It's not Piracy they're against, it's distribution for Independents they fear!

[Jim McKinney]

Again with the 'stealing' thing? I think the simplest way I can put it - if I take a photograph of a painting, do you consider that I have stolen the painting?

From your example, and this is only my opinion, it comes down to intent and what you do with that photo once you've taken it.

You have not "stolen" it if:
You're a critic, and wish to refer to the photo in order to talk/write more accurately about the painting;
You just want it as a memento from your visit to the gallery;
You want to show it to a friend or colleague, because you feel it touches on issues of common interest;
Any of innumerable situations where you might desire a "fair use" of that photo (and I tend to interpret "fair use" quite broadly);

Now instead, if you take your photo, make copies of it, and sell those reproductions on your own, then I would say you are stealing from the original artist.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Which is surely the point. Either you agree with stealing content or don't. The rest is semantics. If you do, and you make your living from being involved in the production of content, then you should be sure that you are happy for others to do the same with your product. Simple choice.

Ahhh but first you have to define 'stealing', and that's a tricky one and very open for debate; in the not so distant past, very senior people in our industry (as I posted earlier) have denounced both home recording and skipping commercials as 'theft'. I think you would find very few who would agree with those opinions today. I think you would find few who would disagree that shoving a DVD under your jacket and walking out of the shop without paying *was* theft. In the middle there's a somewhat grey area.

So be careful with that line of argument; don't set people up as either supporters or opponents of 'stealing' until 'stealing' has been closely defined; doing otherwise leads to interminable flamewars.

I'll conclude with one of my favorite Heinlein quotes:

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."


Mike

 

[Elsie N]

From your example, and this is only my opinion, it comes down to intent and what you do with that photo once you've taken it.
...
Now instead, if you take your photo, make copies of it, and sell those reproductions on your own, then I would say you are stealing from the original artist.

This a variation on the theme of this thread, but what if you reproduced the painting, or even a photo, in such a way as to satirize it? Isn't that legal?

If that be true, if you took a movie and edited it in such a way as to make it appear satirical before offering it, is that a valid defense against piracy?

Just raising the question.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Now instead, if you take your photo, make copies of it, and sell those reproductions on your own, then I would say you are stealing from the original artist.

I agree that profiting from somebody else's work is wrong (and copyright law makes it illegal) but it still can't be called stealing. I think people equate such an action as being as bad as taking money directly out of the artist's bank account (even though their balance remains unchanged), but even if it is as bad as physically taking money, it's at best an oversimplification of a complex issue and at worst a deliberate attempt to poison the well.

Basically, I think it's an inappropriate term and that it should be avoided.

 

[Steve G]

Ahhh but first you have to define 'stealing', and that's a tricky one and very open for debate; in the not so distant past, very senior people in our industry (as I posted earlier) have denounced both home recording and skipping commercials as 'theft'. I think you would find very few who would agree with those opinions today. I think you would find few who would disagree that shoving a DVD under your jacket and walking out of the shop without paying *was* theft. In the middle there's a somewhat grey area.

So be careful with that line of argument; don't set people up as either supporters or opponents of 'stealing' until 'stealing' has been closely defined; doing otherwise leads to interminable flamewars.

I'll conclude with one of my favorite Heinlein quotes:

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."


Mike

Mike, good quote, but still stand by my point. If people, as content providers, are happy to download for free/steal
(delete as appropriate . ) then they should be happy for others to do the same with their product. If they aren't happy with that, then they shouldn't. That doesn't seem to me to be a grey area.

 

[Scott Crawley]

This a variation on the theme of this thread, but what if you reproduced the painting, or even a photo, in such a way as to satirize it? Isn't that legal?

If that be true, if you took a movie and edited it in such a way as to make it appear satirical before offering it, is that a valid defense against piracy?

Just raising the question.

Satire is a form of expression that is protected, and given an exemption so yes, it may be considered legal. I'm not sure if that is because it is seen as unique simply because it is satirical, or if society at large considers expression more important than copyright. I presume it is the latter; freedom of expression for all trumps an individual's right not to be copied.

I believe the origin of the idea lies within the realm of political satire.

 

[Jim McKinney]

This a variation on the theme of this thread, but what if you reproduced the painting, or even a photo, in such a way as to satirize it? Isn't that legal?

If that be true, if you took a movie and edited it in such a way as to make it appear satirical before offering it, is that a valid defense against piracy?

Just raising the question.

Generally, my understanding is that satire is "fair use." But I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Jim McKinney]

I agree that profiting from somebody else's work is wrong (and copyright law makes it illegal) but it still can't be called stealing. I think people equate such an action as being as bad as taking money directly out of the artist's bank account (even though their balance remains unchanged), but even if it is as bad as physically taking money, it's at best an oversimplification of a complex issue and at worst a deliberate attempt to poison the well.

Basically, I think it's an inappropriate term and that it should be avoided.

Well, I'm certainly not interested in poisoning the well. That does not educate or enhance a discussion. Nor does it help to imply that one is deliberately intending to do so.

I agree with you that this whole broader issue is extremely complex - but that's why I offered (what I felt was) a simple and straightforward example: Reproducing someone else's artwork and effort, and profiting from it at their expense. That to me is "stealing." Okay, you wish to quibble and call it something else (though I would like to know what you would call it). Fine. At least we both agree that it is wrong.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I agree with you that this whole broader issue is extremely complex - but that's why I offered (what I felt was) a simple and straightforward example: Reproducing someone else's artwork and effort, and profiting from it at their expense. That to me is "stealing." Okay, you wish to quibble and call it something else (though I would like to know what you would call it). Fine. At least we both agree that it is wrong.

In addition, I'm pretty sure that stealing has been defined, legally speaking for a LONG time. ;-) whether or not the term strictly applies to a copyright violation is something that apparently must be decided on a case by case basis. That notwithstanding, a violation of copyright is unlawful regardless of what you call it. You may call that quibbling, but I'm not personally sure it is a distinction worth making within the context of this discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the law was clarified to call the act of circumventing rights management an act of copyright infringement. Did the whole idea of personal backup being OK make that null and void, or is that still valid?

 

[António Fagundes]

Steve G, you need to chill. Life doesn't need to be that hard, you know... people are generally good people, life's good. Don't worry about it.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Steve G, you need to chill. Life doesn't need to be that hard, you know... people are generally good people, life's good. Don't worry about it.

Yeah people are generally good until your interests come into conflict with theirs, and managing that is what lawmaking is about. Besides, is it "good" to call out an individual like that in a public forum?

 

[António Fagundes]

Yeah people are generally good until your interests come into conflict with theirs, and managing that is what lawmaking is about. Besides, is it "good" to call out an individual like that in a public forum?

Sorry, but I don't get your point?

 

[Scott Crawley]

Sorry, but I don't get your point?

The point is that the thing he was expressing is relevant to the discussion of the laws being proposed. That, and while trying to convince us that people are good, you were being less than nice. That is all, no biggie.

 

[António Fagundes]

Why am I being rude? Steve is obviously living in a very muscular democracy, but only because he wants too. If I'm downloading films off the internet, I'm not hurting anybody anymore than you are by listening to public radio. 99% of the population is downloading music or films off the internet. It's a fact. It's an issue someone, somewhere has to to come to terms with. Trying to be Mr. Righteous won't mean absolutely nothing to what people already consider to their right...

What do you want me to say? I didn't make up this, but its happening, it's here, and its far too big to stop it. Its like telling people they have to pay for each song they listen on the radio.

 

[Antony M]

Not sure what your point is. All bbc radio is paid for through the licence fee. Non bbc radio in uk is paid for through on air adverts.
If I am at a friends house and they are playing a paid for DVD, possibly that is a slightly greyish area. Downloading a film from the Internet for free or buying a bootleg DVD, IMHO, is, if you depend on content production for your income, a bit like crapping on your own doorstep. Hey, we all have our own morals and interests. You have copyright statements on your photo site on your home page. Presumably you value your creative output ?

My point is that none of this is as black & white as some people like to make out.

"All bbc radio is paid for through the licence fee".
"Non bbc radio in uk is paid for through on air adverts."
Equally, you could argue, most feature films production is paid for by investors or the producers.

But it is OK to listen to the radio for free, but not OK to download a film for free?



I'm glad you agree that going to a friend's house is a grey issue.


How about downloading a TV show from the internet, a week before it is due to be shown on the BBC?
Is that "stealing"?
Who is losing out then?
Not the BBC.
Not advertisers.
Not the makers of the series.


Yes, I value my creative output... in artistic terms.
But if someone wants to download a copy of my pictures or a copy of my films, then go for it.
So long as they don't steal the originals (like the nasty people at Greg Evans Photo Library did).

 

[Antony M]

Mike, good quote, but still stand by my point. If people, as content providers, are happy to download for free/steal
(delete as appropriate . ) then they should be happy for others to do the same with their product. If they aren't happy with that, then they shouldn't. That doesn't seem to me to be a grey area.

Excellent thought.

Kind of a barter system?

You can download my stuff for free, and I will download yours.

I like that.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Why am I being rude? Steve is obviously living in a very muscular democracy, but only because he wants too. If I'm downloading films off the internet, I'm not hurting anybody anymore than you are by listening to public radio. 99% of the population is downloading music or films off the internet. It's a fact. It's an issue someone, somewhere has to to come to terms with. Trying to be Mr. Righteous won't mean absolutely nothing to what people already consider to their right...

What do you want me to say? I didn't make up this, but its happening, it's here, and its far too big to stop it. Its like telling people they have to pay for each song they listen on the radio.

Sure, Steve seems to feel strongly about these things. While i didn't say you were rude, I did suggest that being less than kind was not helping your case that people are "good". Yes, lots of people are unlawfully downloading content, and that so far has proven difficult to combat. The fact that many people are doing it does not make it right and shouldn't lessen the impact of the rule of Law.

Downloading illegally copied material and listening to the radio are not the same thing. Radio stations (Analogue ones) do not copy the material they distribute. They transmit it, a significant distinction so far as copyright law is concerned. Radio stations do pay a royalty for each song they play, and unless someone on the receiving end captures and illegally copies those songs, they are essentially gone a moment after transmission is complete. Those things can not be said for downloading the vast majority of torrents.

 

[Jim McKinney]

99% of the population is downloading music or films off the internet. It's a fact.

It is not a fact.

 

[Tom Lowe]

These threads always, always, always devolve into one group of forum members accusing the others of "stealing," while the other side shouts back, "It is NOT stealing." This thread about SOPA has run its course. The legislation is shelved for the moment.