rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Here's another nice take on whether downloading is "theft" or not, this time it's a court decision.
A programmer downloaded code from a company server in an unauthorized fashion. Sued by the company for theft of property, he lost in the first instance. However, now the 2nd District Court of Appeals has reversed the decision, stating that downloading does not constitute "assuming physical control" and that it does not "deprive [the company] of its use"; hence it does not meet the definition of theft of property.
The code in question is the source code of a computer system for high-frequency stock market trading; the usefulness of this software for a company is highly dependent on no one else having it, in other words there were some real damages involved, but according to the court this is not a case of theft (nor, in fact, of espionage).
A programmer downloaded code from a company server in an unauthorized fashion. Sued by the company for theft of property, he lost in the first instance. However, now the 2nd District Court of Appeals has reversed the decision, stating that downloading does not constitute "assuming physical control" and that it does not "deprive [the company] of its use"; hence it does not meet the definition of theft of property.
The code in question is the source code of a computer system for high-frequency stock market trading; the usefulness of this software for a company is highly dependent on no one else having it, in other words there were some real damages involved, but according to the court this is not a case of theft (nor, in fact, of espionage).
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Originally posted by Bob Michaels:
Bill Pierce (or anyone with a truly informed opinion): We are having a discussion on another thread, Robert Capa - Video, if it is OK to use a Magnum photo or video without permission so long as it is attributed and is for non-commercial use. The attribution is because the images are watermarked "Magnum Photo".
=============================
From my perspective the current copyright laws are hopelessly outdated and offer very little protection to the individual photographer. (That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t file for copyright, just that in many cases a copyright suit isn’t worth it nor is the copyright going to make you aware of the many internet thefts.) I really look at it as a matter of courtesy - not profit vs non profit, big vs. little - just courtesy. Email, phone, contact the photographer or organization. My experience is that in the great majority of cases someone with a relatively small, non-profit website is usually given permission. From my perspective, if you take something without asking, you are a thief. If you didn’t realize you were taking somebody else’s property, you are an idiot.
Bill Pierce (or anyone with a truly informed opinion): We are having a discussion on another thread, Robert Capa - Video, if it is OK to use a Magnum photo or video without permission so long as it is attributed and is for non-commercial use. The attribution is because the images are watermarked "Magnum Photo".
=============================
From my perspective the current copyright laws are hopelessly outdated and offer very little protection to the individual photographer. (That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t file for copyright, just that in many cases a copyright suit isn’t worth it nor is the copyright going to make you aware of the many internet thefts.) I really look at it as a matter of courtesy - not profit vs non profit, big vs. little - just courtesy. Email, phone, contact the photographer or organization. My experience is that in the great majority of cases someone with a relatively small, non-profit website is usually given permission. From my perspective, if you take something without asking, you are a thief. If you didn’t realize you were taking somebody else’s property, you are an idiot.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Bill, thanks for stating your opinion
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
What's immoral is blaming the victim. Do you also think its ok to rape women who dress in slutty clothes? They asked for it by doing so, so its their fault, right?
furcafe
Veteran
I wouldn't read too much into that decision, because from a legal perspective the real "codes" at issue are 2 federal criminal statutes (which are interpreted more narrowly than civil statutes), specifically Congressional intent regarding 2 terms in those statutes: (1) whether Congress intended to include intangibles like computer software as "property" under the National Stolen Property Act (which dates back to 1948) & (2) whether the computer software was used in "commerce" within the meaning of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
If the case isn't appealed, my guess is that we will see attempts in Congress to amend 1 or both statutes.
If the case isn't appealed, my guess is that we will see attempts in Congress to amend 1 or both statutes.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I'm sorry, but no matter how strongly you feel about matters of copyright it does not justify you drawing analogies which are invalid (for reasons I will not discuss) and highly inappropriate. Calm yourself.
...Mike
jippiejee
Well-known
PKR, when I email one of your pictures to a friend ("Gotta check out out this photographer!"), because I like your work so much, do you really feel like I've stolen it from you? Or is this maybe what culture is all about? Sharing what touches us? Singing the songs we love in the shower. Reciting the poem that moved us? "Stealing" is not an appropriate word when it comes to culture. It's bars of soap that can be stolen, not expressions of life.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
No. I am not.
Therin may lie the problem - you seem to see only two positions.
Answer the question I asked in post #92 and we may have some basis to discuss how closely "theft" maps to the wrongs of copyright violation.
You might also want to think on the analogy Chris drew, with the concept "crimes against property" in mind. That might lead you to what I found objectionable.
...Mike
jippiejee
Well-known
emraphoto
Veteran
i think the point was missed. nobody is blaming the victim, merely identifying a reality and suggesting appropriate behaviour in accordance with the new order of things.
we can argue the moral code until we are blue in the face (which we seem to be doing) however most folks i speak with (a whole whack of nobody, broke and generally cynical folks with cameras) no longer see this as an issue to shed tears over.
to ignore this as a new reality would be folly. to adapt your way of dealing with it and seek new funding models would be advisable. the chance of the status quo returning to what we once thought it to be is very, very slim.
we can argue the moral code until we are blue in the face (which we seem to be doing) however most folks i speak with (a whole whack of nobody, broke and generally cynical folks with cameras) no longer see this as an issue to shed tears over.
to ignore this as a new reality would be folly. to adapt your way of dealing with it and seek new funding models would be advisable. the chance of the status quo returning to what we once thought it to be is very, very slim.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Wrong analogy. You're improperly equating criminal actions with civil ones.
Try and make an insurance claim on your house for a break-in if there was no evidence of forcible entry because you left the doors unlocked. Sure, the cops will come and file a report...that says you left the doors unlocked!
If you are irresponsible in protecting your own private property through copyright, then you must pay to enforce. If that is beyond your means, you lose. You cannot even call the cops to report such an action because it is not a crime.
If you leave digital files unprotected or in the hands of others who have less strident reasons to protect the inherent IP, then you create your own risk where none existed before.
Read that last paragraph again until you get it.
Paul T.
Veteran
For someone who's supposed to be a lawyer, IIRC, you don't half talk some rubbish.
If you leave your back door open, someone comes in and steals your possessions, and the Plod happen to catch him - he's likely to be banged up just the same. As the OP opined, stealing is stealing.
If you leave your back door open, someone comes in and steals your possessions, and the Plod happen to catch him - he's likely to be banged up just the same. As the OP opined, stealing is stealing.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You don't get it. You will, though, when someone sues you and the courts slap you down so hard you'll have to sell your children into slavery to pay for your stupidity. I've seen a few of your kind run with your tails between your legs when the letter from the lawyer arrives. They have always paid without going to court because the cost of doing so would bankrupt them (not simply the cost of hiring a lawyer..they knew they had violated the law and would be spanked for it in court).
Yeah, it costs me some money to get the letter sent, but I always get it back because they pay the attorney fees too. Its worth the trouble.
Intellectual property is protected by law even if, as you say, the doors are left unlocked. I'd love to see you try an idiot defense like that in court. The only way you'll survive that is if the judge laughs himself to death.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Civil laws like copyright are not there to protect you.
They are a set of rules permitting you to protect yourself and your works that are an assigned extension of you.
It is YOUR responsibility to protect your copyright. You may resort to the law as necessary, at your cost, on your time. There are jurisdictions with punitive compensations (the US) for the outlay effort but in an international, digital world...good luck enforcing those. Most jurisdictions have no such protection and likely never will due to severe income disparities and related political realities. Most cases I have seen are not resolved and the copyright owner usually is forced to suffer in sullen resentment. I see more failures than successes.
The major problem in this thread is the complaint about the behaviour of others. Copyright assigns a legal right to you for your work but it is a very difficult moral dictate that runs into historical, international, and cultural issues a every turn making consensus near impossible.
Relying on complex, esoteric, and easily infringed laws to be internalized by everyone as a moral compass does not replace taking responsibility for your own works independent of that assumption. Assuming others will behave to your works as you expect them to is inadequate protection of your own property given the clear lack of societal consensus and easy capacity to infringe. Turning it into a morality play is a sign of failure, much as it sounds right to stand on a soapbox and yell "Thief"!
Aristophanes
Well-known
I am a lawyer. I have written those letters. I've worked for a judge. I now work writing laws. Very few people ever get spanked in court because the cost of getting to court is so astronomical with the cost of pursuit even higher, very often running into solvency issues. I detailed a case I worked on in an earlier post.
The successes you claim are extremely rare, mostly local, and are nowhere near the norm. This is openly acknowledged in every statistical study and through Bar or law commission reviews. My advice is to control your product absolutely and only relinquish it through contract. If you become a chaser of copyright infringement, you are doing something wrong on the business side of being a content producer.
Meanwhile, I just noticed my kid is watching a YouTube video of some old Boney M track in clear copyright violation. The reason why some letter has not been filed is because the cost to enforce outweighs the economic loss (look the later term up in a legs dictionary).
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't believe you. You are not a lawyer and you don't 'work writing laws'; if you did you would be a congressman or a state legislator, and politicians don't hide behind anonymous internet handles. You're some loser who can't make a living with his photography, so you're here pretending to be something you're not so you can discourage those of us who are making a living at it.
The Youtube video is still up because the owner doesn't know its there or doesn't care. It wouldn't cost a penny to get it removed. The DMCA forces providers like YouTube to remove copyrighted material if the owner simply asks. I've done it hundreds of times with blogs, facebook, myspace, etc. and a few times with YouTube where someone has used one of my photos in a video. There's no money to be made from the YouTube infringer, but it gets the video off the internet.
Aristophanes
Well-known
You can believe what you want. I am in Canada and I work for the Government of Nova Scotia, though I spent 7 years with the Federal Ministry of Finance and worked in international trade relations in the Pacific Rim (I am from Vancouver and have my undergrad in Economics) where IP issues were always a top-5 item, largely based on complaints from copyright holders.
I've never made a living though photography. It's just a hobby. I simply offer my perspective having watched many frustrated copyright holders complain to government only to be told they have no recourse other than the expensive legal option. Most of them end in failure.
I have no agenda to discourage anyone. I merely point out that to avoid discouragement tend to the business side of your work and build copyright into your contracts which are much easier to enforce due the counterparty chain.
The owner "doesn't care" does not mean it is a not a copyright violation. You contradict yourself by asserting copyright as an absolute right but then make it a non-issue due the emotion of "care". If you choose to spend your productivity using the DMCA, by all means. It does cost to use the DMCA. It is a major cost-centre for corporations. That's why it is a trade issue. Perhaps you should think more about not making your photos so easy to obtain. If they go offshore, you will likely have no recourse. I have seen that firsthand uncounted times. I have gone into Wal-Mart and seen infringing designs on products imported from overseas at the loss of the copyright holder who had too few legal resources to prove the right.
This is not really a legal or moral argument. It's an economic one. The right is only valued if the costs of creation + the cost of distribution = ROI. Add in the cost of copyright pursuit to the cost of distribution and you have a problem, which is why BitTorrent still thrives; it's too expensive to chase down. And, legally or morally assaulting the mass consumer is problematic in that consumers vastly outnumber producers, especially politically. The cost of enforcement of copyright can easily cost more than the cost of production, and the outcome may be uncertain, especially if borders are involved, where the outcome can drop to nil quickly.
So the best way to counter is to take the cost of enforcement out up front as part of the distribution. Carefully control your files and contract to those who work with them. Document everything. It is far easier to pursue a breach of contract successfully than copyright. I have watched a major artist have his works infringed by a major art poster company, sold to cruise ships, and then he got nothing because the infringing poster company went bankrupt. Yet, his works are everywhere on a cruise ship as inventory in their gift shops he cannot pursue as they are based overseas and the cost to pursue would exceed his resources.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to be aware of many copyright violations on the internet. They are the needles in a very large haystack. And, of course, the foreign needles are in the haystacks of farmers who are only concerned with the locals. (The Nixon picture referred to in the introduction to this site was used as an album cover in South America. That must have been some strange tunes.)
You sort of have a choice of disfiguring your web images with copyright notices across the center of the image or not posting a decent sized, high quality image. As we all learn from experience, there is an increasing trend among my friends to not display a large number of good images on the web, even though those images are copyrighted. Sad, but true.
Aristophanes
Well-known
That's an excellent analogy.
The cost to Costco of finding original work was outpaced by the lower cost of infringing work. All it took was a trimmer, copies, a display, and a price gun.
The photographer may have recovered some of that difference (we won't know due to the settlement) but could only do so because they had a Foundation with $$$ to pursue. Costco may still have benefitted in the end. We don't know.
How many photogs here have equivalent resources? Despite all the Leicaphiles here, I suspect very few.
And this case was from 16 years ago when digital copying was only a fledgling child, so the cost to infringe is now even lower.
Your ability to protect your work is limited not by the other party's morality but by your access to legal and financial resources. The moment you need to explain this through morality arguments or threats of litigation is an acknowledgment that you've already lost control. There is therefore the risk of not getting it back.
Aristophanes
Well-known
The Galen and Barbara Rowell website:
http://www.mountainlight.com/
Note the prominent placement of "Image Licensing". I guess so.
Click on it and you get a slideshow. Drag a photo as a file from the show and check the resolution. Pretty low. Too low for anything else but a web-based slideshow. That's one way to protect work. Limit the functionality of the picture, limit the infringement potential.
http://www.mountainlight.com/
Note the prominent placement of "Image Licensing". I guess so.
Click on it and you get a slideshow. Drag a photo as a file from the show and check the resolution. Pretty low. Too low for anything else but a web-based slideshow. That's one way to protect work. Limit the functionality of the picture, limit the infringement potential.