Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 03-30-2012   #41
colyn
ישו משיח בנו של אלוהים
 
colyn's Avatar
 
colyn is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: CowTown, Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 4,469
Theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Nowhere does this definition say stealing one thing is more or less than stealing another thing.

Theft is theft.... stealing is stealing...........period..................
__________________
Colyn

The Lone Star State....

Leica M2 | M3 x 2 | IIIa x 2 | IIIc | IIIf black dial | Kodak Retina IIIc | Kodak Retina IIIC |


Flickr

My website

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #42
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet? Well, because they're quite aware of the fact that what they're doing is not stealing. .
Huh? Man if there ever was a concise example of how people's morals are dropping, your statement is it. And, of course, you don't get it at all, because your morals have dropped.

I'm not even going to read this thread further: you just nailed the whole issue down in one post, to the point where any further discussion is superfluous.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #43
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by colyn View Post
Theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Nowhere does this definition say stealing one thing is more or less than stealing another thing.

Theft is theft.... stealing is stealing...........period..................
Theft implies someone has been deprived of the thing stolen.

"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" -- Webster's

The 1913 edition also had this cute little note:

"To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

Let's say I download an old episode of Seinfeld. Who has been deprived of what? What is it that Sony/NBC originally had, that I "stole", and that they now no longer have?
__________________
minorshadows.net | 2038.cc
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #44
al1966
Feed Your Head
 
al1966's Avatar
 
al1966 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 597
Well I can listen to plenty of new music through legal streams, most musicians are not rich and if their streamed album sounds good I will buy it. A few years ago I tried downloading films apart from feeling dirty the quality was dire with sound out of place and so on, I can see them for free on my TV eventually and frequently get them for a couple of pounds. I see little point of downloading anything I can get off my free to air tv or for less than the price of a pint. The only time I feel it can be justified is the odd documentary that is on YouTube and I can not get it for love nor money. Now is it theft? In some ways yes it is, if you take the term to be denial of the owner of their income from it, but then would the downloader have bought it? Is it defrauding the copyright owner of their wage? would you be happy to have your employer to say I was just borrowing your time for the last month and you have not lost anything have you (Our government thinks this ok though). People will consider their view on something often on how it inconveniences them, it being virtual and no physical thing being lost or more appearing to be lost that makes it seem less bad or OK. I think it is depriving someone of their work, its easy for an photographer who does not need to earn money from it to say I am fine with x type of use of their work. Chris for example is depending upon people paying him for his work it is how he will feed himself and his son is it ok to not pay him for a few hours of his time?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #45
Brian Puccio
Registered User
 
Brian Puccio is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Long Beach, NY, USA
Posts: 330
The entire concept of owning an idea is something I find insulting. Intellectual property is a misnomer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #46
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 40
Posts: 7,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Puccio View Post
The entire concept of owning an idea is something I find insulting. Intellectual property is a misnomer.
Its only insulting to those who lack the intellect to generate intellectual property.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Like My Work on Facebook

Buy My Prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #47
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,725
How about the cqse of music I purchased on vinyl, 8 track and CD, none of which play anymore? Should I pay a fourth time?

I agree that downloadingthe first one free is theft, but how many times do I have to buy that Beatles album I first bought in 1964?
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #48
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Bob,

Quite. But people who deny the existence of intellectual property are often shorter on intellect than on property.

Cheers,

R.
Exactly. Well said!
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #49
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 40
Posts: 7,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
How about the cqse of music I purchased on vinyl, 8 track and CD, none of which play anymore? Should I pay a fourth time?

I agree that downloadingthe first one free is theft, but how many times do I have to buy that Beatles album I first bought in 1964?
In those cases, its legal to copy for yourself, songs from one type of media to another. You can copy your outdated records or 8-tracks or cassettes to something modern like a CD or mp3 player, that's perfectly legal because you did buy it.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Like My Work on Facebook

Buy My Prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #50
dbarnes
Registered User
 
dbarnes is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 301
Gotta note first that the article in question isn't an editorial by the Times. It's someone's opinion published by the Times, and that someone doesn't work at the Times.

I work in publishing (not at the Times!) and my hobbies are photography and songwriting. Like everybody at RFF, I know how much goes into creating a digital work that's easy to download without paying anything for.

Personally, I do consider it theft when someone refuses to pay and instead just takes a copyrighted work that's for sale.

However, I get the author's point. A huge part of the internet-connected world acts like all information should be free (as in beer, at no cost). For various reasons:
  • They don't respect the way record labels treat musicians.
  • They can't abide that a movie they bought a license for can only be viewed on their big computer and not on their cellphone.
  • They live in a country that gets TV shows many years after the US gets them and they can't stand to be left out of the global conversation.
  • They really think that when they're buying a collection of songs, they're buying the those songs in whatever format they'll ever be released in, in perpetuity, rather than just a particular recording.
  • Their budget went south when a job went poof and they can't afford to buy stuff, but the job loss wasn't their fault, so why should they have to suffer?
Like it or not, it's a huge change in consumer perspective. I don't like it, but it's real.

So if, as the opinion piece's author suggests, using some word other than "theft" helps you reach people who are convinced they're not stealing and won't listen to you if you tell them they are, fine. Call their behavior whatever it needs to be called to get them to listen.

Personally, I'm happy to call it copyright infringement. Because I think you can even leave the "thing" out of it, whether the thing is a photo or a movie or a song. I *do* still have the original. What an illegal download of my work steals is my *control* of my work. *That's* what I've lost and can't replace.

And if you don't agree with how I sell my work, fine. But how come you get to choose for me?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #51
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
In those cases, its legal to copy for yourself, songs from one type of media to another. You can copy your outdated records or 8-tracks or cassettes to something modern like a CD or mp3 player, that's perfectly legal because you did buy it.
I am actually going to the scenario where I download the digital copy when all the oldforms are unreadable. While I agree with you, I'm betting the music industrywould call me a thief...
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #52
markloch
Registered User
 
markloch is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35
I got rid of all my CDs ages ago (well, my thankfully-ex-wife sold them) and nowadays I generally resell or give away CDs after I copy them into iTunes. I haven't listened to a CD in a decade.

Is it theft to not destroy the digital copy of a CD once you resell or otherwise dispose of the CD?

Is it immoral to buy used CDs, which one can safely assume were digitally copied by any number of previous owners?

If you buy the argument that illegally downloading digital copies of copyrighted work that you can otherwise purchase legitimately is theft, then it's not much of a leap to argue that buying CDs, copying them, and then reselling them, is also theft, and that buying used CDs is immoral.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #53
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 40
Posts: 7,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
I am actually going to the scenario where I download the digital copy when all the oldforms are unreadable. While I agree with you, I'm betting the music industrywould call me a thief...
Got it...yeah they probably wouldn't approve. That's something of a gray area that the law doesn't really address.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Like My Work on Facebook

Buy My Prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #54
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks View Post
Your attitude is insulting to society because without protections there would be no great music, movies, art etc. No one would bother to make them. Figure it out.
Yeah, good thing copyright law kept Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, et al. going. Oh wait, it's a fairly recent invention? Statute of Anne, 1709, you say?

I'd rather say that the notion that no one would bother to create anything if it weren't for copyright law is insulting to the human spirit.
__________________
minorshadows.net | 2038.cc
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #55
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Got it...yeah they probably wouldn't approve. That's something of a gray area that the law doesn't really address.
The law needs to be clear to that level, but likely will never be. Ah well, so it goes...
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #56
uinku
Registered User
 
uinku is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 104
^ Well that's the point of the article, to raise this issue.

Those of you whose feathers were so ruffled, you realise you can write in to the Times to respond to writer, right?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #57
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 40
Posts: 7,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by andersju View Post
Yeah, good thing copyright law kept Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, et al. going. Oh wait, it's a fairly recent invention? Statute of Anne, 1709, you say?

I'd rather say that the notion that no one would bother to create anything if it weren't for copyright law is insulting to the human spirit.
I'd suggest getting some education in history before spouting off like a fool about something you do not understand.

Absolutely nothing is known of Homer, not even if he really existed.

Virgil was the court poet of Roman Emperor Augustus, so he didn't have to care if someone copied his work, he was being paid handsomely for it by the state.

Shakespeare owned his own theater and acting company to perform his work.

Dante Alighieri (yes, he had a last name!) was a wealthy nobleman and politician who wrote the Divine Comedy as a political statement, so he didn't care about making a living from it.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Like My Work on Facebook

Buy My Prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #58
Jack Conrad
Registered User
 
Jack Conrad's Avatar
 
Jack Conrad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,484
Well I refuse to think another thought until I get paid, dag nabbit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #59
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
I'd suggest getting some education in history before spouting off like a fool about something you do not understand.

Absolutely nothing is known of Homer, not even if he really existed.

Virgil was the court poet of Roman Emperor Augustus, so he didn't have to care if someone copied his work, he was being paid handsomely for it by the state.

Shakespeare owned his own theater and acting company to perform his work.

Dante Alighieri (yes, he had a last name!) was a wealthy nobleman and politician who wrote the Divine Comedy as a political statement, so he didn't care about making a living from it.
Quite true. I'm well aware of this history, and it's not at all relevant to my point. I merely pointed out that copyright law is not a prerequisite for the creation of great works. I did not say anything about whether copyright is a good idea or not.

And may I counter with suggesting that you try to be a bit more polite when discussing things? Seriously. There's no point at all to insults in a discussion or debate. It only makes whoever you're trying to argue with less inclined to understand or accept your point of view.
__________________
minorshadows.net | 2038.cc
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #60
Basset
Registered User
 
Basset is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David


I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #61
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
I am actually going to the scenario where I download the digital copy when all the oldforms are unreadable. While I agree with you, I'm betting the music industrywould call me a thief...
Of course they would. To the extent the music industry has a business model these days, it's largely reliant on selling people re-packaged versions of content they already own. This saves them from having to be smart, or from doing risky things like encouraging new talent.

Here's a sort-of-sideways perspective from Bill Wyman (yes: that Bill Wyman; a man with more skin in the copyright game than most):

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c...de.single.html

...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #62
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks View Post
No **** Sherlock. But you can't get paid for great works without a copyright. Get that? That leaves only those who don't need to get paid to create, because creating takes time and if you don't have any money time is precious. Time needs to be spent making money. Get that?
Why the hostility?

I see your point, but I can't agree with such a broad statement. There are many ways to get paid without copyright. You are for example ignoring the whole ancient patronage system, which the likes of Kickstarter is some kind of modern mass version of.

Also... many would consider the following to be a great work:



Obviously Dorothea Lange took it while working for the Farm Security Administration in the 1930s. She got paid. No copyright, ever (because US gov't works are public domain by default).
__________________
minorshadows.net | 2038.cc
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #63
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 40
Posts: 7,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by andersju View Post
Why the hostility?

I see your point, but I can't agree with such a broad statement. There are many ways to get paid without copyright. You are for example ignoring the whole ancient patronage system, which the likes of Kickstarter is some kind of modern mass version of.

Also... many would consider the following to be a great work:



Obviously Dorothea Lange took it while working for the Farm Security Administration in the 1930s. She got paid. No copyright, ever (because US gov't works are public domain by default).

The patronage system is DEAD. Kickstarter cannot provide a continuous income for an artist, in fact it prohibits people from asking for money for day to day living expenses. For that, you need either a job, or control of copyright. Dorothea Lange had a job. A job that no longer exists. Dredging up old history that is not applicable to the modern world makes you look like a snarky idiot who think he can fool people who are, quite frankly, better educated and too smart to fool with glib snarkiness. That's why we're hostile. Dealing with fools gets tiresome. Really.
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Like My Work on Facebook

Buy My Prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #64
Jack Conrad
Registered User
 
Jack Conrad's Avatar
 
Jack Conrad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basset View Post
I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.
Yeah, one might suggest that the revered public libraries are being destroyed by intellectual property rights and copyright infringement litigation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #65
Spyro
Registered User
 
Spyro is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Oz
Posts: 921
People must get paid for work, there's no doubt about that.
And often they dont.

When a corporation can find cheaper labour elsewhere, they'll take it. When they can push wages down, they'll do it. When they can put a talking head on TV or the parliament to brainwash people that they're not competitive enough and they should get paid less because of some obscure economic theory, they will put it. When they can find a free photo somewhere like flickr instead of paying a pj to go and shoot it, they will take the free photo.

All that is perfectly legal, and we've been trained to think that it's a good thing, we must call it free market, competition, productivity.

Well guess what, the market just got a hell of a lot freer, and the law this time cant stop it. Sucks huh?
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #66
andersju
Registered User
 
andersju is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
The patronage system is DEAD. Kickstarter cannot provide a continuous income for an artist, in fact it prohibits people from asking for money for day to day living expenses. For that, you need either a job, or control of copyright. Dorothea Lange had a job. A job that no longer exists. Dredging up old history that is not applicable to the modern world makes you look like a snarky idiot who think he can fool people who are, quite frankly, better educated and too smart to fool with glib snarkiness. That's why we're hostile. Dealing with fools gets tiresome. Really.
Relax, man. All I did was point out that copyright is not some prerequisite set in stone and linked to creative output for all eternity. Just being pedantic. I'm not saying patronage is the solution, or that copyright must die.

Yeah, the situation for artists has changed through history. It is very much changing as we speak, with outdated copyright laws no longer applicable to the modern world being systematically ignored by a whole new generation of people. What effect will that have? How will the situation for artists change? What do you think? What would your ideal solution be?

You don't know anything about my education. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Just trying to have a civil discussion.
__________________
minorshadows.net | 2038.cc
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #67
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 59
Posts: 19,246
Please gentlemen (including Chris), let's argue the ideas without resorting to calling folks fools or other personal insults. This violates rangefinder forum terms of service.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #68
dbarnes
Registered User
 
dbarnes is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 301
@andersju -- I also would like to have a civil discussion. We come to this issue from different perspectives but I'm not pointing fingers. I register that you don't consider music sharing via torrents to be a problem. You've suggested that artists benefit from their music getting wider known via torrents, even if the artists never receive any payment from the torrent users. Is that correct?

You've also published your own photos using a Creative Commons free-noncommerical-use-with-attribution license. That says to me that you believe it's important for your wishes about your photo work to be respected. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered with the attribution requirement or the noncommercial requirement. How is it that musicians' wishes about their work's distribution and use don't need to be respected, but your wishes do? I truly am not trying to be accusatory. I just am wondering how you arrive at those two positions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #69
JohnTF
Registered User
 
JohnTF's Avatar
 
JohnTF is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Home is Cleveland, Summers often Europe, Winters often Mexico.
Posts: 2,047
[quote=huntjump;1845595]When you put "global warming" in quotes, I assume because you disagree it is real, correct? Do you disagree it is happening, or that it is human driven? (or neither)?

Last credible scientist (who I studied under) changed his tune a few months ago (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ticle-1.969870). Would love to see a credible scientist that has done a legitimate study and has concluded it isnt happening. It is pretty much the entire scientific community that has confirmed it is happening, you may though disagree humans are the cause...but i'd be curious to see what science you point to (That isn't directly sponsored by big oil). my 0.02

just wondering, though i know this isnt on point with OP



Science does not really work on consensus -- and it is not a "confirmation" thing, data either supports or fails to support a hypothesis. Climate is over a very long period of time and we really do not want to wait for the results of this experiment.

All the political values in the topic are irrelevant -- we have known for a very long time we are doing a real time experiment with atmospheric chemistry -- that we should not be doing.

No need to beat it to death with doomsday etc. arguments, or make a new slide show, we should not be significantly altering the atmosphere as it is not a reasonable course of action with known consequences.

It is certainly more complex than can be intelligently discussed by most doing so, and does not require consensus.

You need go no further than "we should not be doing it to begin with", now let's get on with trying to lower emissions.

Nor should we be destroying the oceans, it's where most of our oxygen comes from and where the CO2 is absorbed.


Regards, John
__________________
To capture some of this -- I suppose that's lyricism.

Josef Sudek
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #70
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 59
Posts: 19,246
If this threads evolves into a climate change discussion, it is destined for the off topic forum. Just saying.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #71
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,634
Here in San Francisco about 20% of the bus riders don't pay. But is that stealing? I mean the bus is going that way anyway right? But to be more in topic is sneaking into a movie theater stealing? They are showing the film anyway, right?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #72
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
 
jordanstarr is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 32
Posts: 376
Frank...throw it in the "deleted topics" forum. It's really not going anywhere and likely won't. Too much ego-centrism, lazy arguments and irrational logic at this point. There's no getting back on track at this point.
__________________
www.jordanstarrphotography.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #73
seakayaker1
Registered User
 
seakayaker1's Avatar
 
seakayaker1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,888
I do believe most people know when they are taking something for free that another person has created or is selling then they are stealing.

Ethical behavior/standards are what most people and corporations want to practice. Then somehow, entitlement, power, greed, stupidity, fear, ego, you name it allows us to step out on that slippery slope and make compromises.

You can put any name on it you want, but using another person's creation, copyrighted/licensed work/product without agreement/payment is theft.

I do not believe it is that complicated.

JMHO
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #74
Kiev Ilegalac
Registered User
 
Kiev Ilegalac's Avatar
 
Kiev Ilegalac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 54
Quote:
The entire concept of owning an idea is something I find insulting. Intellectual property is a misnomer.
completly agree
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #75
pakeha
Registered User
 
pakeha is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by andersju View Post
Relax, man. All I did was point out that copyright is not some prerequisite set in stone and linked to creative output for all eternity. Just being pedantic. I'm not saying patronage is the solution, or that copyright must die.

Yeah, the situation for artists has changed through history. It is very much changing as we speak, with outdated copyright laws no longer applicable to the modern world being systematically ignored by a whole new generation of people. What effect will that have? How will the situation for artists change? What do you think? What would your ideal solution be?

You don't know anything about my education. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Just trying to have a civil discussion.
Give up, you are Scandinavian and have a passport.This is a dotcom, which means the only opinion that counts is the North American one with SOME posters here.Looking forward to the megaupload outcome, got a feeling the bullies gonna lose this time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #76
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,744
Man this is really frustrating. I wonder what's worse, the thought that most have probably not read the article or that they have read it and just didn't get the point at all.

Let me repeat again. The article does not condone illegal dowloading. You can either think that illegal downloading is less serious than stealing, equally bad or even worse. Any of these positions would be perfectly consistent with the point being made in the article.

Also, the article is mainly about downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them, not about the unauthorized usage of copyrighted material. That both of these things are being subsumed under the same label shows exactly the lack of complexity that these issues are being approached with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #77
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 40
Posts: 7,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
Also, the article is mainly about downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them, not about the unauthorized usage of copyrighted material. That both of these things are being subsumed under the same label shows exactly the lack of complexity that these issues are being approached with.
They are the same thing. Exactly. Downloading without paying IS by definition "unauthorized use of copyrighted material."
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Like My Work on Facebook

Buy My Prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2012   #78
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post

Also, the article is mainly about downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them, not about the unauthorized usage of copyrighted material.
When "downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them" is NOT "unauthorized usage of copyrighted material" what is is?

Is there somebody who claims that entertainment content is not copyright material?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-31-2012   #79
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
They are the same thing. Exactly. Downloading without paying IS by definition "unauthorized use of copyrighted material."
It's not the same thing at all. Downloading a movie or album is a more or less simple matter where somebody just consumes a good without paying for it. the movie or music is not used in any other way.
The unauthorized use of copyrighted material is a whole other affair. We start out with content that, in most cases, can already be consumed freely as in the case of photography you can look at almost any image online without paying. The problem here is how this image is then taken from its original source and used for other purposes, both commercial and non-commercial. And there it gets much more complicated with issues of fair use, etc. entering the picture.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-31-2012   #80
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
When "downloading of entertainment content by consumers without paying for them" is NOT "unauthorized usage of copyrighted material" what is is?

Is there somebody who claims that entertainment content is not copyright material?
Nobody claims that. Of course it's copyrighted material. But when I go to the movies and buy a ticket I'm not interested in buying a license to use the material I'm about to see. I just want to see it.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:00.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.