Mi Do wrote:
3. Come up with a solution the other party can be happy with that ensures you and your side get your way.

This is the part where it pretty much gets a little whacky . . .. .

Mi Do wrote:
So there is that debate about Pinterest.
And there was that debate about SOPA.
Something similar to SOPA will be back every year.
And new sites like Pinterest/Tumblr will pop up every year.
And people will continue to fight.

On one hand you have people who are essentially saying
"Work belongs to the copyright owner.
No one else.
You cannot share or redistribute the work unless you pay the owners."

The other side is saying
"Live and let live.
As long as no one is profiting, there is no harm!"

• 

So here's the game:
1. Pick a side.
2. Explain why you stand on that side.
3. Come up with a solution the other party can be happy with that ensures you and your side get your way.

••

PS: The person who solves this problem wins the title of "Person who saved the concepts of both 'Community' and 'Property Rights'."
You also win the right to choose whether abortion should be legal or not.
Good luck.
And may the odds be ever in your favor!

it isn't always the case where work can't be used without being paid for, it might go to just seeking permission and one granting it without be compensated.  it's where such permission isn't sought where the problem(s) lie.

for a site like pinterest to survive without conflict to intellectual property owners the solution is to allow only material uploaded by those who own title to the property.  then, users/members could purchase the rights to make an interesting user experience on their pinboard.

with that comes some inherent problems.  one, photographers/artists would probably charge too much and two, users simply wouldn't purchase the work for a pinboard as they are already accustomed to simply taking it from other sites as they do now so they would opt out of using the site.

the answer is to think in terms of gumballs.  think nickels, dimes and quarters instead of dollars.  create an annual fee to participate then return that fee through low cost use of imaging.  as well, offer low-cost use by members paying (x) to join the site that gives token value for purchasing items to pin.

without the brass tax of a business plan to work out the actual costs, let's say a photographer/artist pays $100 annually.  each piece of work that is displayed on member pinboards brings a return of a token value each time an image is used.  the site retains the member fees from both artists and pinning members, the artist is paid for each image used based on the low-cost token value.

the site protects the integrity of intellectual property, the owner of such property is compensated with return based on strength of numbers, a nickel, dime or a quarter at a time with "pinned counters" to ensure accounting integrity.  somewhat similar to a stock photography concept, but return comes from sheer numbers of images used, not just a big payday from a single image (although a single image could create hundreds or even thousands of pins).

as per thinking gumballs, my neighbor growing up owned penny gumball machines all over town.  they paid a fee to place their machines in stores and kept all the sales.  they had the biggest house in the neighborhood along with all the toys a modern family could want.

the difficult thing about creating the answer is the cat is out of the bag from sites like pinterest who have built a business model on allowing users to go get any imaging out there to pin without both penalty and compensation.  that makes it a difficult egg to put back into the shell.

291 wrote:
it isn't always the case where work can't be... [and a lot of other stuff]

Too complicated.
My side doesn't like that solution and doesn't want to pay so your idea won't satisfy me or the rest of the masses.

Please try again.

Mi Do wrote:

Too complicated.
My side doesn't like that solution and doesn't want to pay so your idea won't satisfy me or the rest of the masses.

Please try again.

Extremism personified.  This is what I'm illustrating.  A compromise will never be reached.  We have human fail.

291 wrote:
it isn't always the case where work can't be... [and a lot of other stuff]

Mi Do wrote:
Too complicated.
My side doesn't like that solution and doesn't want to pay so your idea won't satisfy me or the rest of the masses.

Please try again.

then try the itunes business model.  oh wait, you can't because you don't have an organization behind you.  oh well, accept that the way it works is for people to just steal intellectual property as there isn't a business model that will pay you.

look deeper.

291 wrote:

then try the itunes business model.  oh wait, you can't because you don't have an organization behind you.  oh well, accept that the way it works is for people to just steal intellectual property as there isn't a business model that will pay you.

look deeper.

dave phoenix wrote:
wouldn't limiting pinterest to small, watermarked files make everybody happy?

Initially I liked the idea but ran it through my brains.

My consumer brain says
"fine.
That's cool and shit."

My business brain says
"What is on the watermark?
The Pinterest logo or mine?
I don't want it to be the Pinterest Logo, otherwise Pinterest has to pay me."

My artist side says
"Why do I have to destroy my artwork so that Pinterest makes money?
I don't want to have to put a watermark on every one of my images because of Pinterest"

Mi Do wrote:

yeah, right.  and you would probably be one who would kick and scream loudest if your intellectual property was stolen.  or if not, you probably recognize it probably wasn't worth anything anyway.

291 wrote:

yeah, right.  and you would probably be one who would kick and scream loudest if your intellectual property was stolen.  or if not, you probably recognize it probably wasn't worth anything anyway.

Why the constant douchebaggery?  Your points would be much more well taken without all the shitheadedness.

291 wrote:

yeah, right.  and you would probably be one who would kick and scream loudest if your intellectual property was stolen.  or if not, you probably recognize it probably wasn't worth anything anyway.

I think you're missing my point.

Mi Do wrote:

I think you're missing my point.

Par for the course.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
I don't consider pinterest a threat, am I posting in the wrong thread?

Read the start of the thread then read the responses.
You'll figure out how to play.

Mi Do wrote:
On one hand you have people who are essentially saying
"Work belongs to the copyright owner.
No one else.
You cannot share or redistribute the work unless you pay the owners."

Wrong.

We are saying that you cannot share or redistribute the work without the permission of the owners.

Some will say OK. Some will not. Some will want payment. Some will not.

That is a decision for the copyright owner to make. Not some thief.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Wrong.

We are saying that you cannot share or redistribute the work without the permission of the owners.

Some will say OK. Some will not. Some will want payment. Some will not.

That is a decision for the copyright owner to make. Not some thief.

Semantics... whatever.
But you're failing at this game since you didn't come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.

My business brain agrees with you 100%
But my consumer side thinks you "need to shut up so I can get free access to cool stuff!"
My artist brain thinks "I don't give a shit how it's seen, I just want my artwork seen!"

Ending Pinterest (As SOPA would have done) is great for business... but not necessarily good for artists or consumers.
Having a billion sites like Pinterests is good for consumers, but bad for business and the economy.
Forcing people to take and commit to a side without finding a common ground (as the anti-Pinterest crowd is doing... or how the Anti-SOPA crowd was doing before) is just going to cause inter-personal and intra-personal conflict.
You see the problem here?

Come up with a solution that satisfies consumers, artists, and business.

Mi Do wrote:
Ending Pinterest (As SOPA would have done) is great for business... but not necessarily good for artists or consumers.

You're wrong. It is very good for artists (protects their rights) and consumers (they get access to that which artists make available to them or they are willing to pay for).

Free is not good.

As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

It would be better for ALL concerned (except the thieves who own Pinterest) if Pinterest was shut down.

Oh, and what you seemed to miss? Is that allowing the copyright holder to control what can be pinned or not would perfectly satisfy all three. As an artist, if you want to allow your work to be pinned, do so. As a businessman, if you don't, don't. And consumers get access to that which the copyright holders have made available.

Think of that. What an amazing idea. That we, as creators of Intellectual Property, should have the right to control our property.

Mi Do wrote:
But you're failing at this game since you didn't come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.

Again, this is the part where we're going to run into problems. I side with the creative and protecting their work as they see fit. I think the "solution" on the consumer side will be a shift in attitude that not everything on the web is free. Sorta like browsing at the bookstore but having to pay to walk out with the book or magazine.

Mi Do wrote:
So there is that debate about Pinterest.
And there was that debate about SOPA.
Something similar to SOPA will be back every year.
And new sites like Pinterest/Tumblr will pop up every year.
And people will continue to fight.

No need for SOPA with Pinterest. They're covered by the DMCA although is quesitonable whether Pinterest is in compliance at this point.

Jack North wrote:
It is not really theft. But I guess it sounds good.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201204 … -law.shtml

Taking my property without my permission is theft. No way around it. Regardless of what pirates want to claim.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Taking my property without my permission is theft. No way around it. Regardless of what pirates want to claim.

Yea, I know it sux. I hate when I go to my hard drive and all my pictures are gone. Frickin thieves

Jack North wrote:

Yea, I know it sux. I hate when I go to my hard drive and all my pictures are gone. Frickin thieves

Do you own any property?

If someone lives on your property without your permission and without paying you rent, are they stealing from you?

When someone goes to a hotel, sleeps in it for the night, and then leaves without paying, are they stealing?

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Do you own any property?

If someone lives on your property without your permission and without paying you rent, are they stealing from you?

When someone goes to a hotel, sleeps in it for the night, and then leaves without paying, are they stealing?

Yes. No. And yes.

Ok. Its a colloquialism. Stealing/theft = infringing on rights

Farenell Photography wrote:
Is there an informative backstory somewhere to this brouhaha?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=830396

Jack North wrote:

Yes. No. And yes.

Ok. Its a colloquialism. Stealing/theft = infringing on rights

So, theft of services is still theft... funny how it applies to a hotel room but not to photographs, huh?

It's not a colloquialism. Stealing does not require physically removing something and making it unavailable to the owner. All it requires is taking something you do not have the right to take.

Deadlynightshade wrote:
I won't play this game. I just want to remark that this is everything that's wrong with society. People want to restrict information and withhold ideas and creativity when really it's the exchange of information that allows us to reach great heights of innovation and accomplishments.

Which is why the founding fathers of the United States put into the Constitution the power to protect intellectual property. Because without protection (as the Soviet Union found out so well), people won't exchange ideas or innovate. There is no incentive to do so.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Which is why the founding fathers of the United States put into the Constitution the power to protect intellectual property. Because without protection (as the Soviet Union found out so well), people won't exchange ideas or innovate. There is no incentive to do so.

For 14 years plus one 14 year extension.  Not 70 years after the death of the creator.

Having perpetual copyright reduces incentive to create more works.