Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I have given myself permission. It's my photograph of my Dalek .

To tie this in to copyright, This Planet Earth are the only entity legally allowed to build and sell Daleks, the BBC claim exclusive rights to Daleks, and consider the buying of a Dalek, or parts to build one, from elsewhere to be copyright ingfringement:

"“Self-build Daleks are not encouraged or endorsed by BBC or BBC Worldwide, and that any attempt to sell or trade a self-build Dalek (or any sale or supply of parts used in the construction of self-build Daleks) will be viewed as a breach of the trade mark and copyright held by BBC and other parties.”"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

To tie this in to copyright, This Planet Earth are the only entity legally allowed to build and sell Daleks, the BBC claim exclusive rights to Daleks, and consider the buying of a Dalek, or parts to build one, from elsewhere to be copyright ingfringement:

"“Self-build Daleks are not encouraged or endorsed by BBC or BBC Worldwide, and that any attempt to sell or trade a self-build Dalek (or any sale or supply of parts used in the construction of self-build Daleks) will be viewed as a breach of the trade mark and copyright held by BBC and other parties.”"

True, but mine is a genuine BBC one, not a copy, and I am not engaging in either selling or trading it. My use of the photograph is entirely legitimate, and I'm not going to derail this thread by engaging in pointless discussions about it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True, but mine is a genuine BBC one, not a copy, and I am not engaging in either selling or trading it. My use of the photograph is entirely legitimate, and I'm not going to derail this thread by engaging in pointless discussions about it.

I have meandered a bit.
The point I was trying to find was that there are probably many things (such as making a mix tape (or a Dalek), that many people would not even realise were infringing.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I have meandered a bit.
The point I was trying to find was that there are probably many things (such as making a mix tape (or a Dalek), that many people would not even realise were infringing.

Yes, but wasn't this thread about attitudes towards online sharing facilitated by the use of certain metaphors?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True, but mine is a genuine BBC one, not a copy, and I am not engaging in either selling or trading it. My use of the photograph is entirely legitimate, and I'm not going to derail this thread by engaging in pointless discussions about it.

But you are engaging in displaying the image on the forum, where people can freely download it.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think that fewer people would break the law if the law called if "theft" instead of using "cozy" words like "File Sharing", that make it sound like it's a good thing to do?

I think we're making the mistake of labeling the technology as bad instead of the people. File sharing is me working on a document with you and putting it onto a file sharing system so you can get the changes, or so that I can work on it at home on the desktop or on my iPad or whatever device without having to plug in a card or network cable. The fact that some use it as a reason to distribute copyrighted material is their problem, not the technology itself. This would be fairly similar to calling all hammers evil because some people have used them to kill people. Technology is not good or evil It is the intentions of those that use it that are.

I use file shares to share the music I compose and play with my parents, friends and acquaintances.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True, but mine is a genuine BBC one, not a copy, and I am not engaging in either selling or trading it. My use of the photograph is entirely legitimate, and I'm not going to derail this thread by engaging in pointless discussions about it.

I would have thought it would violate a trademark though. There was a car manufacturer a few years ago that issued take down notices on websites that contained photos of their cars that were taken by the car owners. That wouldn't be far removed from what you have done with the dalek.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I would have thought it would violate a trademark though. There was a car manufacturer a few years ago that issued take down notices on websites that contained photos of their cars that were taken by the car owners. That wouldn't be far removed from what you have done with the dalek.

No, that's a difference between copyright and trademark law. Copyright infringement can occur whenever an image is copied without the permission of the copyright holder - eg the album cover (I'm guessing that's what it is?) you have for your avatar could conceivably be considered to be copyright infringement if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder to reproduce it (although nobody would be bothered by such usage in reality). Trademark infringement can only occur if a trademark is being used for purposes of trade. Eg, you're free to set up a web site selling Hoovers, and have pictures of Hoovers on it, but you couldn't start a company called "Hoover Repairs, Ltd", because that would be using the trademarked name "Hoover" for commercial purposes.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, that's a difference between copyright and trademark law. Copyright infringement can occur whenever an image is copied without the permission of the copyright holder - eg the album cover (I'm guessing that's what it is?) you have for your avatar could conceivably be considered to be copyright infringement if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder to reproduce it (although nobody would be bothered by such usage in reality). Trademark infringement can only occur if a trademark is being used for purposes of trade. Eg, you're free to set up a web site selling Hoovers, and have pictures of Hoovers on it, but you couldn't start a company called "Hoover Repairs, Ltd", because that would be using the trademarked name "Hoover" for commercial purposes.

To break this thread further:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

Advertising, fashion, interior design and lifestyle photographers frequently include paintings, sculptures, craft items, architectural works, jewelry, clothing, toys or other artistic works in their photographs. Often, such items are protected by copyright. Only the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce the copyright work. Photographing a copyright work amounts to reproducing it. Therefore, before you take a photo of any copyright work, you need the prior permission of the copyright owner. Photographers who infringe a copyright may be required to compensate for the economic loss, that is, to pay the damages they have caused and sometimes also other expenses, such as legal costs.

Be warned: Copyright law protects a wide range of different types of material. Examples of copyright works that are routinely reproduced in photographs are:

Literary works (such as books, newspapers, catalogs, magazines);
Artistic works (such as cartoons, paintings, sculptures, statues, architectural works, computer and laser artwork);
Photographic works (such as photos, engravings, posters);
Maps, globes, charts, diagrams and technical drawings;
Advertisements, commercial prints, billboards and labels;
Motion pictures (such as films, documentaries, television advertisements);
Dramatic works (such as dance, plays, mime); and
Works of applied art (such as artistic jewelry, wallpaper, carpets, toys and fabrics).

As indicated earlier, photographing a copyright work is considered a way of reproducing the work, and this is an act which the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do. This is why you may need to get prior permission to include a copyright work in your shot.

Some other activities that only the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do (and for which you may need permission) are:

Making prints of a work, scanning it into digital form, photocopying it, copying digital works, etc.;
Making a collage from several different photographs or images;
Adding new artistic elements to an existing work (e.g., colorizing a black and white picture);
Photographing someone’s work and then displaying the photo to the public (e.g., exhibiting the photo in a gallery, supplying copies to the public in postcard form, putting it on a website, sending it to customers via e-mail, etc.).

So that there is at least an argument that you have in fact (completely unknowingly) infringed on the BBC's copyright by transmitting a photograph of their copyrighted object to the public.

The point being that not all infringement is done knowingly by evil pirates. People routinely share MP3 files, as they had previously shared CDs, and wouldn't realise that they were doing anything wrong.

[carpetmojo]

What ?.. oh, sorry, nodded off there..........

It was alright until someone accused Harry of threatening Western civilisation as we know it.

Now, where were we ..... ?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The point being that not all infringement is done knowingly by evil pirates. People routinely share MP3 files, as they had previously shared CDs, and wouldn't realise that they were doing anything wrong.

The fundamental difference is that when you lend someone a CD, there's only the one CD being passed around. When you "share" an MP3 file, you're creating another copy of it; there are now two MP3 files where previously there was only one. That's why copyright law gets involved. It's not the lending that's the issue, but the unauthorised reproduction.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fundamental difference is that when you lend someone a CD, there's only the one CD being passed around. When you "share" an MP3 file, you're creating another copy of it; there are now two MP3 files where previously there was only one. That's why copyright law gets involved. It's not the lending that's the issue, but the unauthorised reproduction.

I know that.
But many many people do not see the distinction.
They do not know they are doing anything wrong, so changing the name of the thing they don't know they are doing won't have any effect.

[stonetools]

I think the Cynical Musician went to the max on this when he said " unauthorized copying is to theft as ethnic cleansing is to genocide".

The metaphors and descriptions that arose i a non-digital age don't fully track to what is happening in the digital age, but so what-it's the underlying conduct that really counts.
The law of copyright was was originally passed so as to enable the creators of works of art and science the ability to recoup and live on the fruits of their creativity. The need for that remains today, and so copyright law needs to be not abolished, but updated. Instead of a total ban on copying, there needs to be reasonable restrictions on the number oif copies that can be made and that can be done with those copies. If that sounds suspiciously like Digital Rights Management, well, there it is-the elephant in the room .
Now you may say that current DRM schemes are a steaming pile of horses#$$t and I may even largely agree with you but copyright law and DRM are probably going to be inevitable -as long as we want creators to keep on creating.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

What ?.. oh, sorry, nodded off there..........

It was alright until someone accused Harry of threatening Western civilisation as we know it.

Now, where were we ..... ?

Nobody accused HarryT of threatening Western civilization as we know it. He's just guilty of copyright infringement.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, that's a difference between copyright and trademark law. Copyright infringement can occur whenever an image is copied without the permission of the copyright holder - eg the album cover (I'm guessing that's what it is?) you have for your avatar could conceivably be considered to be copyright infringement if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder to reproduce it (although nobody would be bothered by such usage in reality). Trademark infringement can only occur if a trademark is being used for purposes of trade. Eg, you're free to set up a web site selling Hoovers, and have pictures of Hoovers on it, but you couldn't start a company called "Hoover Repairs, Ltd", because that would be using the trademarked name "Hoover" for commercial purposes.

I've found the story I vaguely remembered, it was Toyota. It looks like they backed down after a public outcry, so the legality of it was never really tested. Ford's banning of people printing calendars of their own cars I suppose would just about constitute commercial purposes.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...55142844.shtml

I have permission for my avatar, I'm one of the administrators on their Facebook page