Why online piracy isn't theft

Roger Hicks said:
It is perfectly open to you to hire a photographer to take pictures of (say) a wedding or a widget, and to negotiate a sale of copyright. But now let us say that he earns a living from fine art photography, and you sell excellent copies of his prints...
Click to expand...

So it's ok for him to sell fine art prints from a wedding job he was hired for but not ok for the couple to make prints from the files they paid him to produce?
 
Jamie123 said:
So it's ok for him to sell fine art prints from a wedding job he was hired for but not ok for the couple to make prints from the files they paid him to produce?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant at all. I was attempting to distinguish between the wedding or widget photographer (no real need for copyright) and the fine art photographer (copyright essential), with the implicit assumption that they were two different photographers doing two different things. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
What about an e-book? Nothing is more easily copied. But it's not a good business model to sell one e-book and then to have everyone pirate it.
Click to expand...

I think this is part of the problem we're dealing with nowadays. It's hard to see the difference between the case where I buy a book, read it and then pass it on to a friend and the case where I buy an e-book, read it and then send the pdf to a friend.
It is very hard to argue logically that one isn't stealing while the other is. The difference is simply a matter of scale. 'Sharing' a physical book isn't even remotely as easy as sharing an e-book and the physical book is subject to wear and decay so it cannot be shared infinitely. With the physical book there is a regulating force at work which is simply the lack of convenience.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Sorry, that wasn't what I meant at all. I was attempting to distinguish between the wedding or widget photographer (no real need for copyright) and the fine art photographer (copyright essential), with the implicit assumption that they were two different photographers doing two different things. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, now I get it. But in this case where in the realm of counterfeiting, not copyright infringement. In fine art (be it photography, drawings, screenprints, paintings, etc.) you have originals and fakes. Of course this distinction is purely arbitrary but the whole notion of value relies on something being deemed an original and on the fact that there is only a limited number of originals. There is only value in a fake if others can be convinced that it's an original. If you take your favourite photographer's photo from a book, scan it and make a print to hang on your wall then that print will be worth less than the paper it's printed on. The photographer isn't losing anything because his business relies on the desire of people to own his original works, not on their desire to see them.
 
Jamie123 said:
That's a bit of an odd example as both wallpaper and fabric are material objects. You're basically just making a replica. If a photographer takes pictures at a wedding and gives the client prints, and if that client then gets more prints made from the digital file, then the latter are not replicas of the former.
Click to expand...

Sorry that is missing the point ... strictly speaking unless the defined by contract the rights to any creation rest with the artist
 
Jamie123 said:
Ah ok, now I get it. But in this case where in the realm of counterfeiting, not copyright infringement. In fine art (be it photography, drawings, screenprints, paintings, etc.) you have originals and fakes. Of course this distinction is purely arbitrary but the whole notion of value relies on something being deemed an original and on the fact that there is only a limited number of originals. There is only value in a fake if others can be convinced that it's an original. If you take your favourite photographer's photo from a book, scan it and make a print to hang on your wall then that print will be worth less than the paper it's printed on. The photographer isn't losing anything because his business relies on the desire of people to own his original works, not on their desire to see them.
Click to expand...

All right: now let's take a poster: the sort of thing students put (or used to put) on their walls. The famous 'Tennis Girl', for example.

Without copyright, anyone could reproduce it without payment; and yet, the sales model for posters (I can see no alternative) is akin to the sales model for books: multiple low-priced copies, rather than a few high-priced copies (or even a single original). And here, the sale is clearly based on the desire to see it, not to own an original. Now, you have to start redefining 'fine art'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Jamie123 said:
I think this is part of the problem we're dealing with nowadays. It's hard to see the difference between the case where I buy a book, read it and then pass it on to a friend and the case where I buy an e-book, read it and then send the pdf to a friend.
It is very hard to argue logically that one isn't stealing while the other is. The difference is simply a matter of scale. 'Sharing' a physical book isn't even remotely as easy as sharing an e-book and the physical book is subject to wear and decay so it cannot be shared infinitely. With the physical book there is a regulating force at work which is simply the lack of convenience.
Click to expand...

Which is, I suggest, why it's called COPYright: strictly, literally, the right to copy There is no logical or indeed moral difference between lending or giving a book to a friend, and sending him or her the PDF, as long as you do not keep a copy.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sparrow said:
Sorry that is missing the point ... strictly speaking unless the defined by contract the rights to any creation rest with the artist
Click to expand...

No, that's not missing the point actually. In your example the material objects (paper) is just a medium on which something that may or may not be copyrighted is printed. It's still just about image rights.
 
Roger Hicks said:
All right: now let's take a poster: the sort of thing students put (or used to put) on their walls. The famous 'Tennis Girl', for example.

Without copyright, anyone could reproduce it without payment; and yet, the sales model for posters (I can see no alternative) is akin to the sales model for books: multiple low-priced copies, rather than a few high-priced copies (or even a single original). And here, the sale is clearly based on the desire to see it, not to own an original. Now, you have to start redefining 'fine art'.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes, anyone could reproduce it without payment and if this was significantly cheaper then buying a reproduction I'm sure many people would do it. It's not copyright that prevents this from happening, it's pure convenience. I can pay $25 for a poster of an A2 sized poster or I can have my friend's A2 size poster scanned for $80 and have a print made for another $20. Makes sense to buy the poster. Not because I'm not a thief but because I'm not an idiot.


Roger Hicks said:
Which is, I suggest, why it's called COPYright: strictly, literally, the right to copy There is no logical or indeed moral difference between lending or giving a book to a friend, and sending him or her the PDF, as long as you do not keep a copy.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, it is pretty much impossible for me to send someone a file without making a copy, because at the moment I upload something it's already copied. I can then delete my copy but just after the fact.
And does it really matter? I'm not likely to read a book twice anyways and if I wanted to me and my friend could just send it back and forth. The same goes for movies. I'm sure many people who download movies delete them after they've watched them. Doesn't really diminish the problem of filesharing.
As I said, in the end it just comes down to numbers. I have a limited number of friends that I can give a book to and I have only one of them to share. I'm sure in the days of printed books and VHS tapes the publishing and movie industry didn't exactly like people sharing books and tapes but the effect on their business was inconsequential.
 
Jamie123 said:
No, that's not missing the point actually. In your example the material objects (paper) is just a medium on which something that may or may not be copyrighted is printed. It's still just about image rights.
Click to expand...

... and what difference does that make? the rights reside in the "moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which one is the author" it's got nothing to do with the material itself.
 
Sparrow said:
... and what difference does that make? the rights reside in the "moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which one is the author" it's got nothing to do with the material itself.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I said it was an odd example.
 
Jamie123 said:
Which is exactly why I said it was an odd example.
Click to expand...

Jamie123 said:
That's a bit of an odd example as both wallpaper and fabric are material objects. You're basically just making a replica. If a photographer takes pictures at a wedding and gives the client prints, and if that client then gets more prints made from the digital file, then the latter are not replicas of the former.
Click to expand...

... OK, see if you understand this ... the medium is irrelevant what one holds the rights to is simply the idea, painted, printed, digital or whatever the idea is all one owns ...

... Che on a t-shirt still belongs to Korda not the chap wearing it

PS actually that Che photo may be out of copyright now
 
This is an interesting twelve pages. It reminds me of another forum where a high school photographer is telling us "old timers" that we are cheating clients by charging them outrageous markup on prints that are only worth the paper they are printed on....about five bucks for a 8x10.

Anyone remember blank music CD's? A percentage went to the music industry to off-set the loss of making copies of copyrighted music. The same was done for music quality cassettes---I used to make copies of LPs to play in my car. Even if a friend wanted a copy of an album, they were still giving money to the publisher since a fee was attached to a blank cassette.

What I'm reading from some here about wedding photography sounds more like they are hiring photographers on a work-for-hire basis. This is something I do for commercial clients.

In regards to forwarding a book to a friend is the same as forwarding a PDF file of a book, only one copy of the book exist in the former. If I were to forward a PDF file, my friend can send as many copies as he wishes to his friends. The artist risks the work becoming part of the public domain after widespread use. This is why companies put notices in Writer's Digest reminding writers that Kleenex is trademarked and couldn't be used to describe tissues. It is great advertisement to have it in a book. This seems to be a point in this forum, free use promotes the product or work. They fail to realize that the value actually drops. The reason being is if the TM protection is ignored, anyone can say they sell Kleenex. (Remember the Coca-Cola reps cracking down on anyone serving Pepsi that failed to correct anyone asking for a Coke?)
 
Sparrow said:
... OK, see if you understand this ... the medium is irrelevant what one holds the rights to is simply the idea, painted, printed, digital or whatever the idea is all one owns ...

... Che on a t-shirt still belongs to Korda not the chap wearing it

PS actually that Che photo may be out of copyright now
Click to expand...

Ok, so I'll recap what was said. Rxmd made an example of other one-time services one pays for and argued that you do not have to pay every time you make use of what you got from that service. You then compared this to the purchase of a material good (wallpaper or fabric) and talked about replicating that good for commercial puroses. That was and still is a very odd comparison to make.
 
I was JUST going to make the traffic violation analogy. Any reasonable person knows it's theft. Mayhaps the connection btwn immediate action (downloading) and consequence (jail, fine) has not been properly taught, learned, understood, or reinforced. These are different issues though. B/c you can and have gotten away with something never made it less illegal. Because all your friends download doesn't make it more legitimate. Just because you haven't been caught or charged yet doesn't mean you wont. There's a sort of "power in numbers" aesthetic going on with illegal downloading, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate or reasonable stance. There are plenty of real and legitimate causes for concern with regards to our personal freedom, but as long as our capitalist commerce system allow for us to make a living via creative means, then those "products" are going to need protecting, and thus rules. I see this argument being misplaced: it should be a discussion about our system of commerce, such as various property rights and how we are allowed to make money.

I do think there should be open standards for media. I understand businesses difficulties in policing theft, so they create DRM. But I think that their problem to solve. It's a cost of doing business. I should be able to stream or watch or listen to whatever I rented or purchased on any of my devices. More specifically, if I've outright bought something, I should be able to manipulate it however I please. Rentals are a more complicated matter, and I do think sellers should have some rights there.

ferider said:
Lot's of conscious big gaps in the article, Jamie:



1) People illegally download for the same reason that they commit traffic violations consciously and often agressively. They feel anonymous and protected.

2) Modern copyright theft includes non internet activities that were the same more than 20 years ago, such as copying and distributing via physical media (paper, tapes, floppies, etc.); don't forget, even today, the majority of the world population doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download an entire movie, but rather uses a DVD copy.

3) Patent infringement has nothing to do with the internet.



4) That zero-sum game changed as soon as Bob and Joe invented money, didn't it ?

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement 🙂

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
Jamie123 said:
Ok, so I'll recap what was said. Rxmd made an example of other one-time services one pays for and argued that you do not have to pay every time you make use of what you got from that service. You then compared this to the purchase of a material good (wallpaper or fabric) and talked about replicating that good for commercial puroses. That was and still is a very odd comparison to make.
Click to expand...

Sparrow said:
How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?
Click to expand...

I clearly asked questions of rxmd, I made no comparison, or any statement in fact
 
Agree w/some of this. Weak intellectual property laws can certainly be part of developmental strategy. Great Britain was the most prosperous nation-state in the 19th century & developed strong intellectual property laws to protect its economic interests. It made (& continues to make) sense for late-developing countries (i.e., everybody after England) to initially have weak intellectual property protection, particularly for foreign ideas, in order to hasten the adoption & diffusion of more advanced technology. However, once they've matured & start producing their own technological & cultural innovations, those countries seem to quickly adopt intellectual property standards, the U.S. (after the Civil War) & Germany (after unification) included. Both didn't become rich countries just because they had weak intellectual property protection, they also had strong industrial policies (high tariffs, high investment in education & infrastructure, etc.) & other factors working in their favor. The same story played out in Japan & Korea in the 20th century (which means the Chinese will start enforcing IP over the next 10-20 years).

Even in recent years, these issues are not new. E.g., see this article from 1998 Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98sep/copy.htm (note the brief discussion of piracy in pre-revolutionary & revolutionary France in part 3).

rxmd said:
So what was your point again about prosperity? It seems that the relatively most prosperous nations in the 19th century were exactly those that either didn't have strong copyright (Germany), or those that allowed pirating foreign works (USA). For the 21st century read the Swiss study quoted above.
Click to expand...
 
RealXenuis said:
. . .
I do think there should be open standards for media. I understand businesses difficulties in policing theft, so they create DRM. But I think that their problem to solve. . .
Click to expand...

Who are 'they'? I'm not a big business or a rich man but I've got by for 30+ years on freelance writing and photography. Suddenly, it's my problem if my work is stolen? How would people feel if I were suddenly to say, "Private ownership of cars is an outmoded concept, so I'll just borrow your car, without permission, to drive to the shops. You needn't worry, because you'll still have the car afterwards, and I'll even put gas in it" ?

This is why we have society: for fairness, and collective action. Intellectual property theft is bread out of my mouth, and no-one so far has made any suggestion about how to replace the 'outmoded' model of copyright. If anyone has any good ideas, I'm all ears. But I've not actually heard ANY ideas so far, let alone good ones.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom