glamour pics wrote:
The second scenario is the most common piracy business model on the web. But in Spain, it is so far considered not a crime.

Why should it be considered a crime, as opposed to a civil wrong?

Ex Voto  Studio wrote:
I don't think it should be a crime to download pics from the www.  lord knows I have...
The crime would be trying to pass them off as your own or make profit from them.
Good for that guy!

Davepit wrote:
What's the big deal? Plenty of people save stuff they see on the web, wehther it be a lolcat, and inspiring picture, or a youtube video.

You guys need to go back & re-read it.  What is says is that if I live in Spain I can download your photos & Lady GaGa's songs & Mirimax's movies and then post them on my own site with Google ads I make money for & let everyone else download them.  So I'm making $$$ of all that work.

It's not quite the same as DLing it for personal use.

SLE Photography wrote:

Ex Voto  Studio wrote:
I don't think it should be a crime to download pics from the www.  lord knows I have...
The crime would be trying to pass them off as your own or make profit from them.
Good for that guy!

You guys need to go back & re-read it.  What is says is that if I live in Spain I can download your photos & Lady GaGa's songs & Mirimax's movies and then post them on my own site with Google ads I make money for & let everyone else download them.  So I'm making $$$ of all that work.

It's not quite the same as DLing it for personal use.

No I don't. I was talking about this:

A criminal court in Spain has thrown out charges against a man who admitted downloading well over 3000 movies because he had not made any profit directly from his file sharing and claimed he had no plans to do so. While the case involved movies, reports indicated that he had also infringed many thousands of still images.

Davepit wrote:

Why should it be considered a crime, as opposed to a civil wrong?

Infringement for profit is a crime under USA law and under the law of many countries. This is so whether the profit is direct (eg. by burning DVD's and selling them) or indirect (eg. by attracting traffic with stolen material and profiting from ads shown to that traffic.) In addition, in many countries, infringement is a crime even without profit or a profit motive. As well it should be; since the victim is injured whether or not the criminal him/herself profits.

The same acts are also a civil wrong ("tort").

Haarvey Aardvark wrote:
Prevailing standards are changing. Adapt or die. Content producers are going to lose out, yes. But perhaps this gives us new opportunities as well.

It certainly does make new opportunities. Especially for those who are thieves.

glamour pics wrote:

It certainly does make new opportunities. Especially for those who are thieves.

I just downloaded every photo in your portfolio and stored it in my web browser cache.

Does that make me a thief?

How much money did you lose from this?

SLE Photography wrote:

Ex Voto  Studio wrote:
I don't think it should be a crime to download pics from the www.  lord knows I have...
The crime would be trying to pass them off as your own or make profit from them.
Good for that guy!

You guys need to go back & re-read it.  What is says is that if I live in Spain I can download your photos & Lady GaGa's songs & Mirimax's movies and then post them on my own site with Google ads I make money for & let everyone else download them.  So I'm making $$$ of all that work.

It's not quite the same as DLing it for personal use.

Is this any different from those "images of the day" blogs that download pics from MM or DA and post them on blogs.

See those banner ads on MM? Guess what's happening? That's right MM is using our images and profiles to make money based on traffic.

This is a minor nuisance which to me is offset by the marketing of my images to new viewers. If it helps me shine, this is a minor price to pay.

Davepit wrote:
What's the big deal? Plenty of people save stuff they see on the web, wehther it be a lolcat, and inspiring picture, or a youtube video.

I save pictures from the web all the time for outfit ideas, location ideas, or general great shots.

Haarvey Aardvark wrote:

I just downloaded every photo in your portfolio and stored it in my web browser cache.

Does that make me a thief?

How much money did you lose from this?

The photos were there as a portfolio/samples. The more applicable question would be, "I just downloaded 3,000 movies and 100,000 still images, none of which the owners gave permission to use this way, and made them available for the world to copy. How did I hurt the owners of those images?"

c_d_s wrote:
Welcome to the New World Order. Within ten years or so, the publishing, motion picture and music industries will be gone.

Dramatic much? lol

now if you mean the authoritarian control that big corporations have over their brands, then you may well be right and I hope it happens because of the big players and not despite them. That is they have to start listening to their audience. Most of these issues have nothing to do with stealing so much as freeing up content delivery. As an example, I missed Leno's last show. I have cable and would have been entitled to view it. But I was too busy drinking that night and forgot. No problem I'll just go over to my friend's place who PVR'd it, again fully within the law. Well guess what he was drinking too and forgot. So now I try to catch it on NBC's site but can't because they have my Canadian IP blocked. So I have to become a "thief" and find an "illegally" hosted version somewhere. This is a "crime" that never really existed except for the unreasonable controlling actions of the content owner. So good for Spain, it beats dragging grannies and kids to court for millions in so-called damages.

c_d_s wrote:
Welcome to the New World Order. Within ten years or so, the publishing, motion picture and music industries will be gone.

This has been happening for many years..since there have been recording devices. Motion picture companies...recording studios will continue to still make millions if not billions.

Dragon Ink Photography wrote:
http://techdirt.com/article_main.php?sid=20090531/2312145072

This was the only article I could find.  I find it odd that it's also linked to torrent sites.

The article is incomplete, slanted, pro-infringement, and in some ways factually false. For example, the use of the term "file-sharing" is both biased and factually false, since what is being done is continuing creation of new copies. A more factual term would be "file-copying" and yes, copying in this way is one of the specific types of copyright infringement.

There have been other articles on the topic, besides my quick one which I posted directly here.

c_d_s wrote:
Welcome to the New World Order. Within ten years or so, the publishing, motion picture and music industries will be gone.

publishing and entertainment industries need to evolve their business models to reflect current and future economic and technological realities.

the 19th century business model that all the aforementioned industries cling to can not survive 21st century technology.  instead of seeing the digital marketplace as something  to be, at best, tolerated, they need to embrace it and learn how to compete within it.  if not, then, as you predict, they will be gone.

glamour pics wrote:

The article is incomplete, slanted, pro-infringement, and in some ways factually false. For example, the use of the term "file-sharing" is both biased and factually false, since what is being done is continuing creation of new copies. A more factual term would be "file-copying" and yes, copying in this way is one of the specific types of copyright infringement.

There have been other articles on the topic, besides my quick one which I posted directly here.

what is it that you're against? Because I get a sense of VCR deja vu whenever I read the industry defender's take on file sharing. Are you satisfied with the status quo of heavy-handed content control? Do you see that the technology brings a new set or parameters for industry to work with rather than against?

glamour pics wrote:
The article is incomplete, slanted, pro-infringement, and in some ways factually false. For example, the use of the term "file-sharing" is both biased and factually false

Ah so it was dishonest of them to use common-use English rather than some term that you just concocted to slant the bias back in your favor? But if it were biased in your favor it would be OK?

glamour pics wrote:

Infringement for profit is a crime under USA law and under the law of many countries. This is so whether the profit is direct (eg. by burning DVD's and selling them) or indirect (eg. by attracting traffic with stolen material and profiting from ads shown to that traffic.) In addition, in many countries, infringement is a crime even without profit or a profit motive. As well it should be; since the victim is injured whether or not the criminal him/herself profits.

The same acts are also a civil wrong ("tort").

My question was why it should be considered a crime. Just because I injure someone wrongfully doesn't mean my actions should be criminal.

CGI Images wrote:

I save pictures from the web all the time for outfit ideas, location ideas, or general great shots.

Precisely, show me a man, woman or child that doesnt!

Haarvey Aardvark wrote:
Prevailing standards are changing. Adapt or die. Content producers are going to lose out, yes. But perhaps this gives us new opportunities as well.

Name one "new opportunity" please. 

If you really believe that their is "opportunity" in this, I would be happy to take all of your images here on MM and distribute them randomly (with or without attribution) to anyone who wishes to have a copy.  If you see opportunity in that, let me know.  I can start distributing your images today.  Of course, you will receive no compensation.

Digitoxin wrote:
Name one "new opportunity" please.

On Sunday, May 4th, Trent Reznor was putting the finishing touches on a new Nine Inch Nails album in his Los Angeles studio. Around 9:30 p.m., after listening to the 10 tracks one last time, he sent them electronically to the company that manages his Website. Just after midnight, The Slip — a raw, straight-up rock record heavy on live drums, guitar and piano — appeared as a free download at NIN.com, along with a message from Reznor: "Thank you for your continued and loyal support over the years — this one's on me."

The award winning Canadian documentary ‘The Corporation’ has been released on BitTorrent for free. Filmmaker Mark Achbar just released an updated “official” torrent of it. Everyone is free to download, watch, discuss, and share it.
He added, “my only regret is that I didn’t put up my own torrent sooner.”

Not to mention the many indie bands and filmmakers that make things available for download and gain fans and exposure.

Digitoxin wrote:
Name one "new opportunity" please.

sl3966 wrote:
On Sunday, May 4th, Trent Reznor was putting the finishing touches on a new Nine Inch Nails album in his Los Angeles studio. Around 9:30 p.m., after listening to the 10 tracks one last time, he sent them electronically to the company that manages his Website. Just after midnight, The Slip — a raw, straight-up rock record heavy on live drums, guitar and piano — appeared as a free download at NIN.com, along with a message from Reznor: "Thank you for your continued and loyal support over the years — this one's on me."
..........
The award winning Canadian documentary ‘The Corporation’ has been released on BitTorrent for free. Filmmaker Mark Achbar just released an updated “official” torrent of it. Everyone is free to download, watch, discuss, and share it.
He added, “my only regret is that I didn’t put up my own torrent sooner.”

..............Not to mention the many indie bands and filmmakers that make things available for download and gain fans and exposure.

ALL of the uses that you mention have one thing in common........ The distribution of the "free" content is CONTROLLED by the artist AND come with ATTRIBUTION.  Can you tell me how having some hack swipe my images without my consent (and not part of a a carefully crafted overall branding strategy) and, then,  distribute them to ANYONE without attribution to me is beneficial to me or presents some kind of new "opportunity"?

Davepit wrote:
My question was why it should be considered a crime. Just because I injure someone wrongfully doesn't mean my actions should be criminal.

Excuse Me?????  Do you think you have the right to harm others????

Digitoxin wrote:

Digitoxin wrote:
Name one "new opportunity" please.

ALL of the uses that you mention have one thing in common........ The distribution of the "free" content is CONTROLLED by the artist AND come with ATTRIBUTION.  Can you tell me how having some hack swipe my images without my consent (and not part of a a carefully crafted overall branding strategy) and, then,  distribute them to ANYONE without attribution to me is beneficial to me or presents some kind of new "opportunity"?

Was the guy in the article distributing the files? I must have missed that part.