There is a big difference from huge companies loosing a little in sales
and an artist who is not rich loosing sales.
Yes posted Art does let more people see whats out there and possibly
purchase it, but if the posted art is all 'print' grade few bother to buy.
Software is a HIGH PROFIT and many companies are gouging their customers
and using monopoly tactics so its fair to play by their rules!
No one should forget Microsoft is the biggest example of a Software
Pirate, they did not even own DOS until much after they sold it, so it
was founded on theft.
And yes much of the copyright laws make little sense, especially when
you pay someone to photograph an event. That should belong to the person
who paid for it!
And sadly some artists did stop making furry art as a result of
excessive posting of material
Reality is people will do all this, some with malicious intent, some
innocently and there is little that will stop it
All you can do is make it harder for the casual scanners to post things,
no protection is 100%
If you want people to stop posting purchased digital art you can embed
ID code into the Art for the buyer and thus you know who let it out!
Of course someone will find a way to strip that eventually but it can be
quite tricky if encrypted right.
danleephoto wrote:
>
> There is an interesting video on the matter by a university lecturer,
> we were watching it in film school, I'll try to find it.
>
> In Australia, copyright is free and automatic, you do not even need to
> place a copyright symbol or any copyright notice to your work at all
> for it to be 'protected', property law is completely separate from
> copyright law here, actual property (including electronic/digital
> property) and ownership of copyright are two -completely- different
> things - like here, how a photographer can own the negatives or
> digital photographs of your wedding when he was paid by you, and you
> own the copyright.
>
> I'm honestly sick of the "boohoohoo someone took my 'art'" line, then
> threaten that they'll simply stop making 'art', or trying to sue
> people who were never going to pay for it anyway, I'd like to welcome
> these people to the real world, people will always do this, they need
> to learn to deal with it.
>
> Little Johnny, a school student who may have pirated $10,000 "worth"
> of software (the worth of such software to me is quite subjective, so
> lets just say thats the retail cost) in a year, Johnny has not caused
> any "revenue loss" to any company, as A) It would be impossible for
> him to have paid for it in the first place.
>
> The amount of copies of something pirated, multiplied by its retail
> value is most certainly not the amount revenue "lost", that is utter
> BS, something copied does not equal the loss of a sale, most people
> cannot afford to pay for the total "value" of everything they have
> downloaded.
>
> Hell, it may even help exposure, with file sharing and "piracy" people
> pirate/download all sorts of things that they would never buy in the
> first place, a lot of this may be wasted bandwidth to them, but they
> may find a gem amonst it all that they would have never considered,
> I'm sure there's a large portion of the furry community that started
> this way, or first found and then followed an artist this way.
>
> Historically, copyright infingement has not actually done the music or
> movie industry any harm, and any claim otherwise is codswallop.
>
> Large corporations don't actually care about people infringing on
> copyright, what they care about is something like this "oh, there's
> another avenue of revenue to be milked from consumers!", I would not
> be surprised if movies were leaked intentionally over p2p to create an
> avenue or suing p2p users or organisations.
>
> You cannot deny that all they care about is money, and how to increase
> their profits, they would not fund an artistically brilliant movie or
> recording artist that would have major contributions to society if
> they didn't think it would make them a tidy profit in the process.
>
> There is much more to being compensated for your work than in a
> monetary fashion.
>
> P2P is a beautiful thing, it is a great benefit to man kind, you could
> say similar to the VCR - to you know, how the VCR actually -help- the
> film industry (most likely it was the best thing for the film industry
> ever), contrary to what Jack Valenti wanted you to believe in 1982 (
> http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm <http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm> ).
>
> He is still in charge and saying the same BS about P2P, the same BS I
> here from a lot of those in the furry community and in the anti-piracy
> camp at large.
>
> Though I guess he may be right to fear P2P - As it may just wrest
> power and control away from the MPAA, having the independant sector
> steal a huge portion of market share.
>
> Very very few people make money from P2P and file sharing, the amount
> of "damage" done to copyright holders is extremely questionable.
>
> But I suppose you lot would rather label the majority of the general
> population dirty rotten thieves and have such a holier than thou attitude.
>
> If the law is labelling the majority of people as "thieves" (to which
> they are not), then it is the law that is immoral, and it is the law
> which has something wrong with it.
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 28 2008 - 14:56:26 CDT