|                  || |
Nikonian since 30th Dec 2012||Thu 11-Apr-13 05:28 PM|
#44. "RE: Unauthorized use of my images"|
In response to Reply # 40
Use brackets  for your HTML code on this board.
Dammit, and I noticed that happening on another board here previously. Sorry.
We cannot, in the context of a discussion of copyright, and the ease with which things can be copies/stolen/misued/misappropriated online, and the attendant ease with which people can contact each other these days, defend anyone who has taken something of mine (or yours, or Ned's) in an environment in which it is absurdly easy to contact us.
I responded to Ned in some detail about why I brought this up.
Among other examples, I didn't buy it in 1974 when somebody stole a radio play I wrote
I did specifically say that I was not talking about cases of someone claiming your work as their own. I would never defend someone doing that.
I think you've made an important point here. There are cases where stupid or gullible or panicked or scared managers have been leverage into doing inappropriate takedowns. But those cases are the exception, not the rule. DMCA places the burden of proof on the rights holder already.
Yes and no. The problem is that the service provider (ISP, forum, etc) can become liable for the activity if they do not immediately (ie: before giving the complainant a chance to respond) take the material down. Yes, counternotices are possible, but the content is already down at that point (and, in some cases, impossible to restore (note: I wish I'd remembered this case sooner, as it directly relates to photography)).
It's a thought, but the question I would ask (if you were able to formally propose such a thing to legislators) is why? What would it accomplish?
The point is to have a rich public domain. You keep saying that such work is worthless, but that's demonstrably not true. Shakespeare's work was never under copyright; does it sell today? Grimm's fairy tales?
How many movies and TV shows have come out in the last few years that were based on fairy tales? If the original stories were still under copyright, would it be a good thing that 'The Little Mermaid', or 'Once Upon a Time', or 'Snow White and the Huntsman', or 'Jack the Giant Slayer', or 'The Brothers Grimm', or... The point is that those things are built on, and we're all enriched (well, ok, not much in the latter case, but that's not the point . Enter infinite copyright, and most or all of those things never get made at all.
Nobody can apply DRM to my works unless I say so. Companies and individuals can only apply DRM to their own rights-managed works.
Of course. And DRM isn't even really relevant to photography (thank goodness), but Ned asked about how I'd change copyright, and that's one of the ways.
Fundamentally, products are about creating value for the consumer. No value, no sale. DRM is all about reducing value for the consumer.
"You might have bought a phone from me, but I still control it."
"You might have bought that Playstation 2 to run linux on it, but I'm going to use DRM (and a firmware update) to eliminate that ability after it's been on the market for a couple years."
"You might have bought this DVD to watch this movie, but you can't take still frames out of it for any reason."
"You might have paid for this music, but you can't play it anymore after I shut down the key servers." (see WalMart and Microsoft)
"You might have bought this blu-ray player, but you can't skip past the FBI warning that I put at the beginning, even though you obviously paid for the content."
You might want to also look up ubisoft, and their track record with DRM, and how well that has worked for their customers. Or EA (especially note how their latest SimCity release went). Or Sony putting rootkits into DRM'ed CDs.
Nice set up. Too bad it doesn't happen often enough to support so much as the purchase of a tank of gasoline.
As you said, you wouldn't know if it did. I've got albums that I bought after getting individual songs from them for free (via Amazon). I didn't exactly go email the artists to tell them about it.
I linked to studies in my reply to Ned that talk about how much it happens.
It had nothing to do with control of copyright; everything to do with control of trademark and distribution.
I'm impressed that you knew about it. And yes, that's what it was about, but copyright was the mechanism. This is not why copyright exists, nor should it be possible to use it in this way.
Why? The Internet may be important us for now, but it is not sacrosanct and access to it is not a gobal right
Actually, I believe the European Court of Human Rights has declared that it is a human right (in Europe, at least). And I said exactly why: because it is becoming necessary to function in society.
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!"
Visit my Nikonians gallery.