Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

elcreative by selling you transfer possession and ownership of the item. you get money buyer gets item. end of the story. if you don't like the idea someone may buy a book in order to spinecut and ocr it or use it as a bunch of shit-begone leafs instead of reading don't sell since it's YOU who cheats by "selling" if you actually are not willing to transfer all the rights connected to such an action.

It wouldn't be cheating if the buyer clearly knew what rights were not transferred to him. I can give you several examples from the physical world:

1.)In Texas it is quite common to sell a piece of land but the original owner retains mineral rights (in the case of natural gas that can be tapped from below without disturbing the new owner's use of the property).

2.)Last I have heard, when you buy a Ferrari you are not allowed to resell it for 1-2 years. I am not sure if they still have this clause now, but they definitely had such restrictions a few years ago. It was basically because they had long delivery times and didn't want people to order one for 400K and resell it for 1 million immediately.

3.)Works of art quite often are given a way or being sold under the condition that they are to be displayed in a museum.

Why shouldn't a buyer and a seller be able to make up their own rules? That is fine as long as it is fair and holds up in court.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why shouldn't a buyer and a seller be able to make up their own rules? That is fine as long as it is fair and holds up in court.

It hasn't held up in court; first sale rights trump contracted agreements. If the item is sold, not rented, the buyer has extensive rights on what can be done with it--it can be resold, destroyed, shared, displayed, or restricted, at the buyer's whim.

The case that decided this was a movie studio which sold its old films to be shredded into stuffing of some sort; one of the buyers was using them as movies--reselling them to people who wanted to watch them. They sued, on the grounds that their sales contract said the sale was for destruction only, and they lost: once it's sold, the former owner has no right to describe how it's used.

The Ferrari might be a special case--but if it's *sold* rather than "contracted to be sold via payments taking place over several years," it can be resold instantly. For that to work, the initial payment might have to be all at once instead of spread out; otherwise, the seller might claim that some rights don't transfer until the final payment is made.

elcreative seems to think that the right to sue over unathorized copies & distribution thereof, includes the right to demand that the work be experienced the way the creator intended. Even if there's a contract between buyer and seller, it may not be valid. At worst, the buyer's guilty of breach of contract--but the penalties for that have to be spelled out in the contract itself.

[murraypaul]

Interestingly, in some European countries, the artist does retains some control how their work is used. They have the concept of 'moral rights', which an author cannot trade away.

Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:

Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Interestingly, in some European countries, the artist does retains some control how their work is used. They have the concept of 'moral rights', which an author cannot trade away.

Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:

No critisism or ghost writing?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

elcreative seems to think that the right to sue over unathorized copies & distribution thereof, includes the right to demand that the work be experienced the way the creator intended. Even if there's a contract between buyer and seller, it may not be valid. At worst, the buyer's guilty of breach of contract--but the penalties for that have to be spelled out in the contract itself.

DON'T put words in my mouth... I wouldn't give a damn about what anyone does with the hypothetical physical object once they've BOUGHT it but repurposing it, in another media when it is a designed, artistic, concept that only works in it's original form, is not right...

Once again, sorry to OP but I do get irritated by people misinterpreting at best or just putting their own words in my statements... also once again, I'll try and finish here depending on others...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

No critisism or ghost writing?

There are some interesting links here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/m...age_rights.htm

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by elcreative

DON'T put words in my mouth... I wouldn't give a damn about what anyone does with the hypothetical physical object once they've BOUGHT it but repurposing it, in another media when it is a designed, artistic, concept that only works in it's original form, is not right...

Once again, sorry to OP but I do get irritated by people misinterpreting at best or just putting their own words in my statements... also once again, I'll try and finish here depending on others...

Pardon, but you're biting your own tail... You can't "not care about about what somebody does with a physical item once they've bought it" and say you care about "repurposing it". Repurposing it is just one of many possible things you can do with an item you've purchased....

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Pardon, but you're biting your own tail... You can't "not care about about what somebody does with a physical item once they've bought it" and say you care about "repurposing it". Repurposing it is just one of many possible things you can do with an item you've purchased....

There is a big difference between repurposing a physical object in physical ways and converting that object from a physical to a non-physical form when the object is specifically designed to intrinsically require its physicality... I'm not biting anyone's tail, you're misconstruing one thing into another... for a final time, let the thread return to the OP's intent, this discussion has passed well beyond the pointless point as people keep wanting to put their ideas out as mine or misinterpreting what I've said...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RichL

Just out of curiosity how would you refer to a person that downloads and uses a product without paying for it. Say for instance a copy of TurboCAD Pro Platinum 18 which sells for about $1400?

Most people who steal something like that do it just to be able to say they have it and not really to use it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by elcreative

There is a big difference between repurposing a physical object in physical ways and converting that object from a physical to a non-physical form when the object is specifically designed to intrinsically require its physicality...

What an object "requires" depends on the use. The creator may intend one use; the buyer may decide on something else that doesn't require physicality.

While it's rather silly to buy pop-up books, given the relatively high cost, and then scan them to flat PDFs, it may be that someone wants to read them that way, or do research on the art style rather than enjoy the sliding levers and opening doors.

And this *is* on-topic... the difference between creator's and seller's intended use, and buyers' preferred use, is a big part of the problems in finding metaphors for various types of digital file activities, authorized or not. A lot of the buyers had a concept of "book" that included "can loan to a friend." Often, they believed that "purchase" included "can loan to friend" and "can resell if a buyer is found."

The core issues of "what exactly is being sold" and "what are legitimate uses of an ebook" (or mp3, or avi) are crucial to finding metaphors to describe what people do with digital content.

Publisher insistence on "rights" that no reasonable person would ever consider applying to books is part of what spurs piracy... Fictionwise's claim that I cannot "share" my purchases with anyone at all or I would be in violation of copyright law is obviously garbage. Their refusal to acknowledge a difference between "show another person the book loaded on my hardware device" and "make a digital copy & send it through email," likewise discourage customers from thinking these are different actions with different penalties.

We can't find mutually useful metaphors if we don't agree on what laws are relevant, what acts are reasonable, and what rights are actually granted with a purchase. And we won't agree on those things as long as publishers and digital stores making sweeping false statements about copyright law.

[elcreative]

You're still missing my point... if the BUYER wants to turn a creative object into s**t to use it then that's fine but it is not fine to repurpose it into another format and pass that on... giving the physical object away is fine, it was purchased and you can give it away, set fire to it or use it for compost but putting it into another format it wasn't designed for and passing that onto someone else is not fine... and metaphors have nothing to do with it... if you buy the object that doesn't give you the right to photocopy it and sell the photocopies or give them away so it is with converting it to a digital format...

[HansTWN]

Which brings up the interesting question of 3D printing (something I have looked at with great interest recently). The current state of affairs seems to be that it is legal to copy an object that has a useful purpose, but it is illegal to copy something that is just a piece of art.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

You're still missing my point... if the BUYER wants to turn a creative object into s**t to use it then that's fine but it is not fine to repurpose it into another format and pass that on... giving the physical object away is fine, it was purchased and you can give it away, set fire to it or use it for compost but putting it into another format it wasn't designed for and passing that onto someone else is not fine... and metaphors have nothing to do with it... if you buy the object that doesn't give you the right to photocopy it and sell the photocopies or give them away so it is with converting it to a digital format...

^Emphasis mine

I realize that you weren't around for when the thread started but my argument with HarryT regarding his avatar was about this. His position after being shown what the law states:

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.

I'm curious as to why you are using [...] instead of [.].

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by elcreative

You're still missing my point... if the BUYER wants to turn a creative object into s**t to use it then that's fine but it is not fine to repurpose it into another format and pass that on... giving the physical object away is fine, it was purchased and you can give it away, set fire to it or use it for compost but putting it into another format it wasn't designed for and passing that onto someone else is not fine... and metaphors have nothing to do with it... if you buy the object that doesn't give you the right to photocopy it and sell the photocopies or give them away so it is with converting it to a digital format...

At this point, right or wrong isn't really relevant. If you don't provide it in a format people want, then someone will make their own and give it away to anyone else who wants it.

The days when you could control what format your work goes in are long gone and they are never coming back. The Harry Potter woman tried it, Ray Bradbury tried it, DC and Marvel comics tried it, even the music and film industries tried it, but they all had to cave in and provide what people want in the end. All they achieved by refusing from the start was let an entire generation grow up getting used to downloading everything for free.

[elcreative]

OK, I'll put in to simple terms... take Rodin's The Kiss - it is a sculpture - if you digitise it then it is not a sculpture (and for the nitpickers, ignore the upcoming joys of 3D printing for the sake of this discussion), it is a picture and is no longer the item intended, a picture doesn't give the same experience as a sculpture... and after reading through so much irritating misinterpretation of my original hypothetical item, I will leave you to discuss your own interpretations until the cows come home...