Disturbing trend in high schools

RDKirk wrote in post #14713510
First, the purpose can certainly be explained, which you yourself did a few posts ago. However, I think the reason it's not respected is not what you think it is.

you beat me to it.

RDKirk wrote in post #14713661
You keep saying "modern copyright law." ... If the government were to shorten it back to 14 years, that would make absolutely no difference in copyright infringements.

and again.

RDKirk wrote in post #14713661
You keep saying "modern copyright law." The only significant difference is that it's longer...and that doesn't make any difference in whether it's respected.

No, that is not the only significant difference. Not by a long shot.

Original copyright law appears to only have protected whole, original works. It did not forbid "derivative works", nor did it forbid the use of subsets of works. It did not have exclusions for "fair use" because it did not need such exclusions.


Read it for yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.copyright.g​ov/history/1790act.pdf

Maybe not at this point, no. Respect for copyright has already been lost. But loss of said respect might have been prevented if copyright law were more limited than it is.

kcbrown wrote in post #14713831
Maybe not at this point, no. Respect for copyright has already been lost. But loss of said respect might have been prevented if copyright law were more limited than it is.

But the point remains - respect for [this] law is only tenuously connected to the apparent legitimacy of the law's purpose, if the two are even connected at all.

I find that the people most disrespectful and ignoring of laws of creation and/or ownership generally don't create and/or own anything themselves so they're completely ignorant of what it's like to have something of theirs stolen.

And no I don't consider taking snapshots "creation" in the context of copyright and IP. Heck even I have a cavalier attitude towards copyright with respect to photos that I put little to no thought into and threw up on facebook.

Original copyright law appears to only have protected whole, original works. It did not forbid "derivative works", nor did it forbid the use of subsets of works. It did not have exclusions for "fair use" because it did not need such exclusions.


Read it for yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.copyright.g​ov/history/1790act.pdf

Hah! You're right. The original 1790 act did not cover any medium invented afterward, like photography, movies, sound recordings, computer programs, and such...is that what you're upset about?

The current general public attitude that if it's available to take, it's free for the taking has absolutely nothing to do with restrictions on derivative works. The only persons restricted by derivative work restrictions are uncreative persons. There are hundreds of people on this forum creating new photographs every day without being restricted by copyright.

RDKirk wrote in post #14714025
Hah! You're right. The original 1790 act did not cover any medium invented afterward, like photography, movies, sound recordings, computer programs, and such...is that what you're upset about?

No. Way to miss the point.

The point is that it covers whole works in their original form, not the trivial things that the modern version now covers.

Oh, yeah? Your thinking is very narrow-minded here.

Let me give you an example of how you're wrong here strictly from the arena of photography.

Suppose someone takes a snapshot of something. By itself, it looks relatively unremarkable. One might even argue that it's not very "creative" at all. But suppose you import that snapshot into Photoshop and, after using considerable effort and skill, turn it into what most people would regard as a masterpiece. Who, in that situation, is being creative? You, or the person who took the snapshot?

In that situation, copyright law protects the person who took the snapshot and not you. Despite the fact that it was you who supplied the bulk (if not the entirety) of the creativity, the resulting work belongs to the other person. You have just run afoul of the "derivative work" part of copyright law.


And that's just a made up example from the photographic arena. Things are even worse in other arenas, such as music, where merely including a small sequence of notes in your piece may run you afoul of copyright law, as it did Eminem. Think that's trivial? If you're composing a song, how do you know where the sequences of notes came from? Are you sure you never heard any of them in some song that played 20 years ago?

You take a photograph of a statue. Have you created a derivative work and thus violated the copyright of the sculptor? Guess what? It's entirely possible that you did.

So you might reconsider what appears to be smug self-righteousness on your part in this copyright debate, because it's entirely possible that you have violated the copyright of others without even knowing it.

kcbrown wrote in post #14714175
You take a photograph of a statue. Have you created a derivative work and thus violated the copyright of the sculptor? Guess what? It's entirely possible that you did.

So you might reconsider what appears to be smug self-righteousness on your part in this copyright debate, because it's entirely possible that you have violated the copyright of others without even knowing it.

A photograph of a statue is not a copy of a statue. Taking the statue and making an exact duplicate statue is the example you're looking for. That example is an interesting one. I suspect it'll get challenged, but what do I know.

Photographs of statues and public places vs private and such are precisely why laws get more complicated over time and lawyers get rich. That doesn't mean laws should get dead simple and have even more loopholes (in my opinion at least).

This also doesn't mean MP3s and photos should be open for the taking just because they're easily copied.


EDIT: I just did a little digging on that sculpture and the issue seems to be they are enforcing what they believe to be commercial photography. Tourists and casual snappers seem to have no problems.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714207
A photograph of a statue is not a copy of a statue. Taking the statue and making an exact duplicate statue is the example you're looking for.

No, it's not a copy of the statue, it's a derivative work of the statue.

kcbrown wrote in post #14714210
No, it's not a copy of the statue, it's a derivative work of the statue.

Read my edited post. I just changed it.

I don't have a problem with that. Start with your own photograph, not someone else's.

I don't attempt to make commercial uses of photographs of other people's copyrighted works. Notice that in the link you posted, the problem is the pretty stupid license Chicago has with the author. Normally, the courts do allow people to take personal photographs of statues (even copyrighted statues like the Vietnam Memorial in DC)...except in this case Chicago bought a license that particularly forbids it, and now has to enforce that license.

While I think it was a stupid license for Chicago to buy, I defend to the death the right of the author to write it.

But the real point is that the topic of this thread, "Disturbing trend in high schools," has absolutely nothing to do with your irks about the copyright law. Kids aren't casually copying protected works in protest of not being able to create derivative works.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14713450
Please explain how taking something thats not yours is not stealing. If you steal you are what? Thats right a THIEF. I guess in your world anything anyone wants is there for anyones taking and its all good and you keep trying to justify it in some warped way. But the fact still remains if you take something thats not yours you are stealing and that makes you WHAT if you steal? Thats right, a thief.

Thinking something does not make it so. You can call it whatever you want, but the law is not on your side, nor should it be. Digital piracy is not the same as physical property theft. There is a reason why one is a felony and the other is not.

banquetbear wrote in post #14713485
Except of course, that in the eyes of the law, it is theft. But you can keep on ignoring the bits of law I cited earlier on.

Wrong. Legislation may use the term, but it is not done so in the manner which you think it is. Legally speaking, copyright infringement and property theft are two completely different things. This is not to say that digital piracy is not illegal (it is), but it is not the same as theft.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14713492
No not at all. He's not attacking anybody personally idiot is a term of endearment and if you take something thats not yours its not stealing

banquetbear wrote in post #14713499
...ah, of course! That makes sense!

Both of you need to stop being childish. You can stomp your feet all you want, but the law is not as black and white as you perceive. One of the first things that you learn in any legal class is that the law is very specific, and it does not align directly to what you may perceive as right and wrong.

For example, breach of contract under US law is not a felony. Business promises mean nothing, if the courts find that the breaching party makes their business partner whole. It favors commerce.

You may exclaim, "THEY LIED! IF YOU SIGN A PAPER AND PROMISE TO DO SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO DO IT!" But that is not the case. Calling them a liar does not change the fact that as long as the courts find that you are sufficiently compensated for actual damages, not the full amount of what was contractually agreed upon, the matter is settled.

It's the same way with copyright infringement. You can kick and scream all you want and call it theft, but it does not make it so. The courts do not see it as the same thing, and it does not matter whether you want to point fingers and accuse people of being thieves. What they are doing is illegal, but it is not tantamount to property theft. Get over it.

As much as I hate to cite Wikipedia as a source, their article (http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Copyright_infri​ngement) about copyright infringement is very accurate. Under the terminology section, read the paragraph about the term "Theft". It illustrates the difference, and why the handful of you throwing a fit about how copying a song is the same as someone committing grand theft auto is the same thing sound ridiculous.

alt4852 wrote in post #14714288
Both of you need to stop being childish.

Calling people idiots isn't childish?

RDKirk wrote in post #14714224
I don't have a problem with that. Start with your own photograph, not someone else's.

The point wasn't to illustrate a way to violate copyright, it was to illustrate the fallacy that creativity and nonviolation of copyright necessarily go hand-in-hand.

Most creativity builds on the creativity of others. This is true of software, architecture, art, sculpture, music, and pretty much every other endeavor of man. You are steadfastly refusing to recognize this.

You don't get it. Commercial use of a copied work is not necessary for copyright infringement. Mere copying of or derivation from a copyrighted work is copyright infringement, independently of the intended use thereof.

So what? How are you going to know whether or not the statue you're taking a photograph of is one that it is permissible to take a photograph of? The answer is that you don't.

And copyright infringement isn't something you have to be warned about ahead of time. It is something that you can be sued for after the fact.


Tell me something: do you take backups of your computer? If you do, do you have more than one backup at any one time (e.g., a local backup and an offsite backup)? If you do, then you are almost certainly in violation of copyright, because the licenses for the software on your computer generally allow you to keep only one backup copy of the software in question.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

No, it has plenty to do with my irks about copyright law. The law is not respected. Lack of respect for the law generally comes about as a result of the law being unjust or overly burdensome. Copyright law is by no means the only such law on the books, but it is the one that's relevant here.

Now, it's possible that even with a perfectly just and reasonable copyright law in place, the copying we see going on today would still be going on. But my suspicion is that in the face of a truly just copyright law, the social forces at work would yield the opposite result. Nobody who is even close to normal likes to screw other people over unless they feel that the people they're screwing over have it coming. And the copyright holders these kids think they're screwing over are precisely the ones that have pushed for and gotten these unjust copyright laws.

This stuff is related, quite possibly at a depth greater than you might expect.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714346
Calling people idiots isn't childish?

I'm not saying that it was a great choice of words, but I can empathize with his frustration. There are a few voices in this thread that want to make this issue a matter of good vs evil, right vs wrong, and the reality whether they want to accept it or not, is not so simple.

If someone wants to repeatedly call a crime "theft" with no other grounds aside from their own opinion, JD was pointing out that they would be opening a whole new can of worms with these people once physical property was able to be replicated without destroying the source. If someone materialized an exact copy of your car, they are NOT stealing it. Your car may depreciate due to increased supply, you may no longer be the only one on your block with a Honda Civic with your custom-made body kit and spoiler, but I cannot stress enough: IT IS NOT THEFT.

Nobody is depriving you of your car. You may suffer from loss of value, exclusivity, and you may feel as though the situation is unfair, but it is not theft. The act of copying your car will be illegal (speculating on future laws, how fun!), but the courts will only award damages to the effect of what you have suffered. You have not suffered the loss of your car.

Essentially, JD was just saying that those who insisted on claiming that replication of property and depriving individuals of their own physical property is one and the same were wrong. It may be harsh to call them idiots, but the frustration is understandable considering how many times this concept has been explained in this thread, and how fervently some people are clinging to interpretations that are wrong.

PS:

cdifoto, as a friendly word of advice, I would tread lightly in your participation in this discussion because it can turn you into an inadvertently ironic example of hypocrisy. You are one of the more vocal members demonizing those who are complicit in copyright infringement:

cdifoto wrote in post #14711400
Pirates are leeches. They simply are.

cdifoto wrote in post #14711415
Pirating programs are not installed on computers by default. Pirating is done by people who weasel their way out of paying and they put in an effort to do so. A deliberate effort must be made to pirate...or to get started at least.

Yet despite all of your ax-grinding about how awful these people are, it seems as though you should not be pointing any fingers. This is in your signature line:

Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here.

Do you know what that is? Do you know what that makes you? Legally speaking, you have committed software piracy. You are what you criticize. Unless Canon has given you express permission to do so (which I highly doubt), you are infringing on their copyright. The license agreement that you accepted includes these clauses:

If you read the first few lines of this agreement that you accepted, it clearly states that Canon has prohibited you from doing.. what you're doing. Legally, they have the right to file a lawsuit against you for distributing their software in a manner that is prohibited in the license agreement. You have committed what airfrogusmc, banquetbear, mtimber, etc consider stealing and your decline of morals is the cause.

Do you see how easy that was? It wasn't a matter of having bad morals (you seem a bit abrasive at times, but I have no doubt you're a good person), this isn't about the triumph of evil versus good, or right versus wrong. It's the fact that the world is changing, and technology has permanently altered the way we must approach ideas and non-tangible property.

So go ahead. Instead of approaching this problem with a level head, we should do as many on here have suggested which is prosecute the guilty to the full extent of the law to teach others that there are consequences for their actions. Why should we go easy on people? Why should we make this crime legal?

--

I will say that I understand your intention of uploading the installation file for DPP and you were most likely trying to benefit the community by giving a helping hand to other photographers. This however is a perfect example of how copyright infringement is a massive gray area, and the black and white manner in which you guys are approaching this is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.