Former Copyright Boss Thinks The World Owes Him A Living

[Banquet_Bear]

@BigT

Of course the money would go to the government granting you the extension on your copyright.

…what, the New Zealand government? Who is going to co-ordinate the governments of the world to create this new regime? How are you going to get every government talking to each other?

You are paying them for a service–protecting your work from being copied.

So how would this system work and how is it different from what happens now? Break it down for me. I have 1000 images where I pay $100.00 each to extend their copyright. Where does that $100,000 go? How is it spent? Why should I support this idea? Why should anyone support this idea?

And the entire point is that you wouldn’t pay for all of them. You would only pay for the images you considered important. And thus the rest would be available to enrich the public.

I consider them all important. Who are you to judge the importance of my work? What is this “enrich the public” nonsense? If you want to enrich the public you have the right to do so. Why are you trying to force me into doing something against my will?

Of course the copyright holders aren’t going to go for it, as it limits their power for no monetary gain.

Its not about monetary gain as has been explained to you over and over again. Its about having the right to control what I create. Why are you so greedy that you want to take control and use my work without contributing anything towards it?

The same way rich people want to not pay taxes–there’s nothing in it for them in the short term.

You’ve got this wrong. There is nothing in this for content creators in the short or the long term. The “rich people” in this scenerio aren’t the content creators: its the people who want to change the laws so the people that create the content don’t get the benefit of their own creation. You don’t want to pay your way. You just want stuff for free.

That’s the problem. And since you guys don’t want to work on a solution, piracy is mainstream, and most of us don’t even feel guilty.

Piracy isn’t mainstream. The vast majority of people pay for stuff that they use. You want to create a solution to a non-existant problem.

That’s what’s in it for the creators–to stop the piracy that bothers them so much, instead of having to constantly fight a war they can’t win.

We are winning. You are on the wrong side of history.

To get people to actually care about their work instead of having to use the law as a baseball bat to people’s heads.

People caring for my work won’t pay my rent. What benefit to content creators get from people caring about their work? Will it magically upgrade my camera equipment? Will people caring for my work somehow buy my grocery shopping? Pay my power bill?

And, I know, you’re actually one of the good guys. You don’t stop people from using your work unless it’s against message. That’s great. You are not part of the problem. I’d be fine with amending my 14-year copyright idea to allow you to do exactly what you’re doing, even after the normal copyright would expire. I just don’t want you to have more power than that.

Why not? Why 14 years, whats so magical about that number? We’ve had someone say 10 years. We’ve had twenty. We’ve had 10 years after the creators death. Why don’t you guys get together first and come up with a number first and the reason why that number is better than the status quo?

And, frankly, you don’t. You just think you do.

I don’t what? I think I do what?

If your work is good, it would have been circulated online whether you tried to stop it or not. The only difference is that one guy might be hurt disproportionately to the crime so that you can feel you have control over your work.

My work, IMHO, is good. People pay me and pay me well for my work. Disproportionately is subjective. I have no qualms about taking action against someone who uses my work without paying me or asking me. Why do you think I should?

The real question is, Would you be so magnanimous if you could fight this? Because a large number of copyright owners can and do. And that’s what I want to stop.

What exactly do you want to stop?

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Banquet_Bear

…the images are of value. If I lost copyright on them I would loose the ability to sell them. I couldn’t stop them from using them on a neo-nazi website. I couldn’t protect my models who agree to a certain usage for the images and find out later they are endorsing venereal disease medication.

You claim they have value, but they probably don’t. I’m not trying to personally slight you here. If a cache of a hundred thousand Ansel Adams photos were found, they would have very little value. They would likely even degrade the value of his existing photos.

You concerns about Neo-Nazis and the like are… theoretical. They may already be using your pictures. And even if you caught one in the act, it’s likely that you couldn’t do anything about it unless they had rehosted them on a large site that has a strong process for identifying and removing copyright violations.

@Banquet_Bear

Of course I don’t mind. As the copyright holder I can choose to display them where-ever I like. Should you be able to display them without my permission?

I already can. I can print them out and display them in my home. I can use small versions in a critique in a commercial publication. I can create a Neo-Nazi themed parody of your images using the images themselves.

You have some control over your images, but it’s in no way complete.

@Banquet_Bear

Reduced to what? Why? What effect will that have?

Somewhere between the original (admittedly short) terms and the absurdly long ones that exist today. I’m not too picky, but if I had to pick a number I’d say 40 years or death+25, whichever comes first. Automatic and no renewals.

The effect will be no worse than when terms were that short–there was plenty of creative output then. I see no evidence that the current level of output is related to current copyright terms instead of simply having a massive surplus of creative workers compared to then (because they aren’t working the farm anymore).

@Banquet_Bear

When you can come with an answer that everyone can agree on and doesn’t destroy the creative industries we might have something to discuss.

Even a 10 year term won’t destroy any industry. Most works, if they’re ever going to pay for themselves, will do so in that timeframe. It would hurt some “one hit wonders” that have an early success, very little success after that, and then live off continued royalties. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, but it’s not really that great for the rest of society. And anyway, I don’t think copyrights need to be that short.

If you think otherwise, maybe you can name a creative work that probably wouldn’t have made without copyright lasting many decades.

[Steophan]

@Banquet_Bear

What is this “enrich the public” nonsense? If you want to enrich the public you have the right to do so. Why are you trying to force me into doing something against my will?

It’s the purpose of copyright. Copyright exists to
[QUOTE=The Constitution of the United States of America]
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
[/quote]

Copyright doesn’t exist to benefit you, it exists to benefit the public. When it fails to do that, for example by making art unnecessarily expensive or difficult to obtain, it fails at it’s sole purpose.

Piracy isn’t mainstream.

I don’t believe you know what “mainstream” means.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Dr.Strangelove

You claim they have value, but they probably don’t. I’m not trying to personally slight you here.

…yeah you are. And they do have value, despite what you might think.

If a cache of a hundred thousand Ansel Adams photos were found, they would have very little value. They would likely even degrade the value of his existing photos.

I shoot commercial corporate work. The last conference I shot over 4000 images and delivered 1200 to my client. Those images had value. The fact that you keep invoking Ansel Adams shows you don’t have a clue what you talk about. Its not just about art. Changing copyright laws would change a whole lot of things: not just the things you think about.

You concerns about Neo-Nazis and the like are… theoretical. They may already be using your pictures. And even if you caught one in the act, it’s likely that you couldn’t do anything about it unless they had rehosted them on a large site that has a strong process for identifying and removing copyright violations.

But I could do something about it: thats the point. I’ve got the law on my side. I can get the host to take the images taken down. Its a common practice that happens daily all around the world and if you actually had any knowledge of how things worked you would know that. Take away those protections: which you asked me to consider, would mean I couldn’t do squat. Can’t you see the difference?

I already can. I can print them out and display them in my home. I can use small versions in a critique in a commercial publication. I can create a Neo-Nazi themed parody of your images using the images themselves.

And each of those things you are talking about with the exception of the parody would be a copyright violation. And if you got caught I would make you pay and I would have the force of law on my side. Why do you want to take that away from me?

You have some control over your images, but it’s in no way complete.

I’m not claiming it is. But take away copyright and guess what? I’ve got no control at all.

Somewhere between the original (admittedly short) terms and the absurdly long ones that exist today. I’m not too picky, but if I had to pick a number I’d say 40 years or death+25, whichever comes first. Automatic and no renewals.

So some more random numbers. We’ve got 10 years. We’ve just had sixteen years suggested. Now 40 years. How about you guys come together and figure out a number first before you start lobbying to change the laws?

The effect will be no worse than when terms were that short–there was plenty of creative output then. I see no evidence that the current level of output is related to current copyright terms instead of simply having a massive surplus of creative workers compared to then (because they aren’t working the farm anymore).

I would stop sharing my work if I couldn’t protect it: its that simple. And I’m not the only content creator who would do that.

Even a 10 year term won’t destroy any industry.

Before we even start to consider changing the laws you need to prove this. So prove it.

Most works, if they’re ever going to pay for themselves, will do so in that timeframe. It would hurt some “one hit wonders” that have an early success, very little success after that, and then live off continued royalties. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, but it’s not really that great for the rest of society. And anyway, I don’t think copyrights need to be that short.

Its not just about the money. Its about control: and the right of a content creator to control the work that they have invested time and money in creating.

If you think otherwise, maybe you can name a creative work that probably wouldn’t have made without copyright lasting many decades.

I was discussing a ten year term: not “decades.” With a ten year term I know that I would simply stop sharing my work. I’m sure that many people sharing work on flickr and 500px and facebook would do the same. I just asked my friend what he would do with only ten years of copyright protection and he said he would stop sharing his images as well. I would change my business model and only sell prints. Nothing would go online. Many photographers would do the same thing.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

It’s the purpose of copyright. Copyright exists to

Copyright doesn’t exist to benefit you, it exists to benefit the public. When it fails to do that, for example by making art unnecessarily expensive or difficult to obtain, it fails at it’s sole purpose.

…I’m sorry: I didn’t realize that I had to bow down to the Constitution of the United States, not being a US citizen and not residing in the United States. The writings of old dead Americans are of little interest to me: what is relevant is what the laws say now.

I don’t believe you know what “mainstream” means.

Yeah I do. Most people pay for goods and services rendered. Only the dirty rotten scumbags don’t. We’ve had this discussion before. If I create work that is of value to you and you use it or consume it, you should ask me or pay me, don’t you agree?

[Steophan]

@Banquet_Bear

…I’m sorry: I didn’t realize that I had to bow down to the Constitution of the United States, not being a US citizen and not residing in the United States. The writings of old dead Americans are of little interest to me: what is relevant is what the laws say now.

Agreed. And when the laws are demonstrably harmful, and contrary to the principle they claim to be defending, what then? I’d suggest they need to be reformed or abolished, and laws put in place that actual do the job - which is to benefit society as a whole, by ensuring the maximum creation and distribution of art and invention.

Yeah I do. Most people pay for goods and services rendered. Only the dirty rotten scumbags don’t. We’ve had this discussion before. If I create work that is of value to you and you use it or consume it, you should ask me or pay me, don’t you agree?

If I consume it, as in I take something of yours, and you no longer have it, then yes, of course. If, however, this is not what happens, then no, I don’t need to pay for something with no marginal cost. We’ve been over this before. You have no moral right to charge me for something that costs nothing to create - and a copy of a digital file costs nothing.

Most people, myself included, realise that creating the original costs money, and will pay for it if they value it sufficiently. What you fail to realise is that it’s me, not you, that decides what your work is worth.

More relevantly, it’s not only dirty rotten scumbags who copy works, it’s the vast majority of ordinary people. This mischaracterisation is why your side will lose this fight. Insulting normal people engaged in normal activity will not get them on your side.

Answer this. Have you ever copied an album onto tape? Recorded a song from the radio or videoed a TV show and watched it more than once? Watched a YouTube video that wasn’t uploaded by the creator? If so, and you have, because everyone has, then you need to admit that you consider yourself a dirty rotten scumbag. Then, hopefully, slink away in shame like the unpleasant self-serving hypocritical arsehole you are.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Banquet_Bear

Its a common practice that happens daily all around the world and if you actually had any knowledge of how things worked you would know that.

I do know how it works, and like I said, for big sites the system works. But what are you going to do about some tiny web forum hosted in Romania?

@Banquet_Bear

And each of those things you are talking about with the exception of the parody would be a copyright violation. And if you got caught I would make you pay and I would have the force of law on my side. Why do you want to take that away from me?

All three of the things I cited are perfectly legal. I can make copies of work I am otherwise authorized to (i.e., pictures shown on the web) for personal use. And I can use small portions of a work for critique (fair use). The parody is also fair use. I am not taking these away from you; you never had them.

@Banquet_Bear

I’m not claiming it is. But take away copyright and guess what? I’ve got no control at all.

Again, I’m not advocating the abolition of copyright. But it’s not true that you don’t have control. You always have control over images that aren’t shown to the public. A great deal of commercial work would hardly change at all, since it’s simply a work contract between two parties, and they can dictate whatever terms they want.

@Banquet_Bear

So some more random numbers. We’ve got 10 years. We’ve just had sixteen years suggested. Now 40 years. How about you guys come together and figure out a number first before you start lobbying to change the laws?

It’s not going to happen, so this is just bitching and moaning in the Pit. The anti- side doesn’t have to agree on anything. We just think that 150+ years might be a bit too long.

@Banquet_Bear

Before we even start to consider changing the laws you need to prove this. So prove it.

I guess we’re going to have to disagree on who bears the burden of evidence. I think anyone who believes 150 year copyrights encourages creative expression significantly more than 40 year copyrights is completely nuts and needs to prove it. Especially since Disney and Sonny Bono and the others never proved their case when they lobbied to extend copyright in the first place.

@Banquet_Bear

Its not just about the money. Its about control: and the right of a content creator to control the work that they have invested time and money in creating.

Yes, I hear this over and over from you and others.

In your ideal universe, would there be any limits to the control you exert on your works? Would you eliminate fair use? Would terms be infinite? Would your notion of a derivative work be so stringent that no one could make something that even remotely resembled your work?

@Banquet_Bear

I just asked my friend what he would do with only ten years of copyright protection and he said he would stop sharing his images as well. I would change my business model and only sell prints. Nothing would go online. Many photographers would do the same thing.

Forever? Or would there come a point where the generous part of your brain said “hey, this image has never made me any money but I think it’s nice and shows good technique, and maybe someone else can enjoy or learn from it?”

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

Agreed. And when the laws are demonstrably harmful, and contrary to the principle they claim to be defending, what then? I’d suggest they need to be reformed or abolished, and laws put in place that actual do the job - which is to benefit society as a whole, by ensuring the maximum creation and distribution of art and invention.

…copyright is not demonstrably harmful. It doesn’t need to be reformed or abolished and they currently do benefit society as a whole.

If I consume it, as in I take something of yours, and you no longer have it, then yes, of course. If, however, this is not what happens, then no, I don’t need to pay for something with no marginal cost. We’ve been over this before. You have no moral right to charge me for something that costs nothing to create - and a copy of a digital file costs nothing.

Ahhh: you’ve pulled out the big guns haven’t you! The “no longer have it” followed by the “no need to pay for something with no marginal cost” and the “no moral right to charge me for something that costs nothing to create” strawmen: all in one go. The problem is, of course, you are wrong. My photos cost money to create. If you don’t want to pay for it: spend fifteen thousand dollars on camera gear, fly over here to New Zealand, use your own photography training to identify the right light, time and location to shoot and take your own damn picture.

Most people, myself included, realise that creating the original costs money, and will pay for it if they value it sufficiently. What you fail to realise is that it’s me, not you, that decides what your work is worth.

Wrong. I decide what its worth, and you decide whether or not to pay me for it. You don’t go to McDonalds and demand your own prices, do you?

More relevantly, it’s not only dirty rotten scumbags who copy works, it’s the vast majority of ordinary people. This mischaracterisation is why your side will lose this fight. Insulting normal people engaged in normal activity will not get them on your side.

You are wrong. You might surround yourself with dirty rotten scumbags: but that doesn’t make it normal.

Answer this. Have you ever copied an album onto tape? Recorded a song from the radio or videoed a TV show and watched it more than once? Watched a YouTube video that wasn’t uploaded by the creator? If so, and you have, because everyone has, then you need to admit that you consider yourself a dirty rotten scumbag. Then, hopefully, slink away in shame like the unpleasant self-serving hypocritical arsehole you are.

Oh you’ve done it again! Aren’t you clever. I’m surprised that you haven’t thrown the old “have you ever broken the speed limit” strawman either!

If you want to use my work: pay me or ask me. Its not that hard.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Dr.Strangelove

I do know how it works, and like I said, for big sites the system works. But what are you going to do about some tiny web forum hosted in Romania?

…well what of it? I would take whatever action I could: but just because not every situation can be addressed doesn’t mean you need to “bring down the wall.”

All three of the things I cited are perfectly legal. I can make copies of work I am otherwise authorized to (i.e., pictures shown on the web) for personal use. And I can use small portions of a work for critique (fair use). The parody is also fair use. I am not taking these away from you; you never had them.

Sorry, I misread what you wrote: two of the three situations are indeed legal. But not printing and displaying in your house for personal use: very few jurisdictions allow that.

And quit with the “you never had them” lameness, will you? We live in the new enlightened digital age and you need to get with the programme.

Again, I’m not advocating the abolition of copyright. But it’s not true that you don’t have control. You always have control over images that aren’t shown to the public. A great deal of commercial work would hardly change at all, since it’s simply a work contract between two parties, and they can dictate whatever terms they want.

Simply wrong. I couldn’t licence my work for commercial purposes, for example, because without the promise of exclusivity why would a company pay for images? Once they display it, anyone can use it. The photo-stock industry would be the first industry to go under without copyright. Portrait photographers would survive better than most without copyright but they would do that by only selling prints.

It’s not going to happen, so this is just bitching and moaning in the Pit. The anti- side doesn’t have to agree on anything. We just think that 150+ years might be a bit too long.

If you want to get something done: quite bitching and moaning in the pit.

I guess we’re going to have to disagree on who bears the burden of evidence. I think anyone who believes 150 year copyrights encourages creative expression significantly more than 40 year copyrights is completely nuts and needs to prove it. Especially since Disney and Sonny Bono and the others never proved their case when they lobbied to extend copyright in the first place.

Nah: the burden of proof is on you…after all I don’t want to change the laws, you do. If you think the time frame needs to come down to 40 years then prove it.

Yes, I hear this over and over from you and others.

In your ideal universe, would there be any limits to the control you exert on your works? Would you eliminate fair use? Would terms be infinite? Would your notion of a derivative work be so stringent that no one could make something that even remotely resembled your work?

I’m happy with how things are now thanks.

Forever? Or would there come a point where the generous part of your brain said “hey, this image has never made me any money but I think it’s nice and shows good technique, and maybe someone else can enjoy or learn from it?”

Not before I die: I know that for sure. And if I had kids nothing would make me happier for them to continue to profit the hard work I’ve done all my life as well. If you work hard all your life you would like to leave something for your family, wouldn’t you?

[Steophan]

Banquet Bear, no strawmen in my post, just an accurate analysis of how creative content is actually valued in the real world. I notice you’ve answered none of the questions, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of economics.

Answer my question as to whether you’ve ever pirated. I know why you won’t, of course, it’s because you’ll be revealed as a hypocrite.

[Baal_Houtham]

@Steophan

**
Answer my question as to whether you’ve ever pirated. I know why you won’t, of course, it’s because you’ll be revealed as a hypocrite.

Hi Steophan. That question wasn’t directed at me, but I’d like to answer anyway. I’ve got lots of things on my computer that are questionable. “Shared” music and such. I’m not compulsively moral and don’t worry about being a hypocrite very often.

For me, it’s similar to traffic laws against speeding. People violate them. More people violate them, then don’t. But if they are not occasionally enforced (extremely imperfectly) then you’ve got people driving 120 mph mixed with people driving 40, and people going down alleys at 65.

On many issues I won’t behave unless there’s a threat of punishment, and I think that’s true of most people. I support laws that stop me from doing things that I would otherwise do.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

Banquet Bear, no strawmen in my post, just an accurate analysis of how creative content is actually valued in the real world. I notice you’ve answered none of the questions, and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of economics.

Answer my question as to whether you’ve ever pirated. I know why you won’t, of course, it’s because you’ll be revealed as a hypocrite.

…your questions have been answered over and over again and your lack of understanding of economics is plain to see by anyone who has a brain. I would try to explain to you why a digital file has value, but I honestly don’t think that your brain is big enough to cope. Ask or pay or don’t use: three very simple choices you have. Why do you need to choose number four?

I have pirated in the past: but then I realized I was being a dirty rotten scumbag and I was hurting other artists so I stopped. Its a shame you haven’t come to the same realization.

[Steophan]

@Banquet_Bear

…your questions have been answered over and over again and your lack of understanding of economics is plain to see by anyone who has a brain. I would try to explain to you why a digital file has value, but I honestly don’t think that your brain is big enough to cope. Ask or pay or don’t use: three very simple choices you have. Why do you need to choose number four?

What is the marginal cost of a digital file? What is the marginal value of a digital music file to the average consumer? Do you even understand what those terms mean?

I have pirated in the past: but then I realized I was being a dirty rotten scumbag and I was hurting other artists so I stopped. Its a shame you haven’t come to the same realization.

At least you admit you’re a scumbag, but for the wrong reasons. The reason you’re a scumbag is the constant lying, in this thread the prominent example being constantly saying that copyright exists to benefit artists.

You, presumably, want to advertise your ability as a photographer in the hope that people will hire you to take photographs. How, exactly, does people sharing your photos harm you? If you have any ability, the exact opposite is occurring. You want to harm yourself and society as a whole for no reason other than a false belief that you can own information. You are a deluded fool.

[Steophan]

@Baal_Houtham

Hi Steophan. That question wasn’t directed at me, but I’d like to answer anyway. I’ve got lots of things on my computer that are questionable. “Shared” music and such. I’m not compulsively moral and don’t worry about being a hypocrite very often.

For me, it’s similar to traffic laws against speeding. People violate them. More people violate them, then don’t. But if they are not occasionally enforced (extremely imperfectly) then you’ve got people driving 120 mph mixed with people driving 40, and people going down alleys at 65.

On many issues I won’t behave unless there’s a threat of punishment, and I think that’s true of most people. I support laws that stop me from doing things that I would otherwise do.

I disagree that it’s similar to speeding laws. Speeding is illegal because speeding is dangerous. File sharing is illegal because it reduces the ability of large companies to manipulate the availability of artworks, and to profit from that manipulation. If you want a law that benefits Disney at the expense of others, both artists and consumers, fair enough, but it’s not comparable to a law that benefits everybody.

Free availability of music, films, books, and so forth through the internet has changed things just as much as the printing press, TV, or the invention of the gramophone. To continue to use archaic laws when there’s been a complete paradigm shift is idiotic, especially when the express purpose of those laws is the public good, and they are being used for the exact opposite.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Banquet_Bear

Sorry, I misread what you wrote: two of the three situations are indeed legal. But not printing and displaying in your house for personal use: very few jurisdictions allow that.

Here is the best I can do, cite-wise:
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/are-flickr-photos-fair-game-for-home-printing/

They (the cited lawyers) seem to think it’s up in the air since it hasn’t tested, but that it parallels other other cases that have been tested to be clearly legal, such as home recording.

If you point me to your images, I will download one and print it. Then you can sue me and we can test the theory in court :).

@Banquet_Bear

And quit with the “you never had them” lameness, will you? We live in the new enlightened digital age and you need to get with the programme.

Perhaps if you quit with the “why do you want to take this from me” lameness. The new hotness is stuff like Creative Commons and the remix culture. Why don’t you get with the program?

@Banquet_Bear

Once they display it, anyone can use it. The photo-stock industry would be the first industry to go under without copyright. Portrait photographers would survive better than most without copyright but they would do that by only selling prints.

Anyone could use it in principle, but without access to the digital “originals” there’s not a whole lot of value. No one wants a scanned-in version of an image.

As far as other forms of exclusivity, can that can specified in the contract (presumably, it already is). If the buyer doesn’t want you to resell the images, that can be specified and if you violate that it’s a contract dispute, not a copyright violation.

@Banquet_Bear

If you want to get something done: quite bitching and moaning in the pit.

I like bitching and moaning in the Pit. I’m not a lawyer; I have a day job. Best I can do is try to convince others that the ideas have merit, so that maybe one day there will be more public support for the issues.

@Banquet_Bear

Nah: the burden of proof is on you…after all I don’t want to change the laws, you do. If you think the time frame needs to come down to 40 years then prove it.

How about we first try going back to the ancient age of 1998, when copyrights were merely life+50 instead of life+70.

Was the content industry in rough shape before that time? No. If anything, creativity has gone down with the age of sequels we live in.

@Banquet_Bear

I’m happy with how things are now thanks.

What an amazing coincidence that the current law–in flux as it is–just happens to be exactly what you want!

I expect you to fight tooth and nail at the next extension or expansion of powers, since you are so happy with the current system.

May I take it as read that you are absolutely opposed to the proposal in the OP, since is a major change to the way things are?

@Banquet_Bear

Not before I die: I know that for sure. And if I had kids nothing would make me happier for them to continue to profit the hard work I’ve done all my life as well. If you work hard all your life you would like to leave something for your family, wouldn’t you?

You can leave them the money you earned in your lifetime, just like everyone else.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

What is the marginal cost of a digital file? What is the marginal value of a digital music file to the average consumer? Do you even understand what those terms mean?

…yeah, I understand what those terms mean. They are terms that the anti-copyright brigade have adopted as their own to feed their delusions that since a digital image “has zero cost” they should be able to appropriate if for their own use without compensating the creator. I’m not going to feed your delusions. My work costs money to produce. Pay me for it, ask me permission to use it, or don’t use it.

At least you admit you’re a scumbag, but for the wrong reasons. The reason you’re a scumbag is the constant lying, in this thread the prominent example being constantly saying that copyright exists to benefit artists.

I’m not a liar. I haven’t lied in this thread.

You, presumably, want to advertise your ability as a photographer in the hope that people will hire you to take photographs. How, exactly, does people sharing your photos harm you? If you have any ability, the exact opposite is occurring. You want to harm yourself and society as a whole for no reason other than a false belief that you can own information. You are a deluded fool.

But I do advertise my ability and I do share my images. I’ve told you this before. I’m not harming society. People who use work without paying for it are harming society. People like you who encourage people to take work without paying for it are harming society. Pay the artist: its a simple decision. Only scum take the easy way out.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Dr.Strangelove

Here is the best I can do, cite-wise:
Are Flickr Photos Fair Game for Home Printing? - The New York Times

They (the cited lawyers) seem to think it’s up in the air since it hasn’t tested, but that it parallels other other cases that have been tested to be clearly legal, such as home recording.

…that article was written from the perspective of someone who publicly admitted to printing stuff off the internet without permission then went to find a lawyer to justify her actions. Cite an actual lawyer and not what someone has claimed a lawyer has said.

If you point me to your images, I will download one and print it. Then you can sue me and we can test the theory in court :).

That really isn’t funny. My identity isn’t secret. Don’t be a prick.

Perhaps if you quit with the “why do you want to take this from me” lameness. The new hotness is stuff like Creative Commons and the remix culture. Why don’t you get with the program?

Nothing wrong with Creative Commons: I choose not to use it myself.

Anyone could use it in principle, but without access to the digital “originals” there’s not a whole lot of value. No one wants a scanned-in version of an image.

Rubbish. Without copyright: anyone can use anything. Rubbish, grainy scanned in watermarked images are used by people now with copyright in full effect. Without copyright protections people can download/screenshot/copy/ hi res versions and use them where ever and whenever they like.

As far as other forms of exclusivity, can that can specified in the contract (presumably, it already is). If the buyer doesn’t want you to resell the images, that can be specified and if you violate that it’s a contract dispute, not a copyright violation.

You don’t get it. Without copyright once that image is displayed the client no longer has exclusivity on the image. Everyone can use it for whatever reason they like. Clients will no longer pay for unique images because they will not get exclusive access to it.

How about we first try going back to the ancient age of 1998, when copyrights were merely life+50 instead of life+70.

:: shrugs :: sure. But you do realize that I entered the thread because someone wanted to reduce the term down to 10 years, correct? You agree that that suggestion is madness, don’t you?

Was the content industry in rough shape before that time? No. If anything, creativity has gone down with the age of sequels we live in.

If you want to judge the content industry by a tiny very small subsection, well yeah. But the content industry is so much more than Hollywood.

What an amazing coincidence that the current law–in flux as it is–just happens to be exactly what you want!

I expect you to fight tooth and nail at the next extension or expansion of powers, since you are so happy with the current system.

May I take it as read that you are absolutely opposed to the proposal in the OP, since is a major change to the way things are?

Lets be brutally honest here: you are an idiot.

Now I’ve got this out of the way: yeah, I’m pretty happy with how things are now. Just like I’m sure you are pretty happy with how the laws are in your country right now as well. Some laws change: the speed limit goes up in some areas and the speed limit goes down in others. But you aren’t going to go riot on the streets because somewhere in the universe a law changed a little bit? Stop being a nit-picky wanker. You know exactly what I meant.

You can leave them the money you earned in your lifetime, just like everyone else.

I’d like to be able to leave them the right to control my work as well. Fortunately where I live I can do that.

[Steophan]

@Banquet_Bear

…yeah, I understand what those terms mean. They are terms that the anti-copyright brigade have adopted as their own to feed their delusions that since a digital image “has zero cost” they should be able to appropriate if for their own use without compensating the creator. I’m not going to feed your delusions. My work costs money to produce. Pay me for it, ask me permission to use it, or don’t use it.

How much does creating an additional digital copy of a picture cost, exactly? I am able to take your work and use it as I please, whether you like it or not. That’s the point you still fail to understand. It costs me nothing to do so, and you nothing for me to do so. What I shouldn’t do, and what copyright exists to prevent, is me profiting from your work. But you’ve already demonstrated that you know nothing of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright, and are only interested in how it can benefit you, and fuck everybody else. Fair enough, that’s a valid viewpoint, in a narrow, short term sense, but don’t pretend your greed and selfishness is somehow moral and noble.

I’m not a liar. I haven’t lied in this thread.

In that case, you consider yourself and everyone you know dirty rotten scumbags. I suppose if all your acquaintances are like you, that’s barely plausible…

But I do advertise my ability and I do share my images. I’ve told you this before. I’m not harming society. People who use work without paying for it are harming society. People like you who encourage people to take work without paying for it are harming society. Pay the artist: its a simple decision. Only scum take the easy way out.

I’ve never advocated anyone taking anything. Not one, never. This is a thread about copyright, so discussion of taking things would be irrelevant.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, artists always have, and always will, be paid. They were paid before copyright, they are paid now copyright is enforced (although less than before, as media companies take the lions share, and they couldn’t exist before copyright), and they will continue to be paid when copyright is reformed to match modern distribution.

There’s only one reason artists don’t want people to use their art before they pay for it, and accurately judge the value of it to them, and that’s that they know their work is shit.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

How much does creating an additional digital copy of a picture cost, exactly?

…I don’t charge you for the cost of creating an additional digital copy. My prices cover my cost of doing business and profit. Just like any other business. Why do you think creative industries should operate under a different model?

I am able to take your work and use it as I please, whether you like it or not. That’s the point you still fail to understand.

How am I failing to understand that? If you use my work without paying me or asking me, you are a dirty rotten scumbag. Pay me or ask me or don’t use it.

It costs me nothing to do so, and you nothing for me to do so.

Which is why the action of doing so is indistinguishable from that of a common thief. But as it upsets you so to be called that we will leave it at dirty rotten scumbag.

What I shouldn’t do, and what copyright exists to prevent, is me profiting from your work.

That isn’t the only reason copyright exists.

But you’ve already demonstrated that you know nothing of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright,

Sure I do. You just need to explain why the words of dead Americans are somehow relevant to the way the world is today. I’m sure your constitution is a great document and its wonderful you cited it earlier, but you guys don’t run the world yet.

and are only interested in how it can benefit you, and fuck everybody else.

Well, yeah. Well, except for the first part, and except for the last part. You are welcome to use my work if you pay me or ask me. Common courtesy, don’t you agree? Why would you not ask someone before using their work?

Fair enough, that’s a valid viewpoint, in a narrow, short term sense, but don’t pretend your greed and selfishness is somehow moral and noble.

And yet the action of the pirate who takes work without asking or paying is somehow noble and moral? I think not. There is nothing greedy or selfish in my stance. There is something selfish and greedy about people who take work without paying for it or asking for it.

In that case, you consider yourself and everyone you know dirty rotten scumbags. I suppose if all your acquaintances are like you, that’s barely plausible…

I’m still not a liar.

I’ve never advocated anyone taking anything. Not one, never. This is a thread about copyright, so discussion of taking things would be irrelevant.

Yeah. Sure. Keep up the delusions and word games. Your definition of “anything” doesn’t include digital copies. Mine does. So does the law.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, artists always have, and always will, be paid. They were paid before copyright, they are paid now copyright is enforced (although less than before, as media companies take the lions share, and they couldn’t exist before copyright), and they will continue to be paid when copyright is reformed to match modern distribution.

And as you have also pointed out: the world has changed. With the ease of digital duplication there is more reason now than ever to have strong copyright laws.

There’s only one reason artists don’t want people to use their art before they pay for it, and accurately judge the value of it to them, and that’s that they know their work is shit.

And once again you are incorrect. Still living in that fantasy world, aren’t you? You pretend to stand up for the rights of the artist and here you are insulting them. Artists in the most part don’t want people to use their art before they get paid because otherwise they wouldn’t get paid. Just like a caterer demands full payment before they turn up to cater a wedding. Or how you need to pay at the checkout before you take away your groceries. Of course, if you wanted to pay if off over time, I’m sure with the appropriate credit checks an artist would gladly let you pay of his painting in installments. Duh.

Pay up, ask permission or don’t use.

[Steophan]

@Banquet_Bear

…I don’t charge you for the cost of creating an additional digital copy. My prices cover my cost of doing business and profit. Just like any other business. Why do you think creative industries should operate under a different model?

I don’t. I think they need to sell something of value at a fair price. You seem to think the law should allow them to artificially inflate that price.

How am I failing to understand that? If you use my work without paying me or asking me, you are a dirty rotten scumbag. Pay me or ask me or don’t use it.

What you don’t understand is that, no matter what you do, people can and will take your work and use it without your permission, and without paying you, and you can’t stop them. Everybody who has the internet does it, and most people who don’t. Your refusal to acknowledge this, and rationally discuss how to change laws so they benefit everybody, is self-defeating and ridiculous.

Which is why the action of doing so is indistinguishable from that of a common thief. But as it upsets you so to be called that we will leave it at dirty rotten scumbag.

Nonsense. If someone steals something from you, you no longer have it. If someone copies it, you still have it, and can do whatever you wish with it, including selling it, or a copy of it. They are in no way comparable.

That isn’t the only reason copyright exists.

It exists to benefit society. That’s it’s whole reason for existing.

Sure I do. You just need to explain why the words of dead Americans are somehow relevant to the way the world is today. I’m sure your constitution is a great document and its wonderful you cited it earlier, but you guys don’t run the world yet.

Not my constitution, but as this is an American message board, it’s the most relevant law. It’s also a remarkably accurate and succinct explanation of the underlying philosophy of copyright, but if you can find a better one please share it.

Well, yeah. Well, except for the first part, and except for the last part. You are welcome to use my work if you pay me or ask me. Common courtesy, don’t you agree? Why would you not ask someone before using their work?

Would you ask me before you use a tube of toothpaste I made? Of course not. Once it’s left you, it’s no more yours than that toothpaste is mine.

And yet the action of the pirate who takes work without asking or paying is somehow noble and moral? I think not. There is nothing greedy or selfish in my stance. There is something selfish and greedy about people who take work without paying for it or asking for it.

Piracy is pretty much morally neutral. It demonstrably harms no-one, and slightly increases overall quality of life, by making art more freely available, but not to such an extent that it can really be considered a good.

I’m still not a liar.

Well, it’s either that, or an illiterate moron.

Yeah. Sure. Keep up the delusions and word games. Your definition of “anything” doesn’t include digital copies. Mine does. So does the law.

Nope, it doesn’t. Copyright infringement is not theft in law, and is not defined as taking anything - it’s copying something.

And as you have also pointed out: the world has changed. With the ease of digital duplication there is more reason now than ever to have strong copyright laws.

By all means, have strong laws to prevent people selling your work without your consent. That, after all, is what copyright is meant to do.

And once again you are incorrect. Still living in that fantasy world, aren’t you? You pretend to stand up for the rights of the artist and here you are insulting them. Artists in the most part don’t want people to use their art before they get paid because otherwise they wouldn’t get paid. Just like a caterer demands full payment before they turn up to cater a wedding. Or how you need to pay at the checkout before you take away your groceries. Of course, if you wanted to pay if off over time, I’m sure with the appropriate credit checks an artist would gladly let you pay of his painting in installments. Duh.

I’m not standing up for the rights of artists, I’m standing up for the rights of consumers, and pointing out that increasing those rights will benefit artists as well.

To follow your grocery analogy, if I buy food from a supermarket and it’s shit, I can return it for refund. Good luck doing that with an album that turns out to be shit. Again, artists have extra rights that are not warranted, and are actively harmful. They are harmful to consumers as they force people to buy crap, and harmful to producers as, due to the risk of buying crap, people won’t investigate stuff they don’t know.

You can pretend this isn’t happening if you like, but you’ll be wrong. Again.

Pay up, ask permission or don’t use.

I’ll pay what it’s worth. But, I get to decide that, not you. The consumer is the one who decides value. Fortunately, with digital distribution, there’s no scarcity, so so one can make an informed judgement on the value, and pay accordingly. This model is popular in music sales, and it works. That’s why music sales are higher than they’ve ever been (as I proved to you in the other thread).