read about the new so called piracy laws SOPA and PIPA that are being pushed current

[Steelharp]

if you publish my photos and make a profit, you're in trouble

Why am I not surprised by this part of the response?

"Phuck y'all, but NOT ME!"

[Guest nicemac]

Why am I not surprised by this part of the response?

I see this all the time. Artists that complain about people stealing (their masterpiece) from them, while using pirated software (Adobe, Microsoft, fonts) on their computers. There is just as much work that goes into software development as there is in creating a song or a film… We have purchased individual font families that cost $10,000 (and more) for the proper licensing for our company (we were quoted $45,000 for a font family used in one major national magazine, but we declined to buy that one…). People think nothing of sharing them with a buddy.

[mav]

If the government makes SOPA and PIPA law, it still won't solve the problem of piracy. Yes, it will make it more difficult for a time, but people will end up finding a way around it. When that happens, does the government increase regulations further? I would think so, (edit) - which is not a good thing.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mav

[Guest WyattEarp]

Why am I not surprised by this part of the response?

"Phuck y'all, but NOT ME!"

oh please. you're comparing apples to oranges. if someone requests to use one of my photos, i wont have a problem with it. if they take the image and try to resell it for money, then i have an issue with it.

if a company was using my photos in their advertisements to increase their revenue and I wasn't being compensated, then I would have an issue with it. but someone just using my photo for non-financial gain, school project, or posting it up on a blog and making a comment about the composition and skill level of the photo, I wouldn't really care.

[Steelharp]

Yes, it will make it more difficult for a time, but people will end up finding a way around it.

The sadness and truth in that...

[Steelharp]

oh please. you're comparing apples to oranges.

Only in your mind.

[Mike.357]

obviously something needs to be done to protect other peoples property.

And some of the justification for theft here simply blows me away. Really it is okay to take something because it is overpriced, or some corporation makes millions off of it?

How many around here are camping out with the OWS crowd?

Frigging incredible.

[Guest WyattEarp]

How is it price gouging if you are not forced to buy it? It isn't. You have a choice.

Adobe has no obligation to help you " advance knowledge". 30 days is plenty of time to see if you want to buy software. And if you do–as a student– you can get it cheap. Despite what your all-knowing professor tells you (or doesn't tell you)

From Google. Searched for "Creative Suite Student Pricing"

Adobe 65121347 CS5.5 Design Std Student & Teacher Mac Academic – $272.00:

Adobe 65121347 CS5.5 Design Std Student & Teacher Mac Academic

Where I have admitted to stealing anything? Everything i have is legally owned, and used.

Yes, you admitted to it: "but to me, the mp3 sharing thing is a farce anyways. I always used to, and still do, swap DVD's with a buddy. They might have something I haven't seen, and vice versa. Same thing with music."

You were clear that some (corporations maybe) have made too much and are greedy so why not take what you need… ("people begin to steal because they have no option") Suppose a starving photog thought he had no choice and took your images? Would it be OK if he felt he had no option? Of course not…

"But if it's for personal use and you're not reaping financial gain from it, then there shouldnt be an issue."

Somebody (actually teams of somebody's) worked hard to make a commercial product and you think it is OK to steal it if it is only for personal use?

Just wow.

name a product that is even remotely comparable to the Adobe Master Suite please. I challenge you on that one. Gimp is as close to photoshop as you can get, but it's not even a comparison, not by a long shot. If there is no comparable product, then in my opinion it is price gouging, because you're making something unattainable that could benefit a lot of people, and there are no alternatives.

I wasn't aware that there was any student pricing for Adobe Master Suite, I had looked on their website but never saw anything, but that's good to know.

I didn't admit to stealing, I said I have swapped (to borrow and then return) dvd's and cd's with buddys. Just because I have an opinion that the mp3 sharing thing is a farce, doesn't mean I have stolen any music. Everything I have, I have owned by purchasing from itunes, or cd's I picked up at garage sales, pawn shops or on ebay and then put on my ipod. Most of the cd's are now in the trash because they got too scratched to play anymore.

But if a person buys a cd or mp3's, he has purchased the rights to that property, if he wants to share with his buddies, that's his business. if he's copying those cd's and then handing out playlists to his buddies and saying oh for $5 you choose the 10 songs you want and I'll burn you a cd, that is totally wrong.

it's no different than me buying a gallon of milk, and you coming over and knocking on my door and you ask me for a cup of milk because you don't have any. Or asking to borrow my lawnmower, or my weed eater because you don't have one. Should Ryobi and Husqvarna start sue people because John Doe loans his weedeater and lawwnmower to his neighbor? Should the dairy farmers be up in arms because Betty Lou asks Susie Mae for a cup of milk? and then returns the favor a few weeks later?

Edited January 20, 2012 by WyattEarp

[G27]

oh please. you're comparing apples to oranges. if someone requests to use one of my photos, i wont have a problem with it. if they take the image and try to resell it for money, then i have an issue with it.

if a company was using my photos in their advertisements to increase their revenue and I wasn't being compensated, then I would have an issue with it. but someone just using my photo for non-financial gain, school project, or posting it up on a blog and making a comment about the composition and skill level of the photo, I wouldn't really care.

So you think IP owners should only be paid for their creation f their product is used for profit?

[G27]

But if a person buys a cd or mp3's, he has purchased the rights to that property, if he wants to share with his buddies, that's his business. if he's copying those cd's and then handing out playlists to his buddies and saying oh for $5 you choose the 10 songs you want and I'll burn you a cd, that is totally wrong.

Actually, YOU are totally wrong - you don't purchase the 'rights to that property' - you simply purchase a LICENSE.

Big difference, though du to your rather unbelievable rationalizations I'm certain that will be lost on you.

it's no different than me buying a gallon of milk, and you coming over and knocking on my door and you ask me for a cup of milk because you don't have any. Or asking to borrow my lawnmower, or my weed eater because you don't have one. Should Ryobi and Husqvarna start sue people because John Doe loans his weedeater and lawwnmower to his neighbor? Should the dairy farmers be up in arms because Betty Lou asks Susie Mae for a cup of milk? and then returns the favor a few weeks later?

Hahaha, it's COMPLETELY different. If you could instantaneously create a clone of that weed eater and hand it out to folks, you wouldn't agree that the CREATOR of that item in question should get paid for that CLONE of the original?

For someone supposedly working in the digital realm (graphics), I'm rather surprised at how little you appear to know about it.

[Mike.357]

Wyatt said

if you publish my photos and make a profit, you're in trouble, but nowhere did I ever say anything about anyone making a profit off of trading some mp3's, or downloading an overpriced piece of software for one's own personal use

Are you not downloading and using this software to further your education to therefore end up making money from it in a career? It is overpriced in your opnion, probably not in the opinion of whoever owns the property. And it must have value or you would not be stealing it.

Just sayin...

Edited January 20, 2012 by Mike.357

[Guest bkelm18]

How about we just make stealing illegal?

[Steelharp]

I said I have swapped (to borrow and then return) dvd's and cd's with buddys...

it's no different than me buying a gallon of milk, and you coming over and knocking on my door and you ask me for a cup of milk because you don't have any. Or asking to borrow my lawnmower, or my weed eater because you don't have one.

Bulldung. And here's WHY it's different. When you hand that CD, DVD, whatever to your buddy, and he makes a copy of it, you get the whole CD, DVD back. When you give over a cup of milk, you're missing that cup. The only way you get it back is if HE buys a gallon, and gives you a cup...

Edited January 21, 2012 by LagerHead
Let's not go there, shall we?

[Guest FiddleDog]

SOPA is a bad solution to a bad problem. Many folks equate internet as free and this law appears to be written in such a way as to target servers that are dedicated to the purpose of piracy. Theft of property used to be about having possession usurped, but as things have become more and more cloud based, there is no physical artifact to take or have stolen. It becomes about access.

Imagine that you made a new short recoil design system...say, like Boberg. Someone buys a gun and discerns how it works, and then begin to build and sell them as well. This would be considered theft, even though that person actually bought the gun. The design embedded in every gun, however, is not, for sale.

This bill pretty much states that the DOJ can shut down any "warehouse" that it deems to be specifically used in the dissemination of products derived from such a theft. The biggest problem is that there is no really set definition and/or guideline as to how the DOJ would be able to determine an illegally used warehouse, and a legitimately used warehouse - effectively giving the DOJ the power to shut down warehouse that they think is being used for ill-gotten purposes.

This is a blank coupon for them to check any server - all they have to do as say that they have deemed it to be used primarily for pirating purposes. A little too much discretionary power is being ceded to the DOJ this way, in my opinion.

Edited January 20, 2012 by FiddleDog

[Steelharp]

How about we just make stealing illegal?

Been done. Not workin'.

[Guest nicemac]

name a product that is even remotely comparable to the Adobe Master Suite please. I challenge you on that one. Gimp is as close to photoshop as you can get, but it's not even a comparison, not by a long shot. If there is no comparable product, then in my opinion it is price gouging, because you're making something unattainable that could benefit a lot of people, and there are no alternatives.

There are alternatives. You just don't like them. GIMP, Pixelmator for Photoshop. QuarkXpress for layout. CorelDRAW for vector art. etc…

I didn't admit to stealing, I said I have swapped (to borrow and then return) dvd's and cd's with buddys. Just because I have an opinion that the mp3 sharing thing is a farce, doesn't mean I have stolen any music. Everything I have, I have owned by purchasing from itunes, or cd's I picked up at garage sales, pawn shops or on ebay and then put on my ipod. Most of the cd's are now in the trash because they got too scratched to play anymore.

Sorry if I mischaracterized. When people state that they swap music in 2012 it usually means one thing. They share digital files. RARELY is that not the case. If you honor that, good for you. You are definitely the exception, not the rule.

But if a person buys a cd or mp3's, he has purchased the rights to that property, if he wants to share with his buddies, that's his business.

Wrong. Sharing digital music files is a violation of every license agreement I have ever seen.

if he's copying those cd's and then handing out playlists to his buddies and saying oh for $5 you choose the 10 songs you want and I'll burn you a cd, that is totally wrong.

Even giving it away is illegal.

it's no different than me buying a gallon of milk, and you coming over and knocking on my door and you ask me for a cup of milk because you don't have any. Or asking to borrow my lawnmower, or my weed eater because you don't have one. Should Ryobi and Husqvarna start sue people because John Doe loans his weedeater and lawwnmower to his neighbor? Should the dairy farmers be up in arms because Betty Lou asks Susie Mae for a cup of milk? and then returns the favor a few weeks later?

Betty Lou consumes the milk and Susie Mae has to buy more to get more. You are talking consumables. Nobody cares what you do with a consumable you purchase. It is an object that can simply be copied or cloned with no degradation in quality from the original that is an issue. When you share digital files (music, software, etc…) you essentially become the manufacturer. The file you give away robs the real manufacturer of a sale.

[Guest nicemac]

Actually, YOU are totally wrong - you don't purchase the 'rights to that property' - you simply purchase a LICENSE.

Big difference, though du to your rather unbelievable rationalizations I'm certain that will be lost on you.

Hahaha, it's COMPLETELY different. If you could instantaneously create a clone of that weed eater and hand it out to folks, you wouldn't agree that the CREATOR of that item in question should get paid for that CLONE of the original?

For someone supposedly working in the digital realm (graphics), I'm rather surprised at how little you appear to know about it.

Finished my post after you posted this. You nailed it (as did I). :-)

[Guest FiddleDog]

Nicely put. Every CD that you purchase will have the phrase "all rights reserved" printed on them - this includes the right to reproduce them. With itunes, it's embedded in the user agreement. You are actually buying a license to use that particular product - that license is limited - the rights to reproduce have not been extended through that license.

Edited January 20, 2012 by FiddleDog

[Guest WyattEarp]

Actually, YOU are totally wrong - you don't purchase the 'rights to that property' - you simply purchase a LICENSE.

Big difference, though du to your rather unbelievable rationalizations I'm certain that will be lost on you.

Hahaha, it's COMPLETELY different. If you could instantaneously create a clone of that weed eater and hand it out to folks, you wouldn't agree that the CREATOR of that item in question should get paid for that CLONE of the original?

For someone supposedly working in the digital realm (graphics), I'm rather surprised at how little you appear to know about it.

just because I don't agree with you or with the law, doesn't mean I don't know. there's a big difference.

and since we're now bordering on the line of personal attacks, I'll recuse myself from this discussion further, because my maturity level is much higher than that. good day sir.

[Guest nicemac]

just because I don't agree with you or with the law, doesn't mean I don't know. there's a big difference.

I work in an industry where pirating is rampant so I see this all the time. When it impacts you directly, you will look at it differently. Trust me. You will appreciate that is illegal to do these things and simultaneously be appalled that the laws are essentially ignored and violators are rarely prosecuted.

It is so easy to steal intellectual property. That is what prompted these proposed new laws. I have not studied them and am not an authority on them so I don't know if they will do what opponents suggest. But I do know there are plenty of people both inside this country and (especially) offshore that do these things and that needs to stop.

[Guest FiddleDog]

just because I don't agree with you or with the law, doesn't mean I don't know. there's a big difference.

and since we're now bordering on the line of personal attacks, I'll recuse myself from this discussion further, because my maturity level is much higher than that. good day sir.

I wish that you would stay. Mature discussion from all perspectives is the only way that this issue can ever be addressed appropriately. Without input, all we see are strong armed, inappropriate responses from each side, and nothing gets resolved. You have my word that I for one will not attack you on a personal level. It is no secret that the music industry's response to the growing piracy issue has been a prime example of what not to do. What can they do, in your opinion, that would satisfy your complaints and still maintain the integrity of their ownership of property?

[Guest bkelm18]

Been done. Not workin'.

Oh... shucks. Thought I had a good idea for once.

[G27]

just because I don't agree with you or with the law, doesn't mean I don't know. there's a big difference.

You've displayed an enormous lack of knowledge regarding property rights in this very thread - you don't even understand licensing - but feel free to act as if it's some sort of civil disobedience, if that helps you sleep better at alight.

and since we're now bordering on the line of personal attacks, I'll recuse myself from this discussion further, because my maturity level is much higher than that. good day sir.

You claim to be honest but also act as if theft is somehow ok. You rationalize and even condone it (at least imply it), so when I call your behavior out, you decide to walk away...

Stay, go, whatever - it's not like you were approaching the discussion with an open mind - you had preconceived ideas regarding what you want to believe so your choices can be rationalized and you aren't going to change any time soon. Maybe when you shoot a kILLER photo, decide to sell it only to find it later being used by others all over the place, some for profit, some not, but with zero compensation for your work, you'll change your mind.

The reality is the relative moralism you display in this thread is fundamentally what is wrong in this country. It's amazing to me that you cannot see that. Hopefully someday you'll understand property rights.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

There are at least two intertwined issue clusters. I'm more interested in the practical rather than the theoretical/ethical issues.

- Theoretical/Ethical issues-- Is piracy right or wrong? Is intellectual property a valid concept? Do IP creators make too much or too little profit? etc

I'm not intensely concerned with such questions because it is an infinite loop of hardcore positions. IMO, assuming a non-coercive, non-monopolistic free market, if a fella wants to charge $1000 for a wooden toothpick then that is his own biz. It is my biz whether to buy his toothpick. If I want his toothpick then we need to make a deal. Unless we close a deal, it is his toothpick and it ain't my toothpick.

Are there ambiguous edge cases in the event of a coercive or non-free market? For instance, if you happen to be broke down on a desert road... After several days of no traffic, an Evian Water delivery truck happens by on his alternate backroads route to Vegas. The driver offers to sell you one bottle of water off his truck for $100,000. Perhaps in such a situation the rules would be different? Or maybe not? Am not certain.

- Practical issues-- Assuming it is self-evident that each IP creator is free to determine sales/transfer conditions (within bounds of fair use, customer property rights, etc), and equally self-evident that it is wrong for consumers to use IP in violation of contract-- If IP theft is running rampant, will the XYZ law effectively thwart IP theft? Are the costs and unintended consequences of the XYZ law acceptable? Assuming that the law is effective and the costs acceptable, will the law's protections actually improve the bottom line of IP Creators?

One extreme answer--

"Yes, even if it requires dismantling the entire internet-- Even if it requires the seizure of all amateur-owned recording devices-- Even if it requires the seizure of all amateur-owned computers equipped with writeable memory, dvd burners, ram sticks, hard drives, tape or any other conceivable recordable media-- We MUST make certain that nary a penny of royalties are ever stolen from the Elvis Estate! In fact, the recording ability of the human brain is a clear violation of IP. A person with a good ear can hear a song one time on the radio and then play it back in his head as often as he pleases. Such a person could even change the song in his head, creating illegal unlicensed modifications of copyrighted material. Persons with good musical memory must receive mandatory medical intervention to prevent quasi-permanent mental engrams of copyrighted material."

The answer could be shaded in successive layers of gray until we reach another extreme--

"The internet ideally should have no government regulation. It should remain as close to lawless and borderless as is possible while maintaining the workability of the structure. Individual governments or even the UN should never regulate the internet, even if it means total destruction of the movie industry, the music industry, the written word publishing industry, and the software industry. The internet should never be regulated even if the internet rots our moral fabric, corrupts our precious bodily fluids, and causes cats to sleep with dogs."

I happen to be closer to the second answer, but opinions can vary.

Many law enforcement and civil prosecution strategies have and are being persued which do not involve the effing up of the internet. The previously-tried strategies may or may not be effective. Perhaps without the previous legal and civil actions the IP industries would have already died? Dunno. I personally don't think that the effing up of the internet will save any IP industries that would presumably be otherwise doomed.

And as has been repeatedly alleged by "paranoid extremists" I do think that the law WILL eventually be used for undesirable purposes having nothing to do with protecting my work from pirates. If I had to guess, the abuse of the law would happen sooner rather than later.

Am tempted to recount some of the previous frivolous follies in protection of IP, but will save it for a future rant if the thread stays active for awhile. I do believe that IP is a valid property right and that people should not steal IP or any other kind of property. But frivolous folly is frivolous folly even if in defense of a worthy goal.

[mav]

I am closer to the second answer as well Lester. I don't see how the government can regulate certain segments of the internet without, as you say, "effing it up." As I pointed out earlier, these laws are only going to be a temporary deterrent to those who engage in stealing of IP. If the will is there, people will find a way around laws.

Once those laws and regulations are proved to be ineffective (and they will be), they will expand to cover the ways certain people got around the first set of laws. It will be a never-ending increase of government regulation of the internet, which will end up leading to something that really won't be worth a s***. I really hate it that people are getting burned over their IP. If it was me, I would be pissed as well. However, we can't ruin one of the last bastions of freedom we have. I am for no government regulation of the internet. If it is possible, I would be for market based solutions to protecting IP.