Disturbing trend in high schools

Actually there was a time when the base install was made publically available for all to download in the event that they lost their CD. The ToS was I believe not written the same way as the disk, which is what I believe you are quoting. I did get the file, exactly as it is, directly from Canon's website. I did not pull it from a disk or hack into Canon's servers in any way shape or form.

You do raise a good point though and that is when a person or company makes something available for free, the ToS clauses prohibiting transfer/copy/share don't really hold water.

That, however, is not the same as taking software or product that is expected to be purchased and simply not paying for it.

Ah wait. I found what I was looking for. It's in DPP's help file:

Technically I could even charge people for downloading it from my website.

alt4852 wrote in post #14714407
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.

Current laws disagree with you. You keep saying it isn't theft as if to justify it and make it okay. You may have yourself convinced via semantics that taking a copy of my photo and using it without permission is fine and dandy because I still have a copy but any judge in the United States at least would tell you different in a rather strong way.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714617
Current laws disagree with you.

But what laws would that be then?

The whole world is online now and you can't think of this as an American affair.

In my country e.g. the law permits the copying of music, movies and text even if the source is illegal as long as it is meant for private use. So people here download music and movies and books via bittorrent and usenet without breaking any laws...

alt4852 wrote in post #14714288
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.

...give me a break. "It says the word theft, but it doesn't really mean theft!"

We were responding to this post:

Why aren't you calling out JDPhotoGuy ? He is the one calling us idiots.

Except that is is. And stubbornly stamping your foot and saying "no it isn't" doesn't change reality. If, as you say, the matter is as settled as you claim, you wouldn't be setting up a completely unrelated example and going "its the same for copyright infringement!", you would be offering an example of copyright infringement. That you chose not to is telling.

Cite please.

Also, someone takes my work without my permission and uses it to make money. Are you saying I could call him all the abusive names under the sun, but I couldn't call him a thief?

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.

And I have cited three bits of copyright legislation all introduced after Dowling that quite clearly refer to copyright infringement as theft. Why are you being so childish about this?

The other two guys I've asked this question to have decided not to answer my question: maybe you would like to give it a go. What the pirates are doing is illegal. Are you proposing to make what pirates do legal?

banquetbear wrote in post #14714685
Also, someone takes my work without my permission and uses it to make money. Are you saying I could call him all the abusive names under the sun, but I couldn't call him a thief?

Personally I think there is a difference between taking an image (and do whatever with it but leave your name in place as the creator of the image) and taking an image and claiming it as one's own. The first seems to me to be someone who infringes copyright, the latter seems to me to be an actual thief.
But either way, if someone uses your work without your permission and uses it to make money, you should go after them with every law you can find.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714590
Actually there was a time when the base install was made publically available for all to download in the event that they lost their CD. The ToS was I believe not written the same way as the disk, which is what I believe you are quoting. I did get the file, exactly as it is, directly from Canon's website. I did not pull it from a disk or hack into Canon's servers in any way shape or form.

That you got it from an approved source doesn't matter. That you are redistributing it does.

Um, yes they do.

The copyright holder alone has the power to decide who can and cannot distribute the work. That is precisely what copyright is all about. If the copyright holder makes his work freely available to others, but prohibits those who receive it from distributing it further (actually, merely not explicitly allowing it is the same as prohibiting it under copyright law), that is something he is allowed to do and those who distribute it despite those prohibitions are engaging in copyright violation. Indeed, copyright law is such that one is forbidden to copy, redistribute, or create derivative works unless the copyright holder explicitly allows it.

You can't have it both ways. Either the copyright holder gets to control copying and distribution of his work, and those who go against his wishes are guilty of violating his copyright, or he doesn't (and therefore, those who go against his wishes are not guilty of violating his copyright, even when they redistribute his work). Which is it?

If it's the latter, then don't come complaining to us when someone grabs a photo off your website and republishes it.


Like all laws, copyright is a package deal. You don't get to say that it applies to others and not to you, or that only certain parts of it apply to you while other parts apply to others. If you support copyright in its current form, then you must accept the consequences of that, even if you don't like it.

Under the law, it is the same. Copyright law makes no distinction between works which are being sold and works which are not.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714606
Ah wait. I found what I was looking for. It's in DPP's help file:

Technically I could even charge people for downloading it from my website.

Wrong.

That copyright is from libtiff (a software library that is used for reading and writing TIFF image files), not from DPP itself. The relevant portion of the text of the section you're talking about is:

The reason the above copyright statement is in the help file at all is described in that last paragraph. Use, inclusion, redistribution, or creation of derivative works of libtiff or any derivative thereof (which includes works which make use of it. A version of the library that you compile yourself is considered a derivative work, as is something which in turn encompasses that compiled version or any other version, for that matter) requires one to place the above copyright statement in said redistribution.


The terms of copying DPP itself are not the same. Those terms are described by the license agreement that gets shown on the screen when you install it. Unless the copyright holder explicitly said you are allowed to redistribute, then you are not allowed to redistributed, and to do so anyway is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Or do you think the statement "Copyright Canon Inc. 2004-2011. All Rights Reserved" (shown on the "about" screen in DPP -- emphasis mine) is mere window dressing?


So yes, unless you got the explicit permission of the copyright holder to redistribute DPP, you are engaging in copyright infringement. Given your prior statements about copyright, the irony of that is oh so thick.

I stand corrected on the DPP issue then. Further proof that we need more clarification and education on these matters.

banquetbear wrote in post #14714685
...give me a break. "It says the word theft, but it doesn't really mean theft!"

Nah it means whatever we want it to mean and if you disagree your an idiot. Taking something that is not yours was once a bad thing "Thou shall not steal" ahhh but today everybody does it so lets get real it can't be stopped therefore its no longer a bad thing.

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” ― Joseph Goebbels

cdifoto wrote in post #14714847
I stand corrected on the DPP issue then. Further proof that we need more clarification and education on these matters.

It's not just that.

It's proof that copyright laws need to be overhauled. Laws are supposed to be easily understood by ordinary men, because it is ordinary men who must operate within them. When the law gets too complicated, it is unjust to hold ordinary men accountable under them. If someone such as yourself, who routinely deals with copyright, can't get this stuff right, then what hope is there for the very people you criticize?

What you are seeing here is most certainly not limited to copyright. It is a disease that has spread throughout the law in general. "Ignorance is no excuse" works only when the law is easily understood by the common man both in individual parts and in total. We are well past the point where that condition holds.

I don't disagree completely. What I take issue with is the notion that "hey it's on the internet, so it's free."

We need copyright clarification, simplification, and reform but we don't need to take it to the extreme where there are no protections for content creators. I've never advocated pegging everyone to the wall.

As for my case with DPP, a better description in the Help file would have been adequate.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714928
I don't disagree completely. What I take issue with is the notion that "hey it's on the internet, so it's free."

We need copyright clarification, simplification, and reform but we don't need to take it to the extreme where there are no protections for content creators.

I completely agree.

What we need is to return to the original purpose of copyright: to promote progress in science and the useful arts. What we currently think of as protection for content creators may not be the best way to achieve that with modern technology. There may be other ways of achieving the same thing without imposing the kind of burden on the rest of society that copyright imposes. I have no idea what those ways might be, but it's something that should be explored, since it's becoming clear that current copyright laws are both unworkable and ineffective (the only way to truly prevent the kind of copying that happens at the moment is to turn the whole place into a police state -- a cost that is far too great for the reward).

It certainly isn't the clearest thing I've seen...

Yes unfortunately I don't have the answer either. Other than "don't steal my sh!t."

I'm pretty lax about copying when it's paying clients doing it. They'll take a senior portrait and put it in the paper or whatever; I don't care. They don't have my permission but I'm not going to start a mess either. What I lose in a single sale I gain in reputation as a good guy to work with (believe it or not).

Unfortunately that same approach can't be used with songs and "generic" photos such as the stuff you see on facebook being turned into memes.

JDPhotoGuy wrote in post #14712419
Right there is where your lack of understanding of the situation makes anything you say after that sentence null and void.

I've seen enough of your posts on threads like this one to know that you should change your ID to null_and_void. Illogical arguments and insults seem to be the only things you know how to write.