Image Copyright Question

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

you quote Wikipedia and suggest that quoting it might be stealing

The reference to stealing from Wikipedia was making a parallel to YOUR views on intellectual property, not mine. I don't think it's stealing, I was implying that you would (or at least should based on your principles). :rolleyes:

Also, your claim that most Wikipedia content is unsubstantiated is unsubstantiated. There are exceptions but for the most part the site is painstakingly referenced (they're at the bottom of each page btw, linked to by little numbers in square brackets)

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can have all the dissenting opinion that you like, but in doing so you've refused point-blank to indicate why there should be a distinction between those whose livelihood involves putting time, expertise and effort into a digital product as distinct from a physical one.

There shouldn't be. Where did I say there should. There is not distinction between the creators of the respective products. If I buy a table from a carpenter, I take it home, examine the work closely, learn how it's put together, buy some wood and make another table - am I breaking the law? There is no distinction. That's MY point. You're the one arguing there should be a distinction.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Plus - as you've also ignored - what's the impact of your opinon? I've stated clearly why the first "copy" would never be created, because it wouldn't be worth the cost. So the end result would be no websites, no photographs, no music, etc. All because people want to steal them.

This supposed theoretical "end result" has been demonstrated to be a myth countless times. The removal of intellectual property restrictions stimulates innovation in practice, regardless of what you might hypothesise in theoretical discussion.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

The reference to stealing from Wikipedia was making a parallel to YOUR views on intellectual property, not mine. I don't think it's stealing, I was implying that you would (or at least should based on your principles). :rolleyes:

You can imply all you like, but I don't, because they've said so themselves. If I decide to release something under the Creative Commons or GPL License, then I've decided that. So "imply" all you like, but you're completely wrong in "implying" that I would, based on my principles :rolleyes:

lucideer wrote: »

There shouldn't be. Where did I say there should.

:rolleyes: In numerous posts you made the distinction between copying something physical and copying a digital file :

kjt wrote: »

I don't even know how somebody would think they should get images for free. I guess if the photo wasn't on the Internet and was instead, a photo printed and mounted in a museum they might have a different view on it....

Your response :

lucideer wrote: »

Yes, I would. Canvas, frame, ink. Matter.

Basically, you show ZERO respect for ideas, creativity and expertise. If it isn't solid and touchable, it isn't worth anything (according to you).

lucideer wrote: »

If I buy a table from a carpenter, I take it home, examine the work closely, learn how it's put together, buy some wood and make another table - am I breaking the law? There is no distinction. That's MY point. You're the one arguing there should be a distinction.

Wrong distinction (or deliberate misdirection). If you put an EFFORT into RECREATING, then that's slightly different; your reference to examining the table equates to this : if you like the look of a photo, its lighting and its pose, and go out and buy / rent a camera and lighting and recreate that from scratch.

That's a million miles away from taking the existing photo or file and running off a "copy" on your printer, or hitting "Save As" to steal the original work.

You can go study and try to recreate Michaelangelo's David, or Cistine Chapel, if you like, for all I care....if you're capable of it, then fair play.

But you are not allowed to copy it.

So quit muddying the water with idiotic examples that involve examining things and putting the effort into recreating them from scratch using tools (saws and cameras). That is NOT the context of the word "copying" that you were earlier implying.

lucideer wrote: »

This supposed theoretical "end result" has been demonstrated to be a myth countless times. The removal of intellectual property restrictions stimulates innovation in practice, regardless of what you might hypothesise in theoretical discussion.

Once again, what line of work are you in, so that we can show how it might apply to affecting your livelihood ?

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: In numerous posts you made the distinction between copying something physical and copying a digital file

No, I didn't. I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file - alluding to the fact that in the latter case the original holder of the digital file is left with the orginal file, intact, while in the former it is taken and nothing left behind. The former is stealing, the latter is not. This is why "stealing a physical item" does not hold up. If you were to copy a physical item it would be a better analogy, and perfectly legal.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can go study and try to recreate Michaelangelo's David, or Cistine Chapel, if you like, for all I care....if you're capable of it, then fair play.

But you are not allowed to copy it.

And it is the same law prohibiting doing so.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Once again, what line of work are you in, so that we can show how it might apply to affecting your livelihood ?

Web design. But there's no need to show me anything, as I've already commented on it if you read my second post in this thread.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

No, I didn't. I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file - alluding to the fact that in the latter case the original holder of the digital file is left with the orginal file, intact, while in the former it is taken and nothing left behind. The former is stealing, the latter is not. This is why "stealing a physical item" does not hold up. If you were to copy a physical item it would be a better analogy, and perfectly legal.

And again, where do you copy this fictional digital file from ? How did it get created, considering nobody wanted to pay for the time and expertise required ?

And how do you "copy" the physical item ? Your analogy says that you recreate all of the work that went into it, using time and materials of your own. I have absolutely no problem with that scenario, which is the only one that is completely parallel.

I have a SERIOUS problem with clicking a button to take a copy, having had someone else do all the work.

lucideer wrote: »

Web design. But there's no need to show me anything, as I've already commented on it if you read my second post in this thread.

I am absolutely and utterly stunned now!

So you build one website and 50,000 people copy it for free, and then the first person doesn't pay for it because they don't think it fair that they had to pay for something everyone else got for free....and you still reckon you could magically "diversify" ?

Or does this fantasy world of yours involve copying everyone else's photographs for these websites to make them cheaper, while you win the lotto (btw, be careful not to let anyone photocopy that winning ticket).

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And how do you "copy" the physical item ? Your analogy says that you recreate all of the work that went into it, using time and materials of your own. I have absolutely no problem with that scenario, which is the only one that is completely parallel.

I have a SERIOUS problem with clicking a button to take a copy, having had someone else do all the work.

Aha! Ok, I'm starting to grasp your point of view now. Back to analogies (aren't analogies fun!):

To copy the table you must (a) have or buy wood and (b) possess the skill to build a table.
To copy a digital file you must (a) have or buy a computer and (b) possess the proficiency to use the computer.

The level of effort is also irrelevant - think of two people trying to figure out how to complete one task. If the first person figures out a quicker, cheaper, better, easier way requiring less effort, should the second person be compensated for the extra time and effort they took to complete the task?

Your logic is a communist/marxist one - where people should be rewarded for working, regardless of the value of their work.
Mine is a capitalist one as it is based on simple supply-demand economics.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I am absolutely and utterly stunned now!

So you build one website and 50,000 people copy it for free, and then the first person doesn't pay for it because they don't think it fair that they had to pay for something everyone else got for free....and you still reckon you could magically "diversify" ?

Who are the people copying it for free off? Off the 1st person who, presumably, has already paid me for the delivery of the site? Or am I misinterpreting you?
FYI, in the REAL world (no analogies here) a vast amount of web design work is open source and can be freely distributed, even charged for when it was attained without charge. Yet all those millions (yes millions) of web designers openly licencing their work aren't suddenly all going out of business.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Or does this fantasy world of yours

Well I don't know what world you're living in, but it is no fantasy. From your posts above you seemed familiar with the Creative Commons and RMS - perhaps you aren't after all. I would highly recommend you read up on this "fantasy world" that actually operates just fine for creative professionals thank you very much.

kjt

Fairplay for all the time you've put into this thread Liam, but, to be honest it looks to me like you're just pissing into the wind :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

Your logic is a communist/marxist one - where people should be rewarded for working, regardless of the value of their work.

Where, exactly did I say that ? :rolleyes: All I'm saying is that the initial value is based on selling more than one, so that it's not too expensive, and the cost of remaining copies is based on the value to the receiver, not some supposed "cost to produce" or "File - Save As".

If the receiver doesn't value it, then they don't need to buy it, but it doesn't excuse them from making an illegal copy.

Like I said, the R&D for that telly cost €1,000,000 - should the first one cost that, with the rest of the copies charged at €50 because the factory is now set up to make them for that ? Or do you charge them all at an average of €500 ?

And you are confusing the "value" of the work with the "cost to produce" and NOTHING ELSE, which simply doesn't work. I'd hate to see the value that you'd put on a judge or marraige councellor or radio presenter - after all, there's no "cost" to sitting in chair and just talking, is there ?

lucideer wrote: »

Who are the people copying it for free off? Off the 1st person who, presumably, has already paid me for the delivery of the site? Or am I misinterpreting you?

No, but you're ignoring two important facts:

1) That "1st person" would simply NOT pay you for the delivery of the site, knowing that someone else would get an equal site for "free". They'd hang back in the hope that some other idiot would pay for it and they could hit the "copy" button.

2) Even if they did, you (and every other designer) would then - in theory develop ONE site for [insert chosen business type], and everyone else would copy it, rather than pay for their own. How long before your "diversification" into another business type means there's no more sites to develop ? How many contracts would you manage in order to pay for your university course, upskilling courses, computer, broadband, office space, etc ?

lucideer wrote: »

FYI, in the REAL world (no analogies here) a vast amount of web design work is open source and can be freely distributed, even charged for when it was attained without charge. Yet all those millions (yes millions) of web designers openly licencing their work aren't suddenly all going out of business.

They are supplemented by paid-for work and contracts. Everyone needs to pay for their rent/mortgage, food, etc. Remove those paid-for work and contracts, and the system that you view as working in isolation is unsustainable and collapses.

Ideally, we'd ALL work for free, for the good of each other and the community. Unfortunately, until such time comes, we all need to earn in order to survive, even those of us whose output is "only :rolleyes: " digital.

Our time and expertise is worth something too, y'know.

Speaking of which, I've better things to do than keep this going.

Come back to me when everyone wins the lotto, all output is digital or via a Star-Trek replicator, and that utopia where no-one needs money exists.

I'll agree 100% with you then.

lucideer

kjt wrote: »

Fairplay for all the time you've put into this thread Liam, but, to be honest it looks to me like you're just pissing into the wind :rolleyes:

Not too sure what exactly pissing in the wind refers to (is it pointless for Liam to continue pushing a unreasonable line, or pointless for him to keep trying to convince an unreasonable person?), but I'm going to go with the latter seeing as you started the comment with "Fairplay". (I'm perceptive me )

You seem like a photographer and web designer Kyle, by the looks of your website. While I'm not sure how big the open source photography movement has become, you're using the GPL/MIT dual-licenced jQuery in your site. Don't you feel you are wronging John Resig by copying and reusing his work by paying him (if you've donated, fair play, but that's optional)?
Do you genuinely believe your business as a photographer would suffer if people could freely redistribute your work? That your expertise would have no value in itself?

My point is, it already works perfectly. It's been demonstrated to do so, just as IP law has been demostrated to strangle competition, market equilibrium and consumer interest.

Scotty #

lucideer wrote: »

I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file - alluding to the fact that in the latter case the original holder of the digital file is left with the orginal file, intact, while in the former it is taken and nothing left behind. The former is stealing, the latter is not.

So I should be allowed copy the latest version of Photoshop and redistribute it to all my friends for free? This isn't stealing? Or I should be allowed bring my camcorder to the movies and post it on piratebay? This isn't stealing either? Adobe are now down $50,000 because instead of all my graphic designer friends actually going and buying the software I have sent them all a copy for free and they in turn have sent a copy to all their friends but we're not doing anything wrong, we haven't stolen anything. Are you for real?

Of course it's stealing. What on earth ever gave you the idea that it wasn't!

lucideer

Scotty # wrote: »

So I should be allowed copy the latest version of Photoshop and redistribute it to all my friends for free? This isn't stealing? Or I should be allowed bring my camcorder to the movies and post it on piratebay? This isn't stealing either? Adobe are now down $50,000 because instead of all my graphic designer friends actually going and buying the software I have sent them all a copy for free and they in turn have sent a copy to all their friends but we're not doing anything wrong, we haven't stolen anything. Are you for real?

Of course it's stealing. What on earth ever gave you the idea that it wasn't!

I never said it wasn't. Try reading my posts. I've stated at twice or three times that I fully understand and adhere to the law. I even told the OP not to use images off the web as it IS STEALING!!!!

As for the idea of copying a piece of software and redistributing it to all your friends for free - you're saying noone should ever be allowed to do this no?

charybdis

Copyright, contrary to what some of you seem to think, isn't about "getting paid". Copyright is a right granted by intellectual property law that gives the author of an original work exclusive control over the use of that work for a limited period of time. It's not about economics, it's about being able to decide how your work is used. If the author so chooses, they can license use of their work for a fee or otherwise.

Despite the tone of the thread, I don't believe lucideer has said anything incorrect or offensive and I'm surprised by the histrionics he's been greeted with.

The arguments against what he's said on the grounds that it would damage some entities' business models are nonsense. We could invent (and have invented) many laws that would support a huge variety of businesses and business models, it doesn't mean they'd be correct or sensible.

Also, one does not lend credibility to their argument when they suggest selling software licensed under the GPL is somehow wrong.

lucideer

Wow, a voice of reason.

I've actually been extremely surprised at the reaction I've got here as this topic has come up for discussion in other areas of the internet and I've never met such blanket opposition to the concept of unilateral free (libre) distribution (as opposed to the current restricted system of selective free/libre distribution) of digital media.

I was beginning to think it was some kind of an Irish thing, but I know a fair few people in person (not via the internet) who'd agree with me so it can't just be that... hopefully not anyway.

Scotty #

lucideer wrote: »

I never said it wasn't. Try reading my posts.

Err you did...

lucideer wrote: »

I made numerous posts making the distinction between STEALING something physical and copying a digital file...

.... The former is stealing, the latter is not.

I know you said you don't do it but that's not the point. The point is you believe you should be allowed to. Specifically, copy and re-use other peoples images that you find on google.

lucideer wrote: »

As for the idea of copying a piece of software and redistributing it to all your friends for free - you're saying noone should ever be allowed to do this no?

That depends on the copyright restrictions (if any) on re-distribution of the particular piece of software. I don't believe that commercial software should be allowed to be freely re-distributed though and the law agrees with me. These laws are in place for a good reason.

Just because it is costless to reproduce something, an image, an MP3, or an AVI, does not make it worthless. These items have a value and the owners are entitled to be paid for them. You or I should have, and indeed do have, no right to just take them.

charybdis

Scotty # wrote: »

Err you did...
I know you said you don't do it but that's not the point. The point is you believe you should be allowed to. Specifically, copy and re-use other peoples images that you find on google.

You're upset that someone capable of distinguishing between what is legal and what is his opinion holds a different viewpoint to yours?

Also, I'd like to ask Liam_Byrne how he acquired all the great music on his computer and mp3 player? Did you download it from the internet? Did you rip music from CDs that you'd legally bought and owned?

Scotty #

charybdis wrote: »

Despite the tone of the thread, I don't believe lucideer has said anything incorrect or offensive and I'm surprised by the histrionics he's been greeted with.

I don't think he has said anything offensive. I think people are just baffled that he feels he should be legally allowed to reproduce other peoples work.

charybdis wrote: »

The arguments against what he's said on the grounds that it would damage some entities' business models are nonsense.

So if I copy Getty's images and make them freely available on my site it won't damage their business? The music and film industry have not been damaged by copying?

charybdis wrote: »

It's not about economics, it's about being able to decide how your work is used.

And if people can legally take and distribute copies, as Lucidder feels they should, the Author will have zero control.

Scotty #

charybdis wrote: »

You're upset that someone capable of distinguishing between what is legal and what is his opinion holds a different viewpoint to yours?

No. I'm upset that if I spend my time and money getting the right image and I post that image online that he feels he should have every right to just come along and take it and use it for his own needs.

lucideer

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't believe that commercial software should be allowed to be freely re-distributed though and the law agrees with me. These laws are in place for a good reason.

These laws are in place in order for commercial software companies to profit.

I believe the purpose of creating software is for user-benefit. Profit is a side-effect that has until quite recently been assumed to be necessary for quality, useful software - one cannot get good software without paying for it. Recently this necessity has been disproven by the advent of the open-source movement.

You on the other hand believe the purpose of creating software is to profit, user benefit is an incidental side effect. Money has ceased to become a means to an end and has become that "end".

charybdis

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't think he has said anything offensive. I think people are just baffled that he feels he should be legally allowed to reproduce other peoples work.

His argument, while you may not agree with it, is certainly tenable and legitimate. It's not as if he's suggesting something irrational.

Scotty # wrote: »

So if I copy Getty's images and make them freely available on my site it won't damage their business? The music and film industry have not been damaged by copying?

Any number of actions can "damage a business", it doesn't make them wrong. How do you think the horse business fared after Henry Ford hit his stride? How do you think the slave trade fared after slavery was outlawed?

Scotty # wrote: »

And if people can legally take and distribute copies, as Lucidder feels they should, the Author will have zero control.

The author will have zero control after a period of time anyway, this is one of the pillars of copyright law.

Scotty # wrote: »

No. I'm upset that if I spend my time and money getting the right image and I post that image online that he feels he should have every right to just come along and take it and use it for his own needs.

A fair point, but he's made very clear that he wouldn't and has advised others similarly.

kjt

charybdis wrote: »

The author will have zero control after a period of time anyway, this is one of the pillars of copyright law.

I'm sure most people know that copyright law only covers a product/design/image for so long but there's a big difference in somebody uploading this and it being ripped within seconds, opposed to 70years...

I can't really see exactly where your point comes into play for this.

charybdis wrote: »

A fair point, but he's made very clear that he wouldn't and has advised others similarly.

And fair play to lucideer for not doing this most of the time and also advising the OP to go about it the right way. I think the main reaction is because lucideer feels it should be OK to go ahead in this manner..

charybdis

kjt wrote: »

I'm sure most people know that copyright law only covers a product/design/image for so long but there's a big difference in somebody uploading this and it being ripped within seconds, opposed to 70years...

I can't really see exactly where your point comes into play for this.

While I recognise the difference between an author losing control over their work after 70 years and "within seconds", I think it is important to understand that the time limit involved is arbitrary and subject to change and the eventuality of "zero control" is certain. If someone is worried about having "zero control" over their work they have just as much to fear from copyright law as they do anything else.

kjt wrote: »

And fair play to lucideer for not doing this most of the time and also advising the OP to go about it the right way. I think the main reaction is because lucideer feels it should be OK to go ahead in this manner..

Yeah, he does. It's an opinion, a legitimate one based in rational thought. You can try and convince him that he's wrong through argument, but repeatedly telling him that he's wrong and using your feelings to back up your statement isn't much of an argument.

Scotty #

charybdis wrote: »

Any number of actions can "damage a business", it doesn't make them wrong. How do you think the horse business fared after Henry Ford hit his stride? How do you think the slave trade fared after slavery was outlawed?

Henry Ford did not go out and steal everyone else's horses. He came up with a better system. No one has a problem with Lucideer finding a photo and going out and taking a better one.

As I said already... just because something is costless to replace does not make it worthless. Do you think I should be legally allowed to download the latest movie for free from piratebay? Do you think I should be allowed walk into my local Jeweller and just take a watch? Do you see a difference??? Each one has cost time, effort, and money to produce and each one has a value. By taking either of them you have cost the owner in one way or another and the same goes for images you find on Google. This is why it is wrong, this is why it is stealing, and this is why it is, and should remain, illegal.

charybdis

Scotty # wrote: »

Henry Ford did not go out and steal everyone else's horses. He came up with a better system. No one has a problem with Lucideer finding a photo and going out and taking a better one.

As I said already... just because something is costless to replace does not make it worthless. Do you think I should be legally allowed to download the latest movie for free from piratebay? Do you think I should be allowed walk into my local Jeweller and just take a watch? Do you see a difference??? Each one has cost time, effort, and money to produce and each one has a value. By taking either of them you have cost the owner in one way or another and the same goes for images you find on Google. This is why it is wrong, this is why it is stealing, and this is why it is, and should remain, illegal.

If you have music on your computer or an mp3 player, did you download it from the internet or rip it yourself from a legally obtained CD?

Liam Byrne

charybdis wrote: »

Also, I'd like to ask Liam_Byrne how he acquired all the great music on his computer and mp3 player? Did you download it from the internet? Did you rip music from CDs that you'd legally bought and owned?

I should probably be insulted; if I saw a post from you that you had a great new car or TV and snidely suggesting that you might possibly have stolen it, would you be annoyed ?

But to answer your question (even though I shouldn't have to reply to a pathetic attempt to call my honesty into question) - yes. It's all bought and paid for; ripped from CDs that I own or bought from iTunes.

So, having dismissed your pathetic attempt at a character assasination, can we go back on-topic, please ?

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

You on the other hand believe the purpose of creating software is to profit, user benefit is an incidental side effect. Money has ceased to become a means to an end and has become that "end".

Bull**** of the highest order. Where, exactly, did Scotty or myself say that ?

I - believe it or not - have feck-all interest in money and "profit"; necessity dictates that I make a living, so that I can pay my bills, but as long as I can get by I can assure you that I view money as "a means to an end", so it certainly hasn't "ceased to be" that, for me anyway.

I believe in companies providing a fair service for a fair price, so that both the user benefits from having it and the company manages to survive with just a little extra in reserve for the odd rainy day.

Yes, lots of companies seem to snub that approach, preferring to make a quick killing and move on.

But don't accuse me of that, and it's not relevant to the discussion; stealing digital files applies whether a company is charging a reasonable price for a product or whether it's overcharging - and if its stolen then the price and profit are irrelevant.

lucideer

charybdis wrote: »

While I recognise the difference between an author losing control over their work after 70 years and "within seconds", I think it is important to understand that the time limit involved is arbitrary and subject to change and the eventuality of "zero control" is certain.

I think the time limit attached to copyrights is also an interesting argument. According to current law, an author has zero control over their creation after 70 years, which does seem bizarre as this control is not restricted to the ability to prevent reproduction without a fee, but also the basic right to claim the creation as your own.

Why is a creation less yours after 70 years? I don't personally think there should be a time limit on copyrights, if you create something, the fact that you created it is still just as true in 70 years time.

Also, just to clarify on the subject of "stealing" - some have likened reproduction to stealing someones television, an analogy which I've already rubbished, but the main point with this comparison is that reproduction of a creation can only occur once you are in possession of the copy being reproduced.

If you have a telly in your house, noone should be allowed to steal it. However if you were to sell your telly, then you the buyer be legally entitled to sell on that television to someone else (at any price they can get might I add). If you create software for your own use, noone should be allowed to go on to your computer and take it without your permission. But if you sell that piece of software, a person is not currently legally entitled to give that software to someone else. I see no reason for the distinction there.

Scotty # wrote: »

Do you think I should be legally allowed to download the latest movie for free from piratebay?

This is an interesting example to bring up. You may or may not be familiar with the Swedish Piratpartiet - a political party that gained enormous popularity recently after the publicity of the PirateBay court case and gained two* EU Parliament seats in the recent election. Needless to say, neither that party, nor their voters, share you views on the above question.

*the second seat is dependent on a restructuring of parliament to occur on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. So if you want them to only get one seat, vote NO.

Scotty # wrote: »

Do you think I should be allowed walk into my local Jeweller and just take a watch? Do you see a difference???

Yes, there is an enormous difference. I shouldn't be allowed to do that, but I SHOULD be allowed to go into the jewellers, BUY a watch, and either create copies and sell the copies, or simply sell on the watch itself, or even to dismantle it and sell on the gold/whatever (see the recent "Gold Party" trend). Those are more equivalent to your digital example as the product must first be legally obtained before it can then be re-distributed.

lucideer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bull**** of the highest order. Where, exactly, did Scotty or myself say that ?

I - believe it or not - have feck-all interest in money and "profit"; necessity dictates that I make a living, so that I can pay my bills, but as long as I can get by I can assure you that I view money as "a means to an end", so it certainly hasn't "ceased to be" that, for me anyway.

I believe in companies providing a fair service for a fair price, so that both the user benefits from having it and the company manages to survive with just a little extra in reserve for the odd rainy day.

So are you saying then that if a company can "survive with just a little extra in reserve for the odd rainy day" while their software is freely redistributed, then it would be OK?

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to do that, but I SHOULD be allowed to go into the jewellers, BUY a watch, and either create copies and sell the copies, or simply sell on the watch itself, or even to dismantle it and sell on the gold/whatever (see the recent "Gold Party" trend).

The question comes right down to what you view as "creating copies"; I've said this before, but you've chosen to ignore it because it doesn't suit your argument.

If you invest in tools and spend ages RECREATING something that happens to be practically THE SAME, having examined and dismantled it then that's not a major problem for me.

But hitting a button to copy it IS. You've done NO WORK. Why should you be rewarded ?

So, if you want to buy a camera or a C compiler, set up the environment and RECREATE the photo or software, then fire away.

charybdis

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's all bought and paid for; ripped from CDs that I own

Congratulations, you have broken the law and violated the principles of copyright you hold so dear.

There is no provision made in Irish law for the duplication of digital media (such as CDs). What you, in effect, had bought, was a limited license to use the CD in CD players that had adhered to the CD standard license. Copying the media for use on alternate devices violates the license of your use of the CD. You are stealing. How is this different to you "stealing a watch"? If you wish to listen to the music you ripped from CDs you legitimately own, you should purchase the tracks from a digital music retailer that specifically allows the use of their media on (a limited number of and technically arbitrary) computers and other devices.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I should probably be insulted; if I saw a post from you that you had a great new car or TV and snidely suggesting that you might possibly have stolen it, would you be annoyed ?

So, having dismissed your pathetic attempt at a character assasination, can we go back on-topic, please ?

I wasn't attempting to insult you or perform a character assassination, I just wanted to see if you were a hypocrite.

Liam Byrne

lucideer wrote: »

So are you saying then that if a company can "survive with just a little extra in reserve for the odd rainy day" while their software is freely redistributed, then it would be OK?

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. :mad:

As I've said before, the price of ANY product is based on the cost of research and development plus the cost of duplication, combined with what the average sales might be (in order to recoup that) and what the market will bear.

Microsoft Office - for example - costs about €200. You can be damn sure that that cost is an average, because otherwise the cost would be a few million.

Yes, I've an objection to someone charging €800 for something that could (based on the other 3 criteria) be sold for €600.

But if €600 is a fair price based on the time and effort put in, averaged out so that the projected sales cover those costs plus the "rainy day" bit , then that's the fair price.

Liam Byrne

charybdis wrote: »

Congratulations, you have broken the law and violated the principles of copyright you hold so dear.

Oh FFS! You're just attempting to muddy the f**king waters now.:rolleyes:

Go start another thread about whether a "single use" policy should cover the media something is delivered on, etc, or the pros and cons of a "fair use" policy - it's a different topic.

THIS thread is about using something that you HAVEN'T PAID FOR. AT ALL.

EDIT : In fact, your argument in relation to that is THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what's being discussed, because it comes under the debate that if you've paid for the delivery medium, then you're entitled to use what you paid for (the CD).

You're saying no, in an attempt to undermine my credibility.

Ironically, if you're saying that that doesn't apply, then you're killing lucideer's argument that - having paid for internet access (the delivery mechanism) he's entitled to grab whatever he wants.