David-Thomas wrote:
One must ask why hotlinking an image should be OK, but uploading the same image to imageshack and posting it should attract criminal penalties.

Sure, you can draw a distinction, but there isn't really a difference.

Why must one ask if copying for redistribution is a violation of copyright laws?

HJM Photography wrote:

Yah--because property rights and natural rights and Immutable Natural Law have all drastically changed since the 1980s and big-hair metal bands!

Stop wasting your time being sarcastic, and go fill out a trade mark application.

exartica wrote:
Why must one ask if copying for redistribution is a violation of copyright laws?

The issue isn't whether it's in violation of the law - it's whether it should be in violation of the law. This is a normative discussion. Any fool can state what the law is. It takes intelligence to question it.

Rebel Photo wrote:
Martin Bielecki , you sir, just don't get it!
1. Viewing is legal, no one is objecting to that.
2. Copying is not!

there, see how easy that was?

again, you're using that word (copy) like it is stuck in a time warp and can never change. That's the old physical paradigm. Whether you make a new copy or use only one, the issue of evading compensation comes down to the VIEWING. it's been acceptable up to now to have a vague (if not non-existant) limit to how much viewing is allowed of a single copy that doesn't constitute infringement.

Monito -- Alan wrote:

Repeating what you've said several times in this thread doesn't make it any truer.

Life is not as simple as particle physics.  There is no over-arching ultra-conspiracy of a few dozen billionaires pulling a few dozen strings.  Such simplistic populist theories should be left out to dry in the prairie dust of the Depression era that spawned them.

dude--read about the billionaire masters of the cloud here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadge … 058&sr=8-1

the dude knows his stuff--jaron lanier coined the term "virtual reality" & helped pioneer it as well as the net

David-Thomas wrote:

Stop wasting your time being sarcastic, and go fill out a trade mark application.

I'm trusting in Natural Law.

HJM Photography wrote:

I'm trusting in Natural Law.

I shall be careful not to call my business HERO'S JOURNEY MYTHOLOGY PHOTOGRAPHY, then.

Not because I'll sound like a complete pillock, but because god might hit me with lightning.

David-Thomas wrote:

The issue isn't whether it's in violation of the law - it's whether it should be in violation of the law. This is a normative discussion. Any fool can state what the law is. It takes intelligence to question it.

Sigh.

The reason why is that they aren't the same thing.  One retains control of distribution with the rights holder, one doesn't.  One is the same as making a photocopy of an interesting photo or article and handing it out to your friends while the other is telling your friends to go to the library or buy a copy of the latest issue to look at an interesting photo or article.

One is copying, one isn't.

HJM Photography wrote:
dude--read about the billionaire masters of the cloud here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadge … 058&sr=8-1

the dude knows his stuff--jaron lanier coined the term "virtual reality" & helped pioneer it as well as the net

I know Jaron.  You are twisting his words.  Please go "dude" yourself.  Jaron is not a "dude"; he's an intelligent thinker who understands way more about this than you do.

David-Thomas wrote:
I shall be careful not to call my business HERO'S JOURNEY MYTHOLOGY PHOTOGRAPHY, then.

Not because I'll sound like a complete pillock, but because god might hit me with lightning.

I generally spend a bit of time establishing a name and making sure nobody else is using it. 

Then, after a solid track record, I register it.

In America we serve the spirit of the law--"the first to use" wins.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK I believe it is whoever has the most money wins, and the King trumps all Law, as God does not exist. Righto?

David-Thomas wrote:

Not because I'll sound like a complete pillock, but because god might hit me with lightning.

Both are acceptable and sane reasons. 

Monito -- Alan wrote:

I know Jaron.  You are twisting his words.  Please go "dude" yourself.  Jaron is not a "dude"; he's an intelligent thinker who understands way more about this than you do.

dude--i just said that jaron knows his stuff.  cool that you know him!  tell him "wassup dude" from Dr. E & keep up the rockin' work!

Martin Bielecki wrote:
I can go to a newsstand and buy a copy of National Geographic. It is a copy I own and can do many things with. I can have it in my home where my family members, friends, and acquaintances can also view it. I can bring it with me to the office and let my coworkers browse it as well. I can decide to leave it in the office reception area where any number of people could look through it. Or I can sell it to someone else for half its cover price and they can look at it and subsequently sell it to someone else, ad infinitum. Not a single person except me contributed financially to the publisher, yet not a single one of us is considered a thief. Why? because viewing has not been considered stealing. With the exception of public performance and republishing, we have never been told that it's an infringement to allow access to information in our possession, within a private domain. This is true of tv, movies, books, music, etc.

except that now anybody can easily make a copy of that magazine and re-distribute it... for free or pay.

was it ever legal to make a recording of a concert performance and sell copies?

sharing is one thing, but when you post to the internet it becomes re-publishing. which you appear to make an exception to your case for.

the music business didn't cave in to this bullshit... why should photographers?

a law was made to address the new world order... they just didn't do a very good job with it, from the creative person's point of view.

HJM Photography wrote:
cool that you know him!  tell him "wassup dude" from Dr. E & keep up the rockin' work!

No, I will not.  I have more respect for him than that.

BeautybyGod wrote:
except that now anybody can easily make a copy of that magazine and re-distribute it... for free or pay.

was it ever legal to make a recording of a concert performance and sell copies?

sharing is one thing, but when you post to the internet it become re-publishing. which you appear to make an exception to your case for.

the music business didn't cave in to this bullshit... why should photographers?

a law was made to address the new world order... they just didn't do a very good job with it, from the creators point of view.

dude--i'm sooooooooo with you.

pretty entertaining to see how many photographers here are against property rights/natural rights and all psyched to work their lives away to enrich a handful of billionaires/masters of the cloud.   perhaps the billionaire-controlled school-system got to them?

reminds me of that pink floyd song:

Did they get you to trade your hero for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cold breeze?
Cold comfort for change? And did you exchange
a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Monito -- Alan wrote:

No, I will not.  I have more respect for him than that.

ok then, will you please tell him

"wassaasasssususususuaassaasssssususususuppp?" from dr. e?

thanx in advance!

HJM Photography wrote:
dude--i'm sooooooooo with you.

pretty entertaining to see how many photographers here are against property rights/natural rights and all psyched to work their lives away to enrich a handful of billionaires/masters of the cloud.   perhaps the billionaire-controlled school-system got to them?

hey! i remember you! from a crazy thread a long long time in a world far away.

ok it was here.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
You can make as many copies of something as you like.  Millions if you like.  You can copy a 1 MB photo and put one million copies of it on a 1 TB drive.  No problemo.  No laws violated.

You just can't sell, lend, give away, rehire, lease or distribute the copies.

Copyright law does not outlaw making copies.  It outlaws publishing copies without permission.

And therein lies the rub. We don't use the new technology as if we were publishers in the old paradigm. How people fundamentally relate to a technology needs to be taken into consideration when making laws about it. When a technology necessitates distribution by its very design then it is changing the outcome of our behavior, without our intention. The intention isn't copying but the technology makes it so.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
Copyright law does not outlaw making copies.  It outlaws publishing copies without permission.

If that's the case, then it's lawful, is it not, for me to email you a copy of 'The King's Speech'. After all, it's just going to you. It's certainly not being published.

BeautybyGod wrote:

hey! i remember you! from a crazy thread a long long time in a world far away.

ok it was here.

Was he peddling his L bracket for a video camera?

Martin Bielecki wrote:
And therein lies the rub. We don't use the new technology as if we were publishers in the old paradigm. How people fundamentally relate to a technology needs to be taken into consideration when making laws about it. When a technology necessitates distribution by its very design then it is changing the outcome of our behavior, without our intention. The intention isn't copying but the technology makes it so.

on the other hand. people can publish their own stuff. not steal somebody else's.

people who can do... people who can't, steal and republish.

and people who facilitate the theft lobby hard for their way of life... and get rich.

David-Thomas wrote:

Was he peddling his L bracket for a video camera?

all i remember is he's well-off, smart and very well-educated.

is that outing? lol

David-Thomas wrote:
If that's the case, then it's lawful, is it not, for me to email you a copy of 'The King's Speech'. After all, it's just going to you. It's certainly not being published.

Did you read the sentence before the one you quoted?  Of course you did.  Apparently, you like to argue just to argue.  Pedantry is rarely becoming.

David-Thomas wrote:
If that's the case, then it's lawful, is it not, for me to email you a copy of 'The King's Speech'. After all, it's just going to you. It's certainly not being published.

Please read what I wrote in full.  I try to write carefully so that careful reading is rewarded.  Technically you would be lending, giving away or distributing the copy, all of which are technically against the law.

Here's part of my post that you excised:

Monito -- Alan wrote:
You just can't sell, lend, give away, rehire, lease or distribute the copies.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
Copyright law does not outlaw making copies.  It outlaws publishing copies without permission.

"That turns out not to be the case"

Examine the history of, say, portrait photographers in the US.

It's a very common misconception, but it IS a MISconception.

HJM Photography wrote:
People, people,

The multi-billion-dollar corporations and billionaire masters of the cloud, who freely copy, index, and profit off your content and creations--all your blood, sweat, and tears--are the ones who are also funding all the hipster lawyers/MBAs/bloggers to tell you that:

1: DRM is dead
2: DRM is broken
3: DRM cannot work
4: DRM is immoral
5: DRM is evil
6: Property Rights for artists are dead
7: Property Rights for artists are  broken
8: Property Rights cannot work
9: Property Rights are  immoral
10: Property Rights are evil

Today newspapers, photography businesses, the music industry, the publishing industry, and bookstores are closing up shop, while a handful of billionaires--who never create any content-are multiplying their billions.



edited for brevity



I gotta admit, the modern-day academy has been quite successful in convincing the general populace just how silly of an idea Natural Rights are.

So correct me if I'm wrong... Your argument is: We should all use DRM to protect our images even though you admit that DRM will not actually prevent piracy. 
To those who argue that DRM will not work you suggest that that's just the billionaires talking.
Is that about right?

David-Thomas wrote:

One must ask why hotlinking an image should be OK, but uploading the same image to imageshack and posting it should attract criminal penalties.

Sure, you can draw a distinction, but there isn't really a difference.

In the former, you are referencing the image on the cretors site. The content of that sight, including copyright notice, etc. comes along for the ride.

In the latter you are "taking" the image for your own purposes and taking it out of the creators intended context.

Can't speak for UK laws but I do not see why you would feel it is appropriate to take an image off someone elses site. It could be construed as you posting it as your own.

Back_Yard wrote:
So there are IMHO two issues at work here.  Technology and perceived worth..  Technology has driven down the price of the perceived worth of various products.  For instance in the music industry when CD come out they were 'worth' $20.  When technology came along to make music more available the perceived worth dropped.  In fact dropped like stone.  Music is worth .15 a track.  When Apple set up ITunes they sold music for .99 - folks were willing to pay not steal at that point. 
At heart we are all capitalists.  If something is selling for more - allot more then it is worth we will either not buy it or if we had the technology we'd steal it if we believe there is no price to pay for that action.   All our actions are based on perceived worth. 
So the way forward is to come up with a striking price that both parities can live with.   Free drives all parities out of the business but a price at or just a tab above the perceived worth makes money for everybody.

This is why I think a lot of people who don't normally steal things feel fine about pirating something like Photoshop. It's so expensive, they don't see purchasing it as an option.

I think one of the bigger issues now is what are they paying for? I think a lot less people are printing images nowadays. A lot of the images they see are on their computer monitors. I don't frankly see any kind of workable licensing coming out there. People are't going to pay $0.99 to view an image, and micropayments have never been successful. I started working at an ISP in like 1995, and I remember all the bluster about micropayments in the late 90s. It's an idea that's been around that long and I don't see it happening.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
Copyright law does not outlaw making copies.  It outlaws publishing copies without permission.

Kevin Connery wrote:
"That turns out not to be the case"

Examine the history of, say, portrait photographers in the US.

It's a very common misconception, but it IS a MISconception.

Did no one else read the sentence before that?

Monito -- Alan wrote:
You just can't sell, lend, give away, rehire, lease or distribute the copies.

I think that addresses the cases of people who have duplicated privately commissioned portraits to give to friends and family without authorization from, or additional payment to, the photographer.