• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.

You really need to get a copyright release. But even with out one there really is no way to enforce copyright with all the billions of images out there.
 
You really need to get a copyright release. But even with out one there really is no way to enforce copyright with all the billions of images out there.

Exactly - there should be legal options which people shoudl be encouraged to follow in order to gain more control of the copyright . . and that which they have purchased.

and there's no way to enforce copyrights with all the billions of images out there . . . which isi why I feel it's a waste of time.
 
Exactly - there should be legal options which people shoudl be encouraged to follow in order to gain more control of the copyright . . and that which they have purchased.

and there's no way to enforce copyrights with all the billions of images out there . . . which isi why I feel it's a waste of time.

Yep it is a waste of time any many photographers have closed up shop.
 
Yep it is a waste of time any many photographers have closed up shop.

Yet I don't think copyright issues are really *the* reason.
This is likely because more and more people can take their own *very* professional looking photos - something I've been doing for years. It's a fraction of the cost and my backdrops are much more surreal (like the Grand Canyon and the Pacific Ocean)
 
Point taken.

i don't understand all the fuss here. does this law prohibit artists from sharing their own material gratis? if not, then what's the big deal?
 
Is not the tangible product the song itself. Which is generally copywrited

It is the song itself that the artist created, and uses to make money

GM produces a car and makes multiple copies of it to make money, it is illegal for Ford to copy the design of a GM car and produce it. GM lost no tangible object but what Ford did is illegal and it would be punished for it

As such making copies of a song, and giving it out to other people is infringing on the artists rights to that song.

In my opinion

Making copies for personal use is fine, making copies to distribute to potentially thousands of other people is in effect theft

for personal use, as long as you pay for that first copy.
 
Yet I don't think copyright issues are really *the* reason.

Reprints are the bread and butter of the portrait biz.


This is likely because more and more people can take their own *very* professional looking photos - something I've been doing for years. It's a fraction of the cost and my backdrops are much more surreal (like the Grand Canyon and the Pacific Ocean)

Yeah that has had an effect too.
 
Reprints are the bread and butter of the portrait biz.

Fallacy, then, of the business - it's unsustainable.

Yeah that has had an effect too.

Instead of embracing advances in technology and marketing on it to survive with it - they tried to exist with it and that just doesn't work when a technology which outdates your abilities becomes more affordable.
 
Fallacy, then, of the business - it's unsustainable.

People breaking copyright laws is a fallacy of the business? Hmm I guess stealing is okay then too.



Instead of embracing advances in technology and marketing on it to survive with it - they tried to exist with it and that just doesn't work when a technology which outdates your abilities becomes more affordable.

Huh?
 
People breaking copyright laws is a fallacy of the business? Hmm I guess stealing is okay then too.

What? We're off topic, now - discussing the pro-photo industry.
You said the bread and butter of the industry was reprints . . . and I'm stating that is, now, is it's downfall (I used fallacy - that was the wrong term) - it depended on something that could no longer sustain the business *for* money and didn't branch out into anything else to make money on after the market changed.

Now we're discussing business strategy . . . which is part of the reason why the entertainment companies believe they're suffering.
 
I can't justify spending money on something that I have no clue as to, whether or not, I will like it.

I think you're doing a lot of self-justification right now, frankly. Just because you can view/hear/enjoy the entire content of digital/electronic entertainment without paying for that pleasure, doesn't mean you should.

Is this the way you operate in the real world, too?

Tell me this, when you go to a restaurant and order something that tastes good but isn't quite as yummy as you believed it would be, do you refuse to pay?

If I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money.

When you go to the movies, and the film is ok, but not quite as exciting and entertaining as you believed it would be, do you demand a refund?

BTW, I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not into owning a digital media library; I don't own an ipod or any similar device. If I want to watch a movie, I either rent it or buy the DVD; I've never DL'd a movie for free or made a copy of a friend's. If an artist I like has released a new album, I buy it; I've never DL'd a song/album or made a copy of a friend's.

This is a simple moral issue for me. In life, I makes my bets and takes my chances. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. That's just how life works and there are no guarantees. I just don't believe in taking what isn't mine or that which I haven't paid for (well, except for dumpster diving! HA!). And if I'm not completely and irrevocably 100% thrilled with my purchases, I live with it. It's just not in me to insist that my complete and total satisfaction must be met before I'll pay for anything (digital or not), nor to refuse to pay for it after I've used it.

:shrug:
 
You don't own a book's content even if you've bought it :shrug:
If you *lose* a book - like - it gets blown into the water at a lake - you have to go and buy another copy :shrug:
When you buy something you buy *that one* of it - there - that one is yours. . . a book, someone's art - all these things are still under copyright laws. :shrug:

Your issue isn't with that, then, because a variety of things fall under that - and these other things don't seem to bother you.

My issue is with the law and the partnership between IP and government.
I'll make any argument in resistance towards IP, until IP holders stop throwing a tantrum over having to lose some control over their works.

Your issue is with the companies - stuffing the prices and charging too much. (I agree here)
Your issue is with the government - getting involved more and more. (I agree here)
Your issue is with the copyright laws as they exist now - which defined how much is *yours* and how much still belongs to another person. (I agree here)

The only thing we're not agree on is what is acceptable for you or me to do in response to these three issues.

The government allows these cartels to exist, even though they are against the law, I'll do whatever I can to essentially nullify these laws.
Bending over and taking it isn't ok in my eyes.

Like I said before - I think the government needs to tend to the kitchen where it has bigger fish to fry. . . I think that focusing on this is stupid and won't do anything. . . but I understand why they're going for it - even though it's a waste of time and there's no point.

If the MPAA had their way, none of us would have had VCR's.
They tried to sue Sony when the VCR was invented to prevent it being sold because they said it assisted copyright infringement.

Now they are trying to implement devices that control what you can do with you property.
DRM devices in your DVD players and computers is wrong.
It extends far farther than just watching some free movies.


The only thing I have strong issues with is when the photographer comes to my children's school - takes pictures of my children - prints them off off and sends them home - and then charges me an arm and a leg for pictures of my children and then claims copyright over those photos. . . which makes it illegal for me to make my own personal copies even if I buy 1 or 10.

Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.

So - I think options like this should be available to all other copyrighted items. . . I feel you should be able to make copies of something you purchase - sure - as long as you don't intend on selling it and as long as you've legally purchased the original.

Whats' wrong with that? Don't know - but some people have a serious issue with that proposal (like the companies, for one)

That's wrong, they snapped a picture, your kid did all the work.
They shouldn't be able to claim control over your child's image, their image is their property.

You have the option of not giving a crap about their so called IP and copy the pictures as you wish, you paid for them.
 
I think you're doing a lot of self-justification right now, frankly. Just because you can view/hear/enjoy the entire content of digital/electronic entertainment without paying for that pleasure, doesn't mean you should.

Is this the way you operate in the real world, too?

Tell me this, when you go to a restaurant and order something that tastes good but isn't quite as yummy as you believed it would be, do you refuse to pay?

If the food is bad enough, I'll demand a refund yes.

You and others operate the same way though, in the real world.

How many movies have you watched on over the air tv, that you never paid for?
What about songs on the radio, pictures by contemporary painters?

The fact is that in almost every aspect of the IP world you're allowed to sample the product before you buy it.
The movie companies are quite hostile to that idea.



When you go to the movies, and the film is ok, but not quite as exciting and entertaining as you believed it would be, do you demand a refund?

I'd like the option of a refund, as it is, that option is very restricted in most places.
A lot of the time you can't get a refund on a DVD and must settle for store credit.

BTW, I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not into owning a digital media library; I don't own an ipod or any similar device. If I want to watch a movie, I either rent it or buy the DVD; I've never DL'd a movie for free or made a copy of a friend's. If an artist I like has released a new album, I buy it; I've never DL'd a song/album or made a copy of a friend's.

This is a simple moral issue for me. In life, I makes my bets and takes my chances. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. That's just how life works and there are no guarantees. I just don't believe in taking what isn't mine or that which I haven't paid for (well, except for dumpster diving! HA!). And if I'm not completely and irrevocably 100% thrilled with my purchases, I live with it. It's just not in me to insist that my complete and total satisfaction must be met before I'll pay for anything (digital or not), nor to refuse to pay for it after I've used it.

:shrug:

I think you should question the moral reasoning behind the movie cartel and why they resist allowing you to own you property how you want it.
They want DRM devices installed in your computer, TV, DVD players, Cellphones etc.

They want you to own their product how they want it and for you to be locked into sometimes buying their same product multiple times.
That isn't a morally superior position on their part.
Sure two wrongs don't make a right but in this case, they have partnered with government to make their wrongs worse.
 
That's wrong, they snapped a picture, your kid did all the work.
They shouldn't be able to claim control over your child's image, their image is their property.

You have the option of not giving a crap about their so called IP and copy the pictures as you wish, you paid for them.

Actually it is a two street. The photographer is not allowed to publish the image for profit nor or the parents allowed to reproduce the image.
 
Actually it is a two street. The photographer is not allowed to publish the image for profit nor or the parents allowed to reproduce the image.

It's their kids though.
Not to piss on all photographers but school pictures are hardly "art" and the image is that of their child.

That is why IP law is crazy dumb.
 
It's their kids though.

So, it is photographers equipment.


Not to piss on all photographers but school pictures are hardly "art" and the image is that of their child
.

No kidding, and it is crappy job to do as well.

That is why IP law is crazy dumb.

W/O copyright people will not being doing the gig
 
Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.

How is this any different from the things you've been criticizing throughout the thread?

In order to avoid paying the photographer the price he requests for these pictures, you falsely claim that you want a digital copy to serve as a backup in case your purchased copies are destroyed. He generously allows you the use of that digital copy for that purpose. You then turn around and print that photo out as many times as you like, thus cheating him out of the money he would have made had you bought the pictures properly.

You're making the exact same argument as Harry Guerilla - the costs to me are ridiculous, the direct costs to them are negligible, I think they're charging me an unfair price, and there's no way they can prevent me from doing this, so that makes it okay.
 
Last edited:
… I think you should question the moral reasoning behind the movie cartel and why they resist allowing you to own you property how you want it. …

I think you should question your own moral reasoning which allows you to negate centuries old copyright law.

You may think your victims are the movie houses, the music labels, the video game producers, but the real victims are your law abiding neighbors either through higher prices or greater inconveniences.

Thanks, Harry Guerrilla.
 
I think you should question your own moral reasoning which allows you to negate centuries old copyright law.

You may think your victims are the movie houses, the music labels, the video game producers, but the real victims are your law abiding neighbors either through higher prices or greater inconveniences.

Thanks, Harry Guerrilla.

DMCA is not centuries old, neither is the other laws extending copyright past reasonable bounds.

Originally, copyright was for "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term."

Copyright Act of 1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now it is, the life of the author plus 50 years, essentially allowing dead people to own stuff.
Pretty irrational stuff.

Corporations are allowed to retain copyright for 90 years.

**** has gotten out of hand.
 
Where, oh where, will we find a person with a camera and set of crappy backgrounds with neon lasers flying around.....
A rare breed I'm sure.

Believe it or not the crap sells not everyone is interested in Irving Penn, Robert Mapplethorp, or Sally Mann's sophisticated abilities in visualization.

Gawd I hate those babies in the flower pots images. But hey it can pay the bills.
 
Believe it or not the crap sells not everyone is interested in Irving Penn, Robert Mapplethorp, or Sally Mann's sophisticated abilities in visualization.

Don't get me wrong, I like the work I have seen you do and I think you should own it.
Just not as long as the law allows.

People like you though are the ones that get caught in the crossfire, most of my beef is with the MPAA and DRM.

Gawd I hate those babies in the flower pots images. But hey it can pay the bills.

Definitely agree.
 
Don't get me wrong, I like the work I have seen you do and I think you should own it.
Just not as long as the law allows.

People like you though are the ones that get caught in the crossfire, most of my beef is with the MPAA and DRM.

And something that really ticks me off is that a corp can have copyright for 90 years. Well heck when the artist dies the value goes up, kaching for the corp. Even though the person was a starving artist at the time they sold copyright and just wanted to eat. Another thing that ticks me is work for hire. And that is how most of these school photo companies work.



BTW thanxs for the compliment about my images.
 
Back
Top Bottom