price or totally free maybe?
How, pray tell, would you have accessed my work in advance of delivery and payment from my client? How is what you're suggesting any different than underbidding a competitor for a project?There is a distinction. You're making another table. It's not the same table. It has an inherent value due to the time and effort involved in creating it. And duplicating it isn't going to (greatly) adversely affect the value of the original table.
Copying a digital image is different. If you can instantly make unlimited copies of it at no cost, then you're rendering the original worthless. Hence the need for the owner to determine what rights they're willing to grant. If
(If you could duplicate a table at will, with no effort, then the same would apply to the table. On the other hand, if you duplicate any physical items at will it wouldn't really matter, since there'd be no need for an economy.)
Again, effort does not imbue a product with worth. If I were to purchase a table from a carpenter and make effortlessly made perfect copies freely available, would you feel differently?It basically boils down to, what is the image? If you think of it as just the arrangement of electrons that one particular copy consists of, then copying it doesn't affect it. But it's not - it has a value beyond that.
Do you think that if I performed a hexdump of an image, transcribed the data by hand and passed the resultant binary though a JPEG interpreter that I would have legitimate cause to call the image my own, because of the effort involved or otherwise?By your logic, if you duplicate a 50 euro note you should be able to legally spend it, since it has no value beyond its constituent elements - it's irrelevant that it has a defined representative value.
Currency is a legally enforced abstract concept, it only has worth when enough parties agree it does. The Department of Finance "duplicates" 50 Euro notes all the time.Wow, ad hominem arguments, way to argue your case!
It wasn't an ad-hominem attack, I was interested in seeing how strongly someone's purported adherence to intellectual properly law influenced their non-commercial existence; and besides, it would be far from the first or only ad hominem attack in this thread if it were one.Liam Byrne wrote: »my answer would be obvious to anyone with half a brain from my posts.0 -
I think we've gone way beyond the scope of "Web development and design" here.0
-
I think we've gone way beyond the scope of "Web development and design" here.
Yup, and miles away from the original question re stealing an image from another site, too!
Bottom line is that for images on a site, you have 3 options :
1) Buy stock images from a photographer, or somewhere like iStockPhoto
2) Organise your own photoshoot with a photographer
3) Take the pics yourself
And if you can't manage to do #3 and "recreate" the image that you want, it should then become obvious that you're paying for talent and expertise with options #1 & #2, and not just for a copy of a digital file.0 -
And on that note...
Its a worthwhile discussion, but one that might be better had on the Computers and Technology forum, or the Digital Rights forum.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement