Former Copyright Boss Thinks The World Owes Him A Living

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

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.

…where are these over-inflated prices that force you not to ask permission before using a work? Why are you a good judge of what a “fair” price is? Businesses shouldn’t sell stuff at “fair prices”: they would go out of business. They should sell them at a price that covers their CODB and makes them a profit and is set at a price point that their target market can afford.

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.

You haven’t shown that the copyright laws on the books have harmed anyone. All you are complaining about is you don’t want to spend $1.29 to download Gangnam Style. If you want to have a rational discussion stop promoting stupid ideas.

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.

Yeah they are. The action of taking something that “costs nothing” without the permission of the owner is indistinguishable from the actions of a common thief.

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

And it does. And it does a very good job of it as well. It enable content creators like me to keep making content.

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.

I am as interested in the underlying philosophy of copyright as I am interested in the underlying philosophy of laws against murder.

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.

If you made a tube of toothpaste and had if for sale I would fully expect to pay for it before I used it, or to ask permission before I did so.

Piracy is pretty much morally neutral.

No its not. Its Chaotic Evil.

It demonstrably harms no-one,

Yes it does.

and slightly increases overall quality of life,

No it doesn’t.

by making art more freely available, but not to such an extent that it can really be considered a good.

No it can’t. Man I hate parsing quotes: but you really didn’t leave me much choice. Pirates aren’t a net good for society. Pirates have made a choice: to not pay for stuff they consume/use/download/share. That isn’t the action of a morally good person.

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

Nope. Not that either.

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

You introduced the word theft. Feeling guilty? You said “taking something.” For a guy who loves to wordsmith I’m quite shocked you let that one get by.

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 by all means keep living in that fantasy world of yours.

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.

What rights of the consumers are being infringed by an artist who asks them to either pay for, ask permission or not use their work? How do artists benefit by having less control of how their work is used and distributed?

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.

I’m surprised in this enlightened digital age that you would be surprised by the content of an album. Why: you can go to I Tunes and click the preview button and have a pretty good idea what you are spending money on. And besides, where I live anyway, you can’t get you money back on groceries just because you ended up not liking them. Just like you can’t get your money back on a burger that you’ve eaten.

Again, artists have extra rights that are not warranted, and are actively harmful.

You actually have not demonstrated how copyright is actively harmful.

They are harmful to consumers as they force people to buy crap,

Consumers are not forced to do anything.

and harmful to producers as, due to the risk of buying crap, people won’t investigate stuff they don’t know.

Are you serious? What you say might have had merit back in 1996: but not today. You have noticed the world has caught up, haven’t you?

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

I’m not pretending that dirty rotten scumbags don’t exist. We have living proof of that right here.

I’ll pay what it’s worth. But, I get to decide that, not you.

How it works is that I decide what price to sell something for. You either agree to pay for it at that price or not: and if enough people don’t pay the price I’m forced to bring the price down. What you advocate: (which is just not paying) distorts the system. Don’t like my prices? Then walk away.

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.

Of course they decide the value for themselves. And if their judgement is that what you want isn’t worth what they are asking for, the correct moral and legal decision is not to take/consume/use/share the work without getting permission or paying for it.

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).

You got your arse handed to you in that thread. You got your arse handed to you in the other thread where you bought up those stats. You mixed up the definitions and when challenged you ran away. Look who’s lying now!

And its strange: but I’m looking at the I-tunes site and they have prices listed on their site. It appears that you either pay the price they are asking for, or you don’t get to download the song from their site. I could be wrong: but could you explain to me how your system of consumers setting the value works here? Because I think you are talking a load of bollocks.

[Cheshire_Human]

@echoreply

…
What I genuinely would be in favor of is a copyright law which works something like the following. All works have an automatic copyright of 10 years. At any time during those 10 years the producer of the work can register it for a fee to extend the copyright for another 10 years. The fee should be large enough to cover the cost of administering the system, but small enough that if the work is actually earning money, it won’t be that big of a deal. I’m thinking in the $100s-1000s. The registered works can then have their copyright extended 1, 2, 3, times? For the life of the artist, or 50 years, something like that. The point being, that any work over 10 years old is out of copyright, unless it exists in the registry. If it exists in the registry, then its copyright term will be defined and the agent who can license the work will be on record. Re-registration is required to keep the agents information up to date.

That will get rid of orphan works, because anything that is orphaned will be public domain in a few years. That gives the artists 10 years to make money on their work for free. After that, they have to pay for the privilege of having the government enforce a monopoly on the work. It will never happen, because there are too many powerful groups (and these aren’t the artists) who have an interest in extending copyright indefinitely.

Major problems with this idea. Let’s do some math. Banquet Bear is a photographer, so let’s start there. After investing money and time (I leave a reasonable estimate of how much to him), he’s amassed a collection of 10,000 images that he can sell as ‘stock photography’. Let’s say each image (on average) nets him $10 per year. That’s $100k per year. A tidy sum. A nice upper-middle class income for running a stock photography business. Except that now, every 10 years, he has to re-register them for $100 per image. Whoops. There goes every dollar he’s made on that image. If he does, he’s not made a dime. If he doesn’t, now every image he’s ever made is free for the taking by anyone who wants it, and he can only make money by constantly investing time and money in taking new $10-a-year images. There goes at least half that 100 grand, right there.

Now lets try authors. Google “Baen Free Library” (click the link, I did it for you. You’re welcome). The guy who runs the site has a large number of essays up in which he talks about what they are doing there, and why. In several, he discusses the economics of the publishing industry. One thing he mentions is that the average (i.e. not best-seller) book only ever sells 10k - 15k copies. Worthwhile for the publisher, because he nets a decent profit on that small a run, and he’s got lots of authors that sell that many. Nets the author a couple thousand, which comes out to less than minimum wage if you count the number of hours it took him to write and sell it. Not really worthwhile, because he can’t make a living on that. But he does it because he loves to write, he gets some pocket change in exchange for it, and, who knows, maybe he’ll become the next Tom Clancy. Charge him $1000 for copyright renewal every 10 years, and he’s back to making not a dime from his work just to keep the rights for 30 years.

Now we get to the ‘orphan works’. 40 years down the road, he writes a sequel. It is the next ‘Hunt for Red October’. Goes over big. Now suddenly everyone wants to read the original it was a sequel to. One of two things has happened. He’s paid that renewal fee 3 times (in which case he’s already lost $1000 on it, just in case this would happen), or he let the rights laps a decade ago, because he didn’t want to actually lose money. Which is more likely? Number 2, you say? Go to the head of the class. So now what? That book is now a hot property, only the author is not making a dime off of it. Publishers are, but he’s not. Doesn’t seem fair to me, but then, the current system protects his interests. The proposed system screws him.

Then we get to your reply to BB’s post:

@echoreply

Why should the government (read: taxpayers) pay to protect your images, but you don’t have to pay?

How does the government (read: taxpayers) pay to protect him, now? All they have done is pass laws, under which he’s got a cause of action, and can sue, at his own expense.

Are you proposing that those fees be used to sue infringers? Because the present system leaves it to the infringed party to sue, at his own expense. And he only collects what the court awards, even if that’s less than his cost to sue. There is no government (or taxpayer) support in the present system. Does your proposed system provide for any taxpayer support for his suit?

[Steophan]

@Banquet_Bear

…where are these over-inflated prices that force you not to ask permission before using a work? Why are you a good judge of what a “fair” price is? Businesses shouldn’t sell stuff at “fair prices”: they would go out of business. They should sell them at a price that covers their CODB and makes them a profit and is set at a price point that their target market can afford.

Nonsense. The cost of creating something is utterly irrelevant to it’s value. I could spend a billion pounds making a film, but if no-one wants to watch it it’s value is zero.

Yeah they are. The action of taking something that “costs nothing” without the permission of the owner is indistinguishable from the actions of a common thief.

If I were promoting taking anything from it’s owner, that would be true. As I’m not promoting taking anything, nor depriving any owners of anything, your statement is irrelevant. Copying something is not taking something. It is entirely different.

I am as interested in the underlying philosophy of copyright as I am interested in the underlying philosophy of laws against murder.

That explains a lot, really. You are unable or unwilling to think for yourself, and to actually examine things to decide for yourself if they’re good or bad.

You got your arse handed to you in that thread. You got your arse handed to you in the other thread where you bought up those stats. You mixed up the definitions and when challenged you ran away. Look who’s lying now!

Nope, I proved my point, using the definitions that the record industry used. People kept trying to change the definitions to prove something different, and failed.

And its strange: but I’m looking at the I-tunes site and they have prices listed on their site. It appears that you either pay the price they are asking for, or you don’t get to download the song from their site. I could be wrong: but could you explain to me how your system of consumers setting the value works here? Because I think you are talking a load of bollocks.

Bandcamp. Linking to this specific EP, as it’s one I downloaded for free (legally, from that site), then bought the CD afterwards. Even though, guess what, I didn’t have to to have the music. Because I actually care about the artists I like.

If everywhere did do this, piracy would of course vanish. They won’t, because of people like you who want to deny consumers the right to make an informed choice about what they spend their money on, even when that attitude demonstrably harms producers.

The future is happening. Accept it and adapt, or fuck off, basically. There’s an opportunity here to make things far better for everyone, but it’s being prevented by twats like you, and the guy linked in the OP. It sounds to me like you’d prefer that no-one used your work, even if it meant you got no money, than that most people use it for free, but the few people who value it pay for it, and sustain you. That’s fucking crazy.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Steophan

Nonsense. The cost of creating something is utterly irrelevant to it’s value. I could spend a billion pounds making a film, but if no-one wants to watch it it’s value is zero.

…where are these overinflated prices Steophan? Still waiting!

And only in fantasy land to businesses not cost ther products and services while trying to cover their CODB and make a profit while ensuring their price is affordable to their target market. I sure hope you never go into business.

If I were promoting taking anything from it’s owner, that would be true. As I’m not promoting taking anything, nor depriving any owners of anything, your statement is irrelevant. Copying something is not taking something. It is entirely different.

Nah. The action is indistinguishable from a thief.

That explains a lot, really. You are unable or unwilling to think for yourself, and to actually examine things to decide for yourself if they’re good or bad.

I do think for myself actually. Unlike you I don’t rely on the opinion of dead Americas to decide whether or not something is good or bad.

Nope, I proved my point, using the definitions that the record industry used. People kept trying to change the definitions to prove something different, and failed.

Exactly what point do you think you proved? And stop lying. Here is the thread where you changed the definitions: not other people.

Bandcamp. Linking to this specific EP, as it’s one I downloaded for free (legally, from that site), then bought the CD afterwards. Even though, guess what, I didn’t have to to have the music. Because I actually care about the artists I like.

Oooooo, one site? How popular is this business model? Cite?

If everywhere did do this, piracy would of course vanish.

No it wouldn’t.

They won’t, because of people like you who want to deny consumers the right to make an informed choice about what they spend their money on, even when that attitude demonstrably harms producers.

You are incorrect. I have no problem with Bandcamp. Good luck to them!

There you go. I’m not denying consumers the right to use Bandcamp.

The future is happening. Accept it and adapt, or fuck off, basically.

I’ve accepted it. And I’m not going anywhere.

There’s an opportunity here to make things far better for everyone, but it’s being prevented by twats like you, and the guy linked in the OP.

All I want is for you to either pay me or ask me before you download or use my work, or not to use it. I’m not entirely sure why you have a problem with this simple request.

It sounds to me like you’d prefer that no-one used your work, even if it meant you got no money, than that most people use it for free, but the few people who value it pay for it, and sustain you. That’s fucking crazy.

You know, as I sit here in my home office, having worked for several hours preparing a collage for a client that I’m providing at cost, and I think about all the hours and images I’ve provided free of charge to hundreds of people this year, I think about all the images I’ve shared online, the free shoot I’ve given to people who couldn’t afford it, and I think to myself, you don’t have a clue. You don’t know how business works. You don’t know how I work. You don’t know how the world works. You live in a fantasy world where somehow I am the enemy. I just want to either ask permission or pay me or not download or use my work. I’d probably let you use if for free if you asked. Why on earth do you have a problem with that?

[Acsenray]

@Steophan

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).

This model you are talking about gives the consumer the choice of:

(1) Accepting the price offered, pr
(2) Rejecting the transaction and moving on to a different vendor’s goods.

“Consumer setting the price” does not imply that the consumer:

(1) Takes what he wants, and
(2) Pays what he wants, if anything.

That’s not the standard definition of a free market.

[Steophan]

@Acsenray

This model you are talking about gives the consumer the choice of:

(1) Accepting the price offered, pr
(2) Rejecting the transaction and moving on to a different vendor’s goods.

“Consumer setting the price” does not imply that the consumer:

(1) Takes what he wants, and
(2) Pays what he wants, if anything.

That’s not the standard definition of a free market.

Correct, but we need to adapt the business model for a situation where nothing is actually taken, as is the case with digital distribution. There is no scarcity, and negligible distribution cost, so the market fails - and piracy is simply evidence of market failure.

I’ve linked to a website that’s proving successful for thousands of artists to sell their work, sometimes with a minimum price, sometimes without. This model is being used by musical artist from the level I linked to, who you’ve probably never heard of, to internationally famous acts like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails. Why? Because it works.

This isn’t so much a moral issue as a practical one. People can and will obtain music for free whether it’s legal or not, if it’s easy to do so. Making it illegal won’t stop this. So, artists need to instead embrace it, and work with it, to make money the best they can. That will be either by working to order, by getting fans to pay for something they could have for free (which people actually do), or by providing physical media with sufficient added value that people want to pay for it.

Or, they can not do this, and fail.

[Acsenray]

@Steophan

Correct, but we need to adapt the business model

Actually, what should be happening is that if consumers don’t value the goods on offer, they stop buying, and then the vendors look for a new business model. So long as consumers are deciding that the demanded price doesn’t not represent value, they should not be enjoying the works. So, yes, I agree that if creators want to make money that they should find a way to offer something that people want to pay for. If not, they fail. Exactly. I agree that that’s how the market should work. However, on the other hand, people who take what they want without paying should still face civil and possibly criminal liability. A market failure might push creators to offer different goods, but while this is happening, consumers should not be able to go ahead and get the benefit of the works whose value they are rejecting.

[Hbns]

I’m confused about a couple of things.
A CD rip of an original I own is or is not theft if I play it on my ipod?
Loaning said CD to a friend is theft?
Loaning said CD to a friend is theft if I continue to listen to my ipod?

Baal’s client stores an electronic copy of his work while simultaneously distributing it, theft?
Baal’s potential client visits his web page and prints an image from it to use as a visual representation of the quality of work during a meeting proposing a contract with Baal, theft?

[Leaper]

@Dr.Strangelove

Yes; this is why I find statements such as Baal’s “In the digital age, the pendulum has certainly swung against copyright sanctity” so absurd. The rights we get with eBooks and the like are far less than what we had with print. You generally can’t even loan an eBook to a friend.

Thus why I have constantly said in CS that the death of the paper book is extremely dangerous to all of us.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Banquet_Bear

…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.

Give me a fucking break. She quoted the lawyers directly.

You are obviously in the wrong here, and getting more desperate. The court history is clear–you can do just about anything you want with copyrighted material for personal use, as long as you had legal access to the material in the first place. Mix tapes, VCRs, recording songs off the radio, etc.; all these things have been held up in court as fair use. That photos on the web would be an exception to the general rule is absurd.

@Banquet_Bear

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

You were the one making legal threats; I called you on them in a joking manner.

That said, I really would like to see a case in court just to clear things up for good.

@Banquet_Bear

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.

The people satisfied with low res or scanned-in images were never going to pay you–or anyone else–anything anyway.

@Banquet_Bear

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.

There are only two ways of someone else getting the digital originals: you or them. If they are leaking the images, then it’s their own damn fault they’ve lost exclusivity. If you’re the one leaking images, then you’ve broken the contract. Even if you can prove in court that they were stolen from you, then you lose your reputation as someone that can uphold exclusivity.

@Banquet_Bear

:: 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?

Madness? No. I think creators deserve somewhat more time than that, so I wouldn’t support something that short. But I also think it would affect very few individuals; it would mainly force big corporations to actually come up new content at a decent rate. And it would allow a new influx of creativity in the old content.

@Banquet_Bear

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.

Hollywood and the music industry are the ones driving the changes in copyright law. So yeah, I’m going to judge the merits of any changes based primarily on them.

Yes, of course there’s a lot more than Hollywood… even a lot of stuff more important than Hollywood. They just don’t seem to have big lobbyists at their disposal. We might still have a law that was reasonable for creators and the rest of society if it had evolved without big money involvement. That’s impossible, of course.

@Banquet_Bear

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.

Odd. I don’t know that I can think of a single law that I am perfectly satisfied with, and for the majority of them I am deeply unsatisfied.

@Banquet_Bear

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?

The copyright law changes over the years are the equivalent of a 65 MPH highway going to 14 MPH because a nearby store wanted more business. Yeah, I would be unhappy.

Little changes add up over time, so each one has to be fought with equal vigor. And any possible change that addressed Mr. Oman’s suggestion is not little. It would greatly affect creators such as myself–creators that you have not yet shown any evidence of caring about. Unless I missed something, you have still not stated an opinion on that matter.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Hbns

I’m confused about a couple of things.
A CD rip of an original I own is or is not theft if I play it on my ipod?
Loaning said CD to a friend is theft?
Loaning said CD to a friend is theft if I continue to listen to my ipod?

My general impression of the law is that only one person at a time gets access to copyrighted material, but beyond that copying and format-shifting is ok. So you can copy your CD to your iPod, but if you then loan the CD to a friend you should delete the iPod version (since otherwise two people would have access). In practice, no one cares, unless you run a business selling iPods preloaded with a bunch of ripped CDs.

@Hbns

Baal’s client stores an electronic copy of his work while simultaneously distributing it, theft?

Depends on the contract terms.

@Hbns

Baal’s potential client visits his web page and prints an image from it to use as a visual representation of the quality of work during a meeting proposing a contract with Baal, theft?

Almost certainly falls under fair use, as long as the copy was destroyed afterward.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Dr.Strangelove

Give me a fucking break. She quoted the lawyers directly.

…you are wrong. You realize why she wrote that article? Because in the last article she proudly proclaimed that she was using Flickr images to print on her wall. It prompted an outcry: so she want to find a lawyer to back up her case. You don’t know what the lawyer told her: only what she decided to write in her article.

You are obviously in the wrong here, and getting more desperate.

I’m not the one using the opinion of a copyright infringer to back up my case.

The court history is clear–you can do just about anything you want with copyrighted material for personal use, as long as you had legal access to the material in the first place. Mix tapes, VCRs, recording songs off the radio, etc.; all these things have been held up in court as fair use. That photos on the web would be an exception to the general rule is absurd.

Incorrect. If you think there is an exception for personal use provide a cite. Good luck going to Walmart and printing off images downloaded off the net for personal use.

You were the one making legal threats; I called you on them in a joking manner.

The quote to which you responded was not a legal threat. Threatening to infringe on my copyright is not funny.

That said, I really would like to see a case in court just to clear things up for good.

You really don’t think case law is settled here? Why don’t you contact Carolyn E. Wright and ask for her opinion? She might even write a blog post about it. A couple of relevant articles here:

Photoattorney.com Redirect – Burns the Attorney, Inc.

Photoattorney.com Redirect – Burns the Attorney, Inc.

The people satisfied with low res or scanned-in images were never going to pay you–or anyone else–anything anyway.

You miss the point. In a world with copyright you can take action against infringers. In a world without copyright you couldn’t.

There are only two ways of someone else getting the digital originals: you or them. If they are leaking the images, then it’s their own damn fault they’ve lost exclusivity. If you’re the one leaking images, then you’ve broken the contract. Even if you can prove in court that they were stolen from you, then you lose your reputation as someone that can uphold exclusivity.

Are you talking about RAW files? No client ever gets the RAW unless they pay lots and lots of money.

But you are missing the point. You don’t get it. Commercial work is meant to be displayed. See the photos on this website?

http://www.ford.co.nz/

Commercial work. it is meant to be seen. Once it is put on the website: exclusivity has gone. It has nothing to do with the contract. It has nothing to do with “leaking images.” Without copyright there are no more exclusives. Clients will not pay for exclusives because without copyright exclusives are impossible. The contract you talk about wouldn’t even have been written. The models wouldn’t have been hired, the location not secured, the gear not bought. The price of photography would come crashing down and along with it would go the creativity and the talent.

Madness? No. I think creators deserve somewhat more time than that, so I wouldn’t support something that short. But I also think it would affect very few individuals; it would mainly force big corporations to actually come up new content at a decent rate. And it would allow a new influx of creativity in the old content.

It would affect virtually every copyright holder on the planet. It would stifle creativity. You would see less work.

Hollywood and the music industry are the ones driving the changes in copyright law. So yeah, I’m going to judge the merits of any changes based primarily on them.

Hollywood and the music industry have the money to drive change and have the money to stand up for the little guy. And its the little guy who would get hurt more by copyright law change than the big guy.

Yes, of course there’s a lot more than Hollywood… even a lot of stuff more important than Hollywood. They just don’t seem to have big lobbyists at their disposal. We might still have a law that was reasonable for creators and the rest of society if it had evolved without big money involvement. That’s impossible, of course.

What is reasonable? Why would it be unreasonable for you never to be able to use copyrighted material?

Odd. I don’t know that I can think of a single law that I am perfectly satisfied with, and for the majority of them I am deeply unsatisfied.

And yet you aren’t rioting in the streets everytime “city hall” proposes a law change.

The copyright law changes over the years are the equivalent of a 65 MPH highway going to 14 MPH because a nearby store wanted more business. Yeah, I would be unhappy.

No they aren’t. How has copyright law being extended by twenty years affected you? What has it done to you? What has it done to creativity? Who has it stifled? What affect has it had?

Little changes add up over time, so each one has to be fought with equal vigor. And any possible change that addressed Mr. Oman’s suggestion is not little. It would greatly affect creators such as myself–creators that you have not yet shown any evidence of caring about. Unless I missed something, you have still not stated an opinion on that matter.

Perhaps you would like to tell us what Mr Oman wants to do? Because the OP, as has been pointed out, has twisted his words. Tell me exactly why what he suggests is so wrong? How does what he suggest affect you so greatly?

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Banquet_Bear

…you are wrong. You realize why she wrote that article? Because in the last article she proudly proclaimed that she was using Flickr images to print on her wall. It prompted an outcry: so she want to find a lawyer to back up her case. You don’t know what the lawyer told her: only what she decided to write in her article.

She prompted an outrage because there is an enormous contingent of whiny photographers out there who are entirely ignorant of the law.

@Banquet_Bear

I’m not the one using the opinion of a copyright infringer to back up my case.

Banquet Bear’s argument style:

• Assume I’m right about everything
• Use the fact that I’m always right to prove that everyone else is wrong

Hint: you don’t get to assume the author is a copyright infringer to prove that she infringed on copyright.

@Banquet_Bear

Incorrect. If you think there is an exception for personal use provide a cite. Good luck going to Walmart and printing off images downloaded off the net for personal use.

Walmart’s terms of service have nothing to do with the law.

@Banquet_Bear

The quote to which you responded was not a legal threat. Threatening to infringe on my copyright is not funny.

You said if I got caught you would make me pay. That’s a legal threat. Even though the law doesn’t work that way in any other industry.

@Banquet_Bear

You really don’t think case law is settled here? Why don’t you contact Carolyn E. Wright and ask for her opinion? She might even write a blog post about it. A couple of relevant articles here:

Do you even read your own cites? Not a single thing in there addresses personal use.

Another hint: not making money off a use is not the same as personal use.

@Banquet_Bear

Are you talking about RAW files? No client ever gets the RAW unless they pay lots and lots of money.

That is interesting and tells me a lot about the mindset of photographers, but that isn’t what I was talking about. Whoever is purchasing the images from you gets them in a high quality form–whether JPG or otherwise. No one else has access to them–only you and the client. Everyone else can only scan the magazine, or scrape the web image, or whatever.

@Banquet_Bear

But you are missing the point. You don’t get it. Commercial work is meant to be displayed. See the photos on this website?

http://www.ford.co.nz/

Websites are, admittedly, a slightly different story. Whereas with print or TV or various forms, there is no way for someone else to get a copy which has acceptable quality, on the web the displayed form is easy to capture. It is low quality, but that is enough quality for the web.

So ok: on the web (but not other forms of media), exclusives would to some extent go away. It’s unlikely there would be much difference in practice, since the majority of this is for commercial and advertising purposes and there’s little use for the images otherwise.

@Banquet_Bear

It would affect virtually every copyright holder on the planet. It would stifle creativity. You would see less work.

Let’s be concrete. If copyright were only 10 years (suppose you couldn’t afford the fees), would it make your business unsustainable? What fraction of your income comes from images which were first shown to the public over 10 years ago?

@Banquet_Bear

Hollywood and the music industry have the money to drive change and have the money to stand up for the little guy.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

@Banquet_Bear

What is reasonable? Why would it be unreasonable for you never to be able to use copyrighted material?

Because otherwise, copyright is an ever-expanding wall enclosing the kinds of thoughts and expression people can have.

Again: there’s nothing natural about copyright, and the purpose is not to help creators. It’s to help society by allowing creators to make a living and encourage more creation. There continues to be zero evidence that hundred+ year copyrights serve this purpose better than a few decades worth.

@Banquet_Bear

And yet you aren’t rioting in the streets everytime “city hall” proposes a law change.

I don’t riot for anything, ever (I hate masses of people). But I do bitch and moan about them to my friends and colleagues.

@Banquet_Bear

No they aren’t. How has copyright law being extended by twenty years affected you? What has it done to you? What has it done to creativity? Who has it stifled? What affect has it had?

Again with the slippery slope. Any one extension sounds reasonable, until a hundred or so years later they’ve been expanded by a factor of 5.

@Banquet_Bear

Perhaps you would like to tell us what Mr Oman wants to do? Because the OP, as has been pointed out, has twisted his words. Tell me exactly why what he suggests is so wrong? How does what he suggest affect you so greatly?

No one has twisted his words. He was vague intentionally, because he knows full well the implications of what he said.

There is essentially no such thing as a non-trivial computer program which cannot violate copyright, because as I said before, essentially all of computing is moving data around, and that’s all it takes to violate copyright.

The only difference between a program that the content industry likes and ones that they don’t is their popularity among copyright infringers. There are a million file sharing sites/programs out there, but Megaupload and Bittorrent get a big share of the attention because–for a variety of reasons–they’ve become popular among copyright infringers. It didn’t have to be that way–part of it is that these services are well-suited to infringement, but a bigger part is just historical contingency.

Let’s put this in very concrete terms that directly affect me. Recently, I wrote a software radio receiver. There is of course nothing wrong with listening to the radio. But someone could, with my software, make very clean digital recordings of songs they hear, and then use them for infringing purposes. Although it probably won’t, there’s no reason my software couldn’t someday become incredibly popular for this purpose and thus be a component of widespread copyright infringement.

There’s no way for me to predict if this will happen. And even if I could, there’s nothing I could do about it short of not writing the software in the first place. Oh sure, some idiot would suggest that I could put in protections against digital recordings, or watermark the audio stream or something like that, but these are incredibly stupid for obvious reasons. Further, it’s not even my fight–this is my software and no one has the right to tell me what I can and can’t write (within reasonable boundaries).

I don’t know what Mr. Oman’s law would look like. What I can say is that it will be broadly written and used selectively, just like every other bad law out there. And it will be used to quash technology that actually has nothing to do with copyright infringement, such as programs that anonymize users for political protection.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Dr.Strangelove

She prompted an outrage because there is an enormous contingent of whiny photographers out there who are entirely ignorant of the law.

…wrong. She even encouraged others to infringe on copyright. And it wasn’t the photographers who were ignorant of the law: and there is nothing wrong with standing up for your rights. You claimed that printing and displaying on your wall for personal use was legal. The best that you can actually prove is that an infringer claims that a law professor says it might be legal.

Banquet Bear’s argument style:

• Assume I’m right about everything
• Use the fact that I’m always right to prove that everyone else is wrong

Hint: you don’t get to assume the author is a copyright infringer to prove that she infringed on copyright.

But she is a copyright infringer. And a pretty arrogant naive one at that.

Walmart’s terms of service have nothing to do with the law.

And neither does anything you have posted so far.

You said if I got caught you would make me pay. That’s a legal threat. Even though the law doesn’t work that way in any other industry.

No it isn’t, and yes it does.

Do you even read your own cites? Not a single thing in there addresses personal use.

Never said it did. I said they were relevant.

Another hint: not making money off a use is not the same as personal use.

DUH.

That is interesting and tells me a lot about the mindset of photographers, but that isn’t what I was talking about. Whoever is purchasing the images from you gets them in a high quality form–whether JPG or otherwise. No one else has access to them–only you and the client. Everyone else can only scan the magazine, or scrape the web image, or whatever.

Do you even know what a RAW file is? A RAW file is just data and is useless unless converted into JPG. What difference do you really think there is between a a high quality image and what can be scanned or copied?

Websites are, admittedly, a slightly different story. Whereas with print or TV or various forms, there is no way for someone else to get a copy which has acceptable quality, on the web the displayed form is easy to capture. It is low quality, but that is enough quality for the web.

So ok: on the web (but not other forms of media), exclusives would to some extent go away. It’s unlikely there would be much difference in practice, since the majority of this is for commercial and advertising purposes and there’s little use for the images otherwise.

Thats your opinion. I don’t want it tested thanks: and fortunately the laws are never likely to change to the extent where it can be.

Let’s be concrete. If copyright were only 10 years (suppose you couldn’t afford the fees), would it make your business unsustainable? What fraction of your income comes from images which were first shown to the public over 10 years ago?

I’ve only been shooting for three and a bit years now, and only been in business since the start of this year, so to be brutally honest I don’t really know what effect a ten year period would do to me. But what I would be doing is looking at my financial forecasts: budgeting how much i wanted to commit to copyright renewal, and only sharing that amount of work. At $100 and image: I would only display ten works per year, heavily watermarked.

My current licences allow unlimited usage in perpetuity. Licences would have to change to ten year terms and a hundred dollars per image to extend the licence for an additional ten years or full copyright buy-outs at an equivalent cost. Remember I deal in thousands of images with many different clients who have very different uses: ten year terms would not only affect me but affect them. There are plenty of reasons why its a bad idea. And no one has said where the money would go yet.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You might think thats funny: but its true. There are hundreds of thousands of artists, sculptors, painters, photographers, writers and poets out there who collectively don’t have the muscle to fight every single battle to be won out there.

Because otherwise, copyright is an ever-expanding wall enclosing the kinds of thoughts and expression people can have.

Sure: but why is a seventy year term worse than a fifty year term?

Again: there’s nothing natural about copyright, and the purpose is not to help creators. It’s to help society by allowing creators to make a living and encourage more creation. There continues to be zero evidence that hundred+ year copyrights serve this purpose better than a few decades worth.

So says some long-dead Americans.

Again with the slippery slope. Any one extension sounds reasonable, until a hundred or so years later they’ve been expanded by a factor of 5.

Its not a slippery slope. How has the extension affected you?

No one has twisted his words. He was vague intentionally, because he knows full well the implications of what he said.

He never said that “the world owes him a living.” I think thats a pretty big twist on his words.

There is essentially no such thing as a non-trivial computer program which cannot violate copyright, because as I said before, essentially all of computing is moving data around, and that’s all it takes to violate copyright.

And I’m sure you can supply some case law to back this assertion up?

The only difference between a program that the content industry likes and ones that they don’t is their popularity among copyright infringers. There are a million file sharing sites/programs out there, but Megaupload and Bittorrent get a big share of the attention because–for a variety of reasons–they’ve become popular among copyright infringers. It didn’t have to be that way–part of it is that these services are well-suited to infringement, but a bigger part is just historical contingency.

Let’s put this in very concrete terms that directly affect me. Recently, I wrote a software radio receiver. There is of course nothing wrong with listening to the radio. But someone could, with my software, make very clean digital recordings of songs they hear, and then use them for infringing purposes. Although it probably won’t, there’s no reason my software couldn’t someday become incredibly popular for this purpose and thus be a component of widespread copyright infringement.

There’s no way for me to predict if this will happen. And even if I could, there’s nothing I could do about it short of not writing the software in the first place. Oh sure, some idiot would suggest that I could put in protections against digital recordings, or watermark the audio stream or something like that, but these are incredibly stupid for obvious reasons. Further, it’s not even my fight–this is my software and no one has the right to tell me what I can and can’t write (within reasonable boundaries).

I don’t know what Mr. Oman’s law would look like. What I can say is that it will be broadly written and used selectively, just like every other bad law out there. And it will be used to quash technology that actually has nothing to do with copyright infringement, such as programs that anonymize users for political protection.

But Mr Oman raises some valid points. I’m sure that there is a reasonable mid-point here: but a ten year period of copyright (the reason why I popped into this thread) is not the answer.

[Dr.Strangelove]

Deleted a bunch of useless "no it isn’t, “yes it is” crap.

I’ve emailed Ms. Wright. I’ll post again if she gets back.

@Banquet_Bear

Do you even know what a RAW file is? A RAW file is just data and is useless unless converted into JPG. What difference do you really think there is between a a high quality image and what can be scanned or
copied?

I suspect I know more about RAW than you. Are you familiar with the Bayer pattern and how it relates to RAW?

The point is that there is a difference between a high quality digital file in whatever form and an image in the wild. You can’t go from a scanned magazine, or photograph of a billboard, or a print behind glass, or whatever back to a high quality image. There are admittedly some exceptions where the quality isn’t that high to begin with, such as the web, but Ford or any other major commercial entity isn’t going to skimp a few thousand bucks for a photographer to steal some moiré patterned scan from some magazine. Maybe Uncle Bob’s Loooow-Priced Used Cars will, but they weren’t paying for a photographer anyway.

@Banquet_Bear

I’ve only been shooting for three and a bit years now, and only been in business since the start of this year, so to be brutally honest I don’t really know what effect a ten year period would do to me. But what I would be doing is looking at my financial forecasts: budgeting how much i wanted to commit to copyright renewal, and only sharing that amount of work. At $100 and image: I would only display ten works per year, heavily watermarked.

Fair enough. Like I said, I don’t actually support terms that low. To me, this doesn’t necessarily look like a disaster, but I’ll grant that there is a small negative effect from having fewer photographers out there showing their work.

@Banquet_Bear

You might think thats funny: but its true. There are hundreds of thousands of artists, sculptors, painters, photographers, writers and poets out there who collectively don’t have the muscle to fight every single battle to be won out there.

If they helped you, it’s only a side effect of helping themselves. They never had you in mind, no matter what they claim in their pre-movie advertisements.

@Banquet_Bear

Sure: but why is a seventy year term worse than a fifty year term?

When did I get full from eating? When does a heap become a pile? It’s hard to pin down the exact point in things of this nature. What I can say is that Disney (for instance) has benefited immensely from works in the public domain, and yet through their lobbying their own works have not entered the public domain; not even the oldest ones like Steamboat Willie.

They have taken but not given back. That is the harm from extremely long copyright.

@Banquet_Bear

So says some long-dead Americans.

I don’t know what country you live in (NZ, I guess?), but I live in the US and every law must have some constitutional basis–copyright included. Our Founding Fathers provided for the possibility of intellectual property, a concept I have no problem with in general, but it’s also clear that they had a much more limited vision for it than what exists today.

@Banquet_Bear

He never said that “the world owes him a living.” I think thats a pretty big twist on his words.

It is a bit of hyperbole, but not outrageously so.

Let’s forget the content industry for the moment. Laws like these would be damaging enough even without them involved.

One of the earliest arrests after the DMCA was passed was this security researcher. Note that the lawsuit was initiated by Adobe, not the MPAA or RIAA. They used the DMCA to (attempt to) quash the man’s research, which discovered very embarrassing details about Adobe’s substandard technology.

In fact, eBook publishers should have supported the researcher: he showed that Adobe was essentially fraudulent in their claims about the protections they put on eBooks. They were selling a defective lock, so to speak, and the researcher pointed this out.

So yes, I find this kind of thing very dangerous. First, because security research is very important for security: it sounds paradoxical, but the best way to prove that a lock is secure is to try to break it. Second, because for all I know I will commit some criminal offense and be arrested simply by performing research.

@Banquet_Bear

And I’m sure you can supply some case law to back this assertion up?

This has nothing to do with the law; it has to do with the way technology works. Copying is the most fundamental thing a computer can do.

@Banquet_Bear

But Mr Oman raises some valid points. I’m sure that there is a reasonable mid-point here: but a ten year period of copyright (the reason why I popped into this thread) is not the answer.

The term limit has been a tangent to the main topic. It is not nearly as harmful as Mr. Oman’s suggestion. The poster who suggested that we would have to submit every line of coder to the government is wrong, of course: the law would be used more selectively and insidiously than that. We know this because the DMCA was also used in that manner.

As with the MPAA and you, Google does not care for my interests–but for the time being they do align, and so I hope that their lobbying efforts are enough to disrupt the stupidest of the laws, like SOPA or PIPA.