how-to block ads
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to Nightfall
Re: How is a user supposed to know
said by Nightfall  :You want to talk about "lost sales" as only those people willing to pay for these kinds of things. Lost sales also are calculated by people who don't want to spend the money on intellectual property. They would rather download freely than spend money on a product. I suppose we're going to have to disagree here, the only reason the RIAA is fighting free distribution over the internet so much is because it is bypassing their monopoly on getting bands publicity.
They used to PAY radio stations to play their band's music, so that people would go to the concerts and buy t-shirts and autographed merchandise. Now they want internet radio stations to pay them for promoting their band worldwide, even the stations that don't charge or have ads.
The RIAA is in it's death throes and simply trying to delay it as long as possible while grabbing as much money as it can.
quote:
Intellectual property has to be protected in some form. Course, the only people who really feel strongly about that are artists, program writers, and corporate interests. I have a vested interest in it as well since I am a photographer and have caught companies using my work in publications without paying me for using them.
I agree that copyright has to be protected to a certain extent, for example if someone is passing off your photographs as their own or if they are making money off your work, then they should be punished.
But if someone posts your photograph on their website, cites you as the photographer and gives a link to your site, and says "this picture is amazing, check out more of their work here". Then I say that is not only fair use, but beneficial to you (so long as the person is not charging people money to see your pictures, or is making more money on ads than it costs to run the site). | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
2 edits | said by james :said by Nightfall :You want to talk about "lost sales" as only those people willing to pay for these kinds of things. Lost sales also are calculated by people who don't want to spend the money on intellectual property. They would rather download freely than spend money on a product. But if someone posts your photograph on their website, cites you as the photographer and gives a link to your site, and says "this picture is amazing, check out more of their work here". Then I say that is not only fair use, but beneficial to you (so long as the person is not charging people money to see your pictures, or is making more money on ads than it costs to run the site). This I agree with, however, if I choose not to have them using my work then I should have the right to say so. If I email them and tell them to take my work off their site, which I have done a few times, then they have to take it off. Why would I do this? Maybe I don't want to be affiliated with their site or my work put on their site. There have even been some non profit publications I have chosen not to take part in because of what they stand for. Point is, I have the rights to distribution.
Thats the difference in all these cases of piracy. The RIAA and MPAA both have a very legal beef with their product being distributed over P2P networks. Anyone distributing their products should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the RIAA and MPAA were smarter about it, they would be a lot further along than they are today. They tried to fast track too much, and now the courts and people are fed up with it.
This topic has been beaten to death on these forums, and there are die hards out there that just don't agree with my stance. So, if you don't agree with what I am saying, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.  | |
|
