Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Whisky-dave writes:
>
>> How would you work out this financial compensation while you make
>> 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or
>> renting is the way to go.

>
> This type of compulsory licensing is already in place for cover versions of
> songs, which is why so many people cover songs written by others. It works
> just fine.


Not at all clear on that. Musicians at all levels are pretty displeased
with the system, and it's blocking use of music in a lot of cases due to
the size of the ASCAP fees.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
| > So I see no justification for the public paying her way.
| >
| Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
| regardless of whether they read books or not.

That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone
who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based
on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out. You
can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at
the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author
can apply to libraries for a paycheck. You can borrow
a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was
worth buying a copy, and *if* that copy isn't already on
loan. Then you have to bring that book back without
keeping a copy.

In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think
anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material
legally and don't make further copies.


| Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax
| on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed
| to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..),

That's an interesting idea, though it's hard to translate
it to different countries. I saw a TV show once about how
in the Netherlands you can claim to be an artist and get
supported. They showed warehouses full of paintings that
the government had bought from painters as a kind of
welfare payment. Maybe that's where your "information
tax" is going: To put failed painters on the gov't payroll.
(We have a saying in the US: "Nice work if you can get it.")

You're not paying people outside the Netherlands with your
"art tax", but I suppose that as long as you're only copying
those paintings in Dutch warehouses, or playing songs
by failed Dutch musicians, then you do have a right to take
them.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
"Mayayana" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
> | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
> | > it theft.
> | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
> | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
> | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
> | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
> | > information".
> |
> | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
> | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
> | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
> | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
> | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
> | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
> |
>
> That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
> two views:
>
> Young people who don't know what it means
> to work for a living think that everything should be
> free. (It always has been for them, after all.)
>
> At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
> Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
> that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
> etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
> deal about the presumed value of their creations.
>
> But much of what they're producing is essentially
> a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
> part of the public enough that those people will pay
> for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
> which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
> implies something edifying and entertainment is really
> just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
> attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
> attention.


Well, I might agree about the definition -- but it doesn't matter. I
*want* people to continue producing the type of entertainment I enjoy!
And most of them won't if they don't get paid.

> In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
> are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
> does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
> is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
> not a business venture.
>
> Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
> creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
> some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
> unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
> band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
> can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
> a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
> And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
> commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
> make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?


They *do* deserve to make millions of dollars, in the only way such a
question is meaningful: the path from the audience enjoying the
performance, to the money leaving the audience's pocket, is about as
short and direct as it ever gets.

Society would not suffer much without them, I don't think. But society
*would* suffer, terribly, if it were structured so people like us got to
make that decision *for others*.

> How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
> the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
> buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
> copyright was due to expire.
>
> It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
> between art, entertainment and business before copyright
> law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
> be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
> honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
> if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
> just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
> to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
> be missing the big picture.


The trouble with this is that defining "art" and distinguishing it is
completely hopeless.

The other problem is that it's actually the "entertainment" category I
really care about.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On 11/15/2012 2:11 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
>> might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
>> it theft.
>> But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
>> infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
>> copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
>> actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
>> information".

>
> So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
> "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
> "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
> production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
> hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
> millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
>



He forgets that the key to file sharing is that the first person
posting, must have the right to share it.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
>> "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
>> "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
>> production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
>> hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
>> millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

>
> Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed.
> As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem.
>
> And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway,
> so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is
> the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating
> software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties.
>


So stealing from a corporation is OK?

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:14:26 PM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system

>
> > of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the

>
> > one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely

>
> > and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "

>
>
>
> Any idea what such a system could be? In particular, how do you decide
>
> how worthwhile some fresh content is, in the face of people aggressively
>
> working to muddy the waters (as we already see on the web, in sites
>
> trolling for search hits to drive ad revenue)?


Well, they already have such a system where I live in the Netherlands.
But I suspect there is a lot of room for improvement and it is likely
to work better when it's done on a global scale.
But like other people have mentioned, there are technological
solutions, like bots that traverse the internet and do pattern
recognition to detect the nature of content and statistically
monitor the relative popularity of certain creations, but there should
probably be a kind of international institution that keeps track of who
contributed to any particular creation.

I might as well ask the proponents of traditional interpretations
of intellectual property how one is supposed to assess who exactly
owns the rights to impose a monopoly on the distribution or reproduction
of any particular bitstring, as people can easily modify such
bitstrings (change the included information about the associated
license or whatever) before redistributing them online.

>
> --
>
> Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
>
> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
>
> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
>
> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info


 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:19:18 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
> | > So I see no justification for the public paying her way.
>
> | >
>
> | Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
>
> | regardless of whether they read books or not.
>
>
>
> That's a little different. Libraries are not paying anyone
>
> who claims to be an artist. They buy books/CD/DVDs, based
>
> on decisions by librarians, and then lend those out. You
>
> can't just go in and get a copy of anything you want at
>
> the library. And neither Lady Gaga nor any book author
>
> can apply to libraries for a paycheck. You can borrow
>
> a copy of a library book *if* the librarians thought it was
>
> worth buying a copy, and *if* that copy isn't already on
>
> loan. Then you have to bring that book back without
>
> keeping a copy.
>
>
>
> In other words, libraries do exactly what you don't think
>
> anyone should have to do: They buy copyrighted material
>
> legally and don't make further copies.



They offer free access to information, similar to how people can
download information for free online.
If I want to read a book, I have a number of options. I can buy
the book at a bookstore and then I pay for the book. I can go to
the library and read the book there for free. I can also go
online and download that book for free in digital form from
a p2p network.

Whether I access the content of that book for free by
reading it at the library or downloading a copy from a
p2p network, in both cases I'm accessing the content of
the book without directly paying the author of that book
and yet in both cases it would be legal (at least in the
Netherlands where I live).

>
>
>
>
>
> | Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax
>
> | on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed
>
> | to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..),
>
>
>
> That's an interesting idea, though it's hard to translate
>
> it to different countries. I saw a TV show once about how
>
> in the Netherlands you can claim to be an artist and get
>
> supported. They showed warehouses full of paintings that
>
> the government had bought from painters as a kind of
>
> welfare payment. Maybe that's where your "information
>
> tax" is going: To put failed painters on the gov't payroll.
>
> (We have a saying in the US: "Nice work if you can get it.")
>
>
>
> You're not paying people outside the Netherlands with your
>
> "art tax", but I suppose that as long as you're only copying
>
> those paintings in Dutch warehouses, or playing songs
>
> by failed Dutch musicians, then you do have a right to take
>
> them.


Actually, I can download just about any content online for
personal use, regardless of where it originated.
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:29:26 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
>[..]
> You sir, remain a thief at heart, and continue to rationalize your
> criminal intent.
>[..]


That sums up your misguided position. Fine. As far as I'm
concerned, you are a nazi who advocates a fascistic and
unrealistic interpretation of intellectual property.

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:35:21 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 6:13 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet writes:

>
> >

>
> >> So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

>
> >> "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

>
> >> "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

>
> >> production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

>
> >> hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

>
> >> millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

>
> >

>
> > Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed.

>
> > As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem.

>
> >

>
> > And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway,

>
> > so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is

>
> > the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating

>
> > software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties.

>
> >

>
>
>
> So stealing from a corporation is OK?
>


Corporations are the real criminals, because they abuse their
influence on the government to subvert laws and regulations
to suit their interests, at the expense of the rights of
individual people (regardless whether they are creative or
not).

>
>
> --
>
> Peter


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2012

| > ...Do those people really deserve to
| > make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?
|
| They *do* deserve to make millions of dollars, in the only way such a
| question is meaningful: the path from the audience enjoying the
| performance, to the money leaving the audience's pocket, is about as
| short and direct as it ever gets.

Copyright law is premised on the idea that creative
output serves society, therefore people who do it need
to get some compensation. Their compensation will
depend on the terms and duration of copyright protection.
So the artistic value of a work *is* meaningful in deciding
whether someone deserves to make millions, from society's
point of view.

| Society would not suffer much without them, I don't think. But society
| *would* suffer, terribly, if it were structured so people like us got to
| make that decision *for others*.
|

Disney managed to get a big extension of copyright
duration, simply because they had the money and lobbyists
to buy the vote. So there are already people making these
decisions for others.

I'm not saying rock stars and such should be blocked
from such high profits. I'm just pointing out that the whole
system has problems and there's dishonesty on both sides.
We ask teenagers to be honest and pay for their music, yet
low quality digital versions that are essentially rented
cost as much per song as CD recordings. And they have
to pay upward of $100 to see their favorite music stars
on a giant TV in a stadium, because they're too far away
from the performance to actually see the musicians
themselves! It's their choice to pay those fees, but given
that situation I don't have much sympathy for the so-called
"artists" and their corporate handlers. The kids are being
taught that exploiting others in any way you can is smart
business. So they exploit the exploiters.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Why Getting 'A Potentially Dangerous Request...' Error? Anil Kripalani ASP .Net 2 02-25-2004 06:39 PM
A potentially dangerous Request.Form Alex Munk ASP .Net 2 12-17-2003 09:11 AM
Re: a serious question for a non-serious cause... henry DVD Video 1 11-08-2003 04:38 PM
Potentially Massive Internet Attack Starts Today =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?= MCSE 14 08-26-2003 02:12 AM



Advertisments