Some of you just don't get it. Intellectual property theft is a crime. Why don't you go to Microsoft and say that it's ok for people to copy Windows CDs and give them to their friends? After all, Microsoft isn't actually losing anything, if the people who received the CDs had no intention of legitimately buying the software anyway. The guy who stole the picture intends to make money off it. Perhaps it would be different if he asked the owner of the site on which he found the picture for permission to use it in his auction, but he didn't. So it isn't a big company that is getting screwed. Does that make it any less wrong or illegal? Some people have a weird sense of morals.
The more I think about this, the more I realize the arguments here are over the letter of the law v. the spirit of the law. I am a rampant believer in living by the spirit of the law and don't concern myself about adhering to its very letter.
Sure, copyright law says that content is solely owned and controlled by the content creator. But intellectual property laws have primarily been established to protect revenue-generating commercial works from piracy. While the letter of the law may say every single little bitmap on your website is yours, there is a secondary interpretation of law that says there is a "fair use" to use others' content in the public domain. Oh, yes, there is a very fine line here, of course...we do not want to slide into a free-for-all, what-is-yours-is-mine socialist quagmire. But there is definitely a case for allowing the duplication of basic, ubiquitous content when it can be reasonably determined that the content creator will not suffer financial harm from these actions. What is "basic"? What is "ubiquitous"? What is "reasonable"? Heh, that's law for you...few things are cut and dry. However, I'll continue to use my discretion when copying other's content, such as images for eBay auctions. It's not stealing or thievery. Some people need to look at law a little more deeply than just glancing at the surface.
In the case of perry, perhaps his content should not have been copied from his site. The question remains, however, is whether the action of the eBay seller who copied the image is causing harm, other than instilling perry to generate a complaint post here on ATOT.
Sure, copyright law says that content is solely owned and controlled by the content creator. But intellectual property laws have primarily been established to protect revenue-generating commercial works from piracy. While the letter of the law may say every single little bitmap on your website is yours, there is a secondary interpretation of law that says there is a "fair use" to use others' content in the public domain. Oh, yes, there is a very fine line here, of course...we do not want to slide into a free-for-all, what-is-yours-is-mine socialist quagmire. But there is definitely a case for allowing the duplication of basic, ubiquitous content when it can be reasonably determined that the content creator will not suffer financial harm from these actions. What is "basic"? What is "ubiquitous"? What is "reasonable"? Heh, that's law for you...few things are cut and dry. However, I'll continue to use my discretion when copying other's content, such as images for eBay auctions. It's not stealing or thievery. Some people need to look at law a little more deeply than just glancing at the surface.
In the case of perry, perhaps his content should not have been copied from his site. The question remains, however, is whether the action of the eBay seller who copied the image is causing harm, other than instilling perry to generate a complaint post here on ATOT.
I get it. The spirit of the law says that if a non-revenue-generating entity has a picture or a file or something, and if someone else uses it without permission for profit, that's just fine, but if the entity who owns the picture or whatever is someone that makes money, it suddenly becomes illegal. No, he did not lose any money, or did he? Advertisers use pictures all the time to sell products and make money. What do you think would happen if those advertisers started stealing pictures and using data that they do not own? Just because the owner of the picture is not a professional photographer does that mean he has no rights? Obviously the person who is using the picture thinks it is good enough to sell something. The owner of the picture is thus entitled to monetary compensation for the use of the picture, and a choice of whether the picture can be used. Think about it. Wouldn't you bid more on an auction where a picture is shown? I certainly would, and in fact I generally don't bid if I don't see what I am bidding on, unless I know exactly what it is.
mithandir - it is my belief that if the author of a piece of intellectual property does not want other people to use his work, he should have the right to forbid it. if he intended for the property to be public domain, he would have stated so. to me, whether or not any harm was caused is irrelevant, stealing is stealing. if you break into somebody's house and leave, leaving no trace of your presence, but they still catch you because some neighbor was watching, i don't think they're going to let you go free just because you didn't do any damage.
Some of you need to loosen up a little. How can you get through life while being so rigid?
So it is never right to interpret the law or to adhere to its spirit? Everything is black and white?
I'm not arguing in favor of this eBay seller...rather, I'm arguing in favor of the "fair use" of web content. If we become so rigid with copyright, then you introduce a slew of inefficiencies. You are suggesting that EVERYTHING requires permission, everything requires a request to the author (e.g. an email which needs to be created and sent), which is then read by the author, who then thinks about it and gives a response and sends it back and the requestor has to handle the response. I can't imagine living under this kind of regime. It is inefficient and unnecessary! Some things, yes, some things ARE indeed to be considered fair use...we do not have to think about copyright every single moment because many issues are petty and life is too short to worry about every little minutiae! Jeepers.
If you don't want your original content copied or "stolen", then it is YOUR responsibility to protect it. Not 100% full responsibility, but you DO bear part of the burden. You can't let the law do everything for you. This is just simple common sense. It's illegal to steal a car, so why do we lock our car doors? Because we, as property owners, have a responsibility to protect what is ours. If we leave our car door unlocked with the key in the ignition and the car happens to get stolen, the thief isn't any less wrong in his action, but we can't completely cry the blues.
A very unfortunate event occurred at Penn State a few weeks ago. A drunk young man entered a female dorm late at night, opened the unlocked doors to a few rooms and allegedly assaulted several sleeping women. The whole situation was horrible for many reasons: the young man exercised intolerable behavior, and this behavior could have been prevented if the women had simply locked their doors. He was imprisoned and after he realized what he had done, he felt so shameful and depressed that he killed himself in his jail cell. True story.
On my website, I have a copyright message at the bottom of every page. Will it stop people dead in their tracks? No, of course not. But I have the copyright tagline just to let people know that I personally prefer to maintain control of my content. If you have an image that you don't want copied, then put in a watermark. I am not condoning the blind duplication of material that copyright owners expressly state they do not want copied. But if there is no mention of copyright, then you CAN use some discretion.
Applying standard, old copyright law to digital works is not going to work, nor should it. Digital frees us from the confines of the physical and relates in some ways to the holy grail of cheap, limitless, pollution-free energy. It costs virtually nothing in dollars or time to duplicate something digital. Leverage this wonderful new paradigm of efficiency that technology allows! No, I'm NOT suggesting that anything digital is free, HARDLY! (I'm a software developer myself). But, again, not EVERYTHING that is digital requires a deep consideration into copyright issues. Don't let rigidity stifle progress.
Again, I have not seen perry's website nor the offending eBay auction. The eBay seller could very well have used improper discretion and broken both the letter and spirit of the law. But I'm trying to argue that some duplication of digital content is acceptable, whether that applies to perry, I cannot say with what I have.
So it is never right to interpret the law or to adhere to its spirit? Everything is black and white?
I'm not arguing in favor of this eBay seller...rather, I'm arguing in favor of the "fair use" of web content. If we become so rigid with copyright, then you introduce a slew of inefficiencies. You are suggesting that EVERYTHING requires permission, everything requires a request to the author (e.g. an email which needs to be created and sent), which is then read by the author, who then thinks about it and gives a response and sends it back and the requestor has to handle the response. I can't imagine living under this kind of regime. It is inefficient and unnecessary! Some things, yes, some things ARE indeed to be considered fair use...we do not have to think about copyright every single moment because many issues are petty and life is too short to worry about every little minutiae! Jeepers.
If you don't want your original content copied or "stolen", then it is YOUR responsibility to protect it. Not 100% full responsibility, but you DO bear part of the burden. You can't let the law do everything for you. This is just simple common sense. It's illegal to steal a car, so why do we lock our car doors? Because we, as property owners, have a responsibility to protect what is ours. If we leave our car door unlocked with the key in the ignition and the car happens to get stolen, the thief isn't any less wrong in his action, but we can't completely cry the blues.
A very unfortunate event occurred at Penn State a few weeks ago. A drunk young man entered a female dorm late at night, opened the unlocked doors to a few rooms and allegedly assaulted several sleeping women. The whole situation was horrible for many reasons: the young man exercised intolerable behavior, and this behavior could have been prevented if the women had simply locked their doors. He was imprisoned and after he realized what he had done, he felt so shameful and depressed that he killed himself in his jail cell. True story.
On my website, I have a copyright message at the bottom of every page. Will it stop people dead in their tracks? No, of course not. But I have the copyright tagline just to let people know that I personally prefer to maintain control of my content. If you have an image that you don't want copied, then put in a watermark. I am not condoning the blind duplication of material that copyright owners expressly state they do not want copied. But if there is no mention of copyright, then you CAN use some discretion.
Applying standard, old copyright law to digital works is not going to work, nor should it. Digital frees us from the confines of the physical and relates in some ways to the holy grail of cheap, limitless, pollution-free energy. It costs virtually nothing in dollars or time to duplicate something digital. Leverage this wonderful new paradigm of efficiency that technology allows! No, I'm NOT suggesting that anything digital is free, HARDLY! (I'm a software developer myself). But, again, not EVERYTHING that is digital requires a deep consideration into copyright issues. Don't let rigidity stifle progress.
Again, I have not seen perry's website nor the offending eBay auction. The eBay seller could very well have used improper discretion and broken both the letter and spirit of the law. But I'm trying to argue that some duplication of digital content is acceptable, whether that applies to perry, I cannot say with what I have.
Let it sliiiide. He's not doing you much harm. But if it's really getting to you, and you have the right for it to, then nail him for it. But, I reinforce my previous statement of let it sliiiide 
<< Jason,
You stated;
<< What is Parry supposed to do, demand $1.50 for the right to use the picture?
This is NOT the same thing as a professional picture being stolen... >>
Well, please explain to me further the difference because I do not understand the differentiation.
>>
Simple, one is worth thousands of dollars, the other one isn't worth anything...
<<
As far as I was aware, and according to copyright law, any content that an indivdual creates, no matter whether it is of any value (monetary or intellectual) to anyone else, is owned by the creator. Therefore if someone wishes to reproduce that content they have to get permission from the owner to do so. The owner has the choice to let them do it for free or to charge them $x dollars. You, nor I, nor anyone else has any right to decide the value of someone's intellectual property.
>>
You're right, but since it isn't worth anything, that law is really unenforceable... Unless he just wants to be an ass about it...
<<
Irrespective of whether Perry is right or wrong, the issue of copyright does not change. You said;
<< If someone takes your picture, YOU ARE NOT MISSING ANYTHING! >>
but I beg to differ. The issue is not the cost to produce the picture. The issue is the value the creator places on the pictures' content.
>>
This is true... So Perry is out the value of the picture's content... So lets figure out the value of the content of the picture and possible licenceing rights...
Umm, ZERO...
There, he isn't out anything...
<<
In Perry's case he has a right to ask for millions of dollars from someone who wishes to use his picture. I do not believe it is worth that, you do not, I don't think Perry does either, but he has that right under law. >>
This is true, but if taken to court, the COURT would determine the value, not Perry... As such, since they would most likely determine that it isn't worth anything, Perry isn't out anything, thus no case...
Even if there is a case without value, who is that lame to press the point?
Jason
<< Some of you just don't get it. Intellectual property theft is a crime. Why don't you go to Microsoft and say that it's ok for people to copy Windows CDs and give them to their friends? After all, Microsoft isn't actually losing anything, if the people who received the CDs had no intention of legitimately buying the software anyway. The guy who stole the picture intends to make money off it. Perhaps it would be different if he asked the owner of the site on which he found the picture for permission to use it in his auction, but he didn't. So it isn't a big company that is getting screwed. Does that make it any less wrong or illegal? Some people have a weird sense of morals. >>
But Microsoft IS out something if you steal their work...
You're missing the point...
In neither case is something physcially missing, but in Perry's case, he isn't out money either... It isn't something he can reasonably charge for... In Microsoft's case, they can easily charge for their work, thus making them not the same thing...
Jason
Jason,
Have you ever heard of van Gogh, or Gauguin? Their art works were considered worthless when they created them, but are worth millions of dollars now and are revered around the world. Would you have the audacity to look at one of their art pieces and say it is worthless because you don't think it has any value?
How much did an art piece of theirs cost to produce? Relative to todays costs, maybe $100 (pure estimate). So because it only cost them $100 to make, we shouldn't pay any more for it?
This photo is considered to be modern art. Do you think it is worth anything?
Have you ever heard of van Gogh, or Gauguin? Their art works were considered worthless when they created them, but are worth millions of dollars now and are revered around the world. Would you have the audacity to look at one of their art pieces and say it is worthless because you don't think it has any value?
How much did an art piece of theirs cost to produce? Relative to todays costs, maybe $100 (pure estimate). So because it only cost them $100 to make, we shouldn't pay any more for it?
This photo is considered to be modern art. Do you think it is worth anything?
<< Jason,
Have you ever heard of van Gogh, or Gauguin? Their art works were considered worthless when they created them, but are worth millions of dollars now and are revered around the world. Would you have the audacity to look at one of their art pieces and say it is worthless because you don't think it has any value?
How much did an art piece of theirs cost to produce? Relative to todays costs, maybe $100 (pure estimate). So because it only cost them $100 to make, we shouldn't pay any more for it?
This photo is considered to be modern art. Do you think it is worth anything? >>
Hmm, just take the ball and run with it to mars why don't you...
I can freely copy a van Gogh as well, those are not protected... In 500 years, his picture won't be either...
Jason
As for the value of those paintings, they are worth only what someone will pay for them... To me, they are worthless... To you, perhaps they are priceless... But they have little physical value...
<< As for the value of those paintings, they are worth only what someone will pay for them... To me, they are worthless... To you, perhaps they are priceless... But they have little physical value... >>
Jason,
This was what my point and we finally got there. It is not the physical value of an artifact but the price that someone will ask for it and the price someone will pay for it.
So going back to Perry and his photo, you do not believe it is worth anything but someone else may think it is worth hundreds of dollars. If we do not think it is worth anything, then we do not pay for it or use it. Someone else may vlaue it highly and pay for the ownership of it or the use thereof.
This is what copyright is all about. The intrinsic value is not considered, it is the idea, the content, the artistic value that is protected by copyright.
If you don't want your original content copied or "stolen", then it is YOUR responsibility to protect it. Not 100% full responsibility, but you DO bear part of the burden. You can't let the law do everything for you. This is just simple common sense. It's illegal to steal a car, so why do we lock our car doors? Because we, as property owners, have a responsibility to protect what is ours. If we leave our car door unlocked with the key in the ignition and the car happens to get stolen, the thief isn't any less wrong in his action, but we can't completely cry the blues.
good analogy, and if your car got stolen, and you know who took it, would you make an effort to get your car back? it is his responsibility to protect it, and that's what some of us are advocating, that he protects his property.
good analogy, and if your car got stolen, and you know who took it, would you make an effort to get your car back? it is his responsibility to protect it, and that's what some of us are advocating, that he protects his property.
You are suggesting that EVERYTHING requires permission, everything requires a request to the author (e.g. an email which needs to be created and sent), which is then read by the author, who then thinks about it and gives a response and sends it back and the requestor has to handle the response. I can't imagine living under this kind of regime. It is inefficient and unnecessary! Some things, yes, some things ARE indeed to be considered fair use...we do not have to think about copyright every single moment because many issues are petty and life is too short to worry about every little minutiae! Jeepers.
not having enough time is not an excuse for theft of intellectual property. this seller does not have to seek permission or whatever, he could just take a picture himself. it's his fault for being lazy.
A very unfortunate event occurred at Penn State a few weeks ago. A drunk young man entered a female dorm late at night, opened the unlocked doors to a few rooms and allegedly assaulted several sleeping women. The whole situation was horrible for many reasons: the young man exercised intolerable behavior, and this behavior could have been prevented if the women had simply locked their doors. He was imprisoned and after he realized what he had done, he felt so shameful and depressed that he killed himself in his jail cell. True story.
so what do you think the moral of this story is? that the women shouldn't have reported it?
I am not condoning the blind duplication of material that copyright owners expressly state they do not want copied. But if there is no mention of copyright, then you CAN use some discretion.
no, actually i looked into this a while ago and copyright laws very clearly and specifically state that the laws exist even without that copyright notice. they were intended to be that way.
Don't let rigidity stifle progress.
as a competing seller, the originator of this thread probably doesn't want the accused ebay seller of progressing by stealing his property.
not having enough time is not an excuse for theft of intellectual property. this seller does not have to seek permission or whatever, he could just take a picture himself. it's his fault for being lazy.
A very unfortunate event occurred at Penn State a few weeks ago. A drunk young man entered a female dorm late at night, opened the unlocked doors to a few rooms and allegedly assaulted several sleeping women. The whole situation was horrible for many reasons: the young man exercised intolerable behavior, and this behavior could have been prevented if the women had simply locked their doors. He was imprisoned and after he realized what he had done, he felt so shameful and depressed that he killed himself in his jail cell. True story.
so what do you think the moral of this story is? that the women shouldn't have reported it?
I am not condoning the blind duplication of material that copyright owners expressly state they do not want copied. But if there is no mention of copyright, then you CAN use some discretion.
no, actually i looked into this a while ago and copyright laws very clearly and specifically state that the laws exist even without that copyright notice. they were intended to be that way.
Don't let rigidity stifle progress.
as a competing seller, the originator of this thread probably doesn't want the accused ebay seller of progressing by stealing his property.
<< Just do what I do -- take poor quality pictures. Nobody will want to use them. >>
I do that all the time... just not on purpose.
<<
This was what my point and we finally got there. It is not the physical value of an artifact but the price that someone will ask for it and the price someone will pay for it.
So going back to Perry and his photo, you do not believe it is worth anything but someone else may think it is worth hundreds of dollars. If we do not think it is worth anything, then we do not pay for it or use it. Someone else may vlaue it highly and pay for the ownership of it or the use thereof.
This is what copyright is all about. The intrinsic value is not considered, it is the idea, the content, the artistic value that is protected by copyright. >>
Yep, but if we disagree over the value, it goes to the courts...
And the problem here is that the court would NOT place any value on the picture, thus my original comment remains true...
Play with the words any way you want, the picture is not worth anything.
Jason
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter