Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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

I doubt there will be many people in the UK who aren't. Copying a CD onto an mp3 player is still illegal here. As is/was taping a record to play in your car. Even recording something off the radio or TV has limitations attached.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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

No I'm not. As I said, it's my own photograph of my own property.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No I'm not. As I said, it's my own photograph of my own property.

Which you are sharing with the forum by having it as your avatar.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No I'm not. As I said, it's my own photograph of my own property.

I can own a book, that doesn't mean I can upload photographs of the pages. You don't own the copyright to the Dalek design, just as I don't own the copyright to the text of my book.

[The point not being to pick on Harry, just to show how easy it is to do something wrong]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Which you are sharing with the forum by having it as your avatar.

Yes. I am sharing my own photograph, as I have a perfect right to do.

This is an utterly pointless debate which I am not going to waste any more of my (or anyone else's) time in pursuing. Shall we return to the subject of the thread?

[HappyMartin]

The BBC do not own the light bouncing off an object that was legally sold and legally purchased. This was an actual argument used some years ago in a court case if memory serves me correctly. Things change if the image is used for commercial gain but since that is not the case I think Harry is safe.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes. I am sharing my own photograph, as I have a perfect right to do.

This is an utterly pointless debate which I am not going to waste any more of my (or anyone else's) time in pursuing. Shall we return to the subject of the thread?

This is the subject of the thread. How is this any different from the people who scanned Harry Potter and uploaded it?

[HarryT]

A copy of a book is a book; a photograph of a Dalek is not a Dalek. The BBC certainly have the right to license who can build Daleks, but they don't have the right to say to someone who perfectly legally owns a Dalek, "you can't take a photograph of it and use the photograph for non-commercial purposes."

If you feel otherwise I would urge you to contact the BBC and get the official word from them.

And that IS my last word on the matter .

[MrsJoseph]

To take a derailed thread further off track, I am so sick and freaking tired of the words "pirate" and "piracy" to be used to describe copyright infringement.

It totally disregards the work of the men and women who place their lives in danger EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. to keep our national and international waters safe. I work in the maritime industry - and to us - piracy is a real and constant threat. A threat that costs MILLIONS and shortens lives yearly.

So let's use words correctly. Please.

[HarryT]

What do you mean by "correctly"? As I pointed out earlier in the thread, use of the word "piracy" to describe unauthorised reproduction of a work goes back at least as far as 1603. When a word has had a particular meaning for over 400 years, you aren't going to stop people using it simply because you don't like it.

[Bilbo1967]

From the 2008 Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'piracy';

1 the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. ■ a similar practice in other contexts, especially hijacking.
2 the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work: software piracy.

So now I know what a Dalek is. That and HarryT's avatar is not just a fancy salt shaker.

Some of the names change but this argument seems to never change. I agree "file sharing" not only sounds benign, but like something well worth doing. Purchasing one copy (if that is how it was obtained) of content (music, video, written work) under copyright and then without that permission of the copyright holder distributing copies, even if for free, is depriving the copyright holder of the rights that carries and depriving them of rightful income.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I can own a book, that doesn't mean I can upload photographs of the pages. You don't own the copyright to the Dalek design, just as I don't own the copyright to the text of my book.

Sure you can. Just like you can upload pictures of your desk or bookshelf, showing the books you have there. It's when you give a copy of the entire thing to someone, that we start crossing lines.

Or are we now suggesting that anyone who is selling used video games, books, or movies on eBay are guilty of copy right infringement when they post pictures of the goods they are putting up for sale? Last I looked it was expected, if not required, by anyone wishing to sell items on an online auction site to post accurate and detailed pictures of the item they are putting up for sale.

If it is okay for Harry to post a picture of the Dalek on eBay if he decides he wants to sell it, then why is it not okay to have a photo of it that he himself has taken (and therefor own the rights to) as an avatar here on the forum?

And if one is okay, but not the other, is it now at least clear why this is such a vague and tricky discussion without any clear-cut and easy answers?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Sure you can. Just like you can upload pictures of your desk or bookshelf, showing the books you have there. It's when you give a copy of the entire thing to someone, that we start crossing lines.

Some people like to photograph the pages of their books too

I think that was the point though, that owning something doesn't give you the right to photograph it and post it on the internet. The copyright holder might not be bothered, but that's not the same as saying it's 100% legal.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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

Exactly.

And your point is ?