Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 23 Jun 2012 (Saturday) 07:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Disturbing trend in high schools

 
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jun 28, 2012 05:32 |  #46

Panoz wrote in post #14633806 (external link)
The absolute best argument against socialism for students is the shared-grade example. Tell them that their grades will be reduced - say, from an A to a B - to bring up the grade of someone else. Then next test, the A's will get a C so that more students that didn't study get better grades. Oh and make the subject the one they want to make a living at. This is done in a few colleges to demonstrate the income redistribution agenda of taxation, and the students are surprised at the analogy.

This is to me a naive example of socialism, mainly because it assumes that 'grades' are the entire point of schooling. Of course, one isn't in school to get some 'grades', one is in school to get an education.

So a socialized approach might be to pair the strongest of students up with the weaker students on projects in hopes that the weaker students would learn from their peers. The upside is that the weaker students might get a better education and the stonger students might as well (teaching is often the best tool for learning). The downside might be that the stronger students simply carry the weaker ones and do all the work.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all approaches, but to simply label a socialistic approach as one of 'grade' redistribution is very simplistic and misleading. Then again, this isn't too surprising as people love to slap labels on complex ideas that overly simplify them. Does anyone think that Joe McCarthy was interested in the actual political views of the people he blacklisted as 'communists' or was that just a label?


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Village_Idiot
GREATEST POTN MEMBER EVER
Avatar
3,695 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Durt Burg, WV
     
Jun 28, 2012 08:25 |  #47

Welllll, when most of us were in school it was around the dawn of the interwebs and that's when it wasn't so easy to get free things. I can probably find 5 different ways to illegally pirate an album in about two minutes of browsing google as opposed to when I was in school, I'd have to copy a friend's CD to listen in my car.


My village called. I was told that they missed me.

Speedotron users, untie!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JDPhotoGuy
Senior Member
Avatar
294 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Jun 29, 2012 04:36 |  #48

For everyone that seemed perturbed at my stance, I never said I don't believe photogs and artists/songwriters shouldn't have compensation or legally own their own works. Yes, some things are easier to claim rights to than others. I leaned more toward music because it's easier to point out my argument and therefore easier to understand what I'm saying. Scores are able to be copyrighted but some songwriter who knows only G-C-D-Em will find it difficult to put his music in a form that is able to be sufficiently copyrighted. Sad as it is to say, that's the direction we're going toward with music. If you think the material Justin Bieber is coming out with starts out from the songwriter with a sheet music score, you're expecting Dom Perignon to be stocked at Walmart.

That said, music is directly related to photography as it is all intellectual property and as such a relatively "new" legal term that hasn't had the benefit of hundreds of years of refinement in the courts. Still, people are treating it as if it's survived such scrutiny. It hasn't. By the time the wrinkles get sorted out, the intellectual property laws will look nothing like they do today. They're just not realistic as they stand. Some things are worth pursuing, other things should be removed from the protection of the current laws as they are just not realistically enforceable or for that matter make much sense. IE - suing retail customers for making personal copies of their own images. Within the bounds of the law, that's acceptable. In reality, that's a business practice that will gain you a reputation and put you out of business faster than using a kit lens. There are things that we, as artists and copyright holders, need to learn to let go of and just accept no matter what the letter of the law says.

As far as the socialism in schools debate... The biggest folly of the 20th century was to suggest that everyone has equal potential. That's just not true. While some people need extra encouragement, the majority just aren't meant to be CEOs. If everyone were, then the worst jobs in society would never be filled and we'd all have trash piled up and septic tanks overflowing. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is very unhealthy for a society. Instead, it would be better served to take away the shame and ridicule involved with doing the menial jobs of society.


Yes, I have severe Equipment Deficiency. No, the pills don't fix it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benesotor
Goldmember
1,827 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Mar 2009
     
Jun 29, 2012 05:07 |  #49

As a student, I always get a shocked and confused response to the very idea that I would pay for my software/music (even at student discount price)

I get less of an impression of left-wing kids wanting to take from the rich, but just the belief that if you're not taking something physical, you're not taking anything at all.
The age-old arguments being:
"Adobe aren't losing anything if I steal Photoshop"
or "If I didn't steal it I wouldn't buy it"

It's a sense of entitlement, but I'm not sure where it comes from.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moose10101
registered smartass
1,668 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 243
Joined May 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Jun 29, 2012 08:40 |  #50

JDPhotoGuy wrote in post #14647688 (external link)
For everyone that seemed perturbed at my stance, I never said I don't believe photogs and artists/songwriters shouldn't have compensation or legally own their own works. Yes, some things are easier to claim rights to than others. I leaned more toward music because it's easier to point out my argument and therefore easier to understand what I'm saying. Scores are able to be copyrighted but some songwriter who knows only G-C-D-Em will find it difficult to put his music in a form that is able to be sufficiently copyrighted. Sad as it is to say, that's the direction we're going toward with music. If you think the material Justin Bieber is coming out with starts out from the songwriter with a sheet music score, you're expecting Dom Perignon to be stocked at Walmart.

If, when I say "music", you think "Justin Bieber" or "Britney Spears", then we're not even talking about the same thing. Maybe the music you're involved with has reached a dead end, but there are plenty of other genres that haven't and that are easily copyrighted (with or without words).

Walmart doesn't sell DP, but that doesn't mean it's not available elsewhere.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aliengin
Goldmember
1,158 posts
Likes: 77
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 29, 2012 09:21 |  #51

My images were stolen by a professional musician. He said I am sorry I didn't know...
Dude didn't pick them from Facebook or any place, he took screen shots and cropped them from my smugmug site that has copyright all over it. Go figure!


Ali Engin Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Jun 29, 2012 11:16 as a reply to  @ aliengin's post |  #52

Copyright infringement has been around, well, as long as copyrights. They go back at least to the 1600s and probably much earlier. There are examples of people being punished for using the work of others without permission all the way back to ancient greece.

The only thing that has changed is the ease of reproduction. For a long time, it was acceptable to make money off of an original work or performance. Then the industry of reproduction came into fruition and people were able to make money off of the reproduction of original works and performance rather than the originals themselves.
As reproduction capabilities move from the hands of the reproducers and into the hands of the consumers, I suspect that this brief period of financial gain from reproduction will come to pass and will be just a blip in the grand scheme of things. Performers will be paid for performances while their recordings will simply be promotional material. (Indeed this is already happening where ticket prices are going up while much smaller margins are made on recorded music) Likewise, movie prices at the theater continue to climb while home viewing prices decline. I expect to see a good mixing here with more events like U2's 3D film in the near future.

For photography, I suspect that we'll see a gradual shift to real quality work in portraits and artwork with people paying a premium for truly inspiring and creative original works just as with painting. There will also be money in highly creative event photography such as weddings where complex lighting creates a product that is worth paying top dollar. But this will be paid at the event level or at the first sale. After that, it will likely be reproduced as needed and the attempts to track and control such works after the fact will be more wasteful and time consuming than just letting it go and getting on to the next job. The number of people doing it for money will decline drastically. For everything else, the actual value will be so low as to not be worth worrying about copyright. You can already see this in sports photos and other such journalistic areas where free pics from camera phones take the place of paid photojournalists. Not only are the pictures of a quality that is acceptable since it is almost always based on available light, but this gives news organizations access to photos that they simply couldn't get otherwise because the photojournalist just can't be everywhere at once.

This is the way of the future. Don't get into photography to make money. Get into it for the love of it. If you happen to make some money along the way, great.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bosscat
Goldmember
1,892 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Ontario Canada
     
Jun 29, 2012 15:59 |  #53

Didn't every videotape you rented come with an FBI warning about copyright, yet suddenly this is all new to people?

i recall my father once saying years ago, how stupid it was to claim compyright for a record, and in the same store be able to but a cassette tape to record that record onto.

Technology is its own worst enemy!


Your camera is alot smarter than the "M" Zealots would have you believe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jun 29, 2012 17:29 |  #54

Clark wrote in post #14626448 (external link)
"on no" they replied....we only take from the rich....

This is learned from TV, most news about taxes is directed at taking from the rich to give to the poor. A nice thought, but does not work so well in practice.

Most high school kids never watch the news. Their phones have the weather and sports so they have no need to TV news. They also don't care about things like taxes, etc. They just want to have fun with their friends.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mobei
Senior Member
293 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jun 29, 2012 17:52 |  #55

benesotor wrote in post #14647718 (external link)
As a student, I always get a shocked and confused response to the very idea that I would pay for my software/music (even at student discount price)

I get less of an impression of left-wing kids wanting to take from the rich, but just the belief that if you're not taking something physical, you're not taking anything at all.
The age-old arguments being:
"Adobe aren't losing anything if I steal Photoshop"
or "If I didn't steal it I wouldn't buy it"

It's a sense of entitlement, but I'm not sure where it comes from.

Perhaps entitlement but the real problem is that the law has been so difficult to enforce.
Just recently software has been developed to track file sharing and they are taking enforcement action. Enforcement is a component education. You want to change behavior, pass a law, enforce it and punish. Nothing new here, it just takes time to change behavior. There haven't been that many photography suits because there haven't been enough courts to handle the potential suits. If they finally fund the small claims type of courts for copyrights then more will assert their rights, punishment will be applied and behavior will change. It's simply the WildWest right now, people just need to be civilized.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Jun 29, 2012 18:00 as a reply to  @ mobei's post |  #56

It didn't help that the RIAA tried to take a few children to court for millions of dollars in damages to "send a message" rather than randomly hit people for quick $500 fees for such behavior. Now a lot of kids just see such activity as "sticking it to the man".


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mobei
Senior Member
293 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jun 29, 2012 18:42 as a reply to  @ kfreels's post |  #57

That is unfortunate but the problem is that too few people can see beyond the end of their nose. It's just like advertising, the only way to get peoples attention is to hit them smack in the face.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Jun 29, 2012 18:43 |  #58

cdifoto wrote in post #14621856 (external link)
The easiest way to combat this is to not put it out there for the taking.

Yes. If only we had not done that with our job base.;)

It isn't the internet which caused human behavior to change.

At base, nobody feels bad about picking up a penny on the street. And things online don't even look like money to begin with.

It is technically feasible to stop it. There are just zero laws to make it so.

I think in about 20 years, laws will catch up, and then it won't be so easy to steal.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,322 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1599
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Jun 30, 2012 05:21 |  #59

JDPhotoGuy wrote in post #14647688 (external link)
For everyone that seemed perturbed at my stance, I never said I don't believe photogs and artists/songwriters shouldn't have compensation or legally own their own works.

That wasn't why we were perturbed, it was because the stuff you posted is simply wrong. Copyright law simply doesn't work the way you say.

Scores are able to be copyrighted but some songwriter who knows only G-C-D-Em will find it difficult to put his music in a form that is able to be sufficiently copyrighted.

There is no such thing as "sufficiently copyrighted", it's a binary state. Something either is copyrighted or it isn't. Even bad music is copyright.

That said, music is directly related to photography as it is all intellectual property and as such a relatively "new" legal term that hasn't had the benefit of hundreds of years of refinement in the courts. Still, people are treating it as if it's survived such scrutiny. It hasn't.

It's like you just make stuff up without doing any research at all. Even just reading the wikipedia copyright page http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Copyright (external link) would tell you that this statement is completely wrong. Early laws to protect authors rights date back over 400 years. Hundreds of lawyers have debated arguments on points of copyright law and judges have made numerous rulings that set new precedents. Laws have been updated and amended repeatedly to get from those early beginnings to the laws we have today. To claim they haven't benefited from years of refinement in the court is simply 100% wrong.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Jun 30, 2012 23:49 |  #60

MadisonPhotography wrote in post #14620245 (external link)
I recently got into a discussion with a couple high school aged kids about copyright regarding things creative and of course, music. The "kids" seem to think that its just fine to pirate music, movies and photos. "Everyone does it" seems to be the argument with these folks and of course, them living in Madison, WI doesn't do much to help this.

Nothing new. I can't remember how many times I taped an album onto cassette borrowed from a friend.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

53,874 views & 0 likes for this thread
Disturbing trend in high schools
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 7DMalinois
866 guests, 299 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.