Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That would be like saying that you don't have the right to photograph anybody wearing clothes, anybody driving a car, any house, any item of furniture, etc, etc. All those are copyrighted designs; the list is endless. A photograph of an object is not a copy of an object; copyright law does not apply. It's different for "unique" objects like paintings, statues, etc, which is what Paul was referring to. They are unique objects where the image IS the object, if you like. Clothes, cars, furniture, (yes, and Daleks too) are not unique objects - there are lots of them, and a photograph of any one of them is not violating anyone's rights. Until or unless you can point me to a legal ruling which states that using a photograph of a mass-produced object for non-commercial purposes is a breach of copyright, this is what I will continue to believe.

17 Infringement of copyright by copying.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

(3)In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.

(4)Copying in relation to a film [F1or broadcast] includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film [F1or broadcast].

(5)Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a published edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.

(6)Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.
Annotations: Help about Annotation
Close

Amendments (Textual)

F1Words in s. 17(4) substituted (31.10.2003) by The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2498), regs. 2(1), 5(5), Sch. 1 para. 3(1)(a) (with regs. 31-40)

Points (2) and (3) are clear. You made a 2D copy of a 3D work and you stored it by electronic means.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So when a government extends a copyright term, they are "stealing" from the public. It's every bit as much "theft" as copyright infringment.

But nobody on the pro-copyright side of the discussion can ever admit this fact, because it makes the copyight holders just a crooked as the evil "pirates".

Woe be to that possibility.

Disney anyone?

[Billi]

Sil_liS, could you please go to Google -> pictures and type in "dalek"? How many results will you get? And do you think they're all breaking the law? And that the BBC wouldn't defend its rights?

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Billi

Sil_liS, could you please go to Google -> pictures and type in "dalek"? How many results will you get? And do you think they're all breaking the law? And that the BBC wouldn't defend its rights?

Well, if you to to the pirate bay (or google for that matter) and search for Harry Potter torrent how many results will you get? And do you think they're all breaking the law? And that Rowling wouldn't defend her rights?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

17 Infringement of copyright by copying.E+W+S+N.I.

Points (2) and (3) are clear. You made a 2D copy of a 3D work and you stored it by electronic means.

As I said in my previous post, that's talking about unique "artistic works" - paintings and statues and the like, not mass-produced goods.

Really, you're on a road to nowhere here. Contact the BBC and ask them if you're not convinced.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I said in my previous post, that's talking about unique "artistic works" - paintings and statues and the like, not mass-produced goods.

And yet the word unique doesn't exist there, or in the section on what copyright applies to:
1 Copyright and copyright works.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—

(a)original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,

(b)sound recordings, films [F1or broadcasts], and

(c)the typographical arrangement of published editions.

(2)In this Part “copyright work” means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists.

(3)Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there).

If the dalek is under copyright, it is viewed as artistic work, and you are not allowed to photograph it.

[HarryT]

Let's explore this a little further. In what way does my photograph of a Dalek differ from, let's say, a picture of someone wearing clothes? The design of those clothes is equally protected by copyright law, is it not? Are you suggesting that every photograph of someone wearing clothes is a copyright infringement?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I strongly suspect that it would not be economically feasible to sell eBook for a quarter the price of the printed book. Printing is a relatively small component of the price of a book; the main cost for a book such as this will be in the layout and editing, and that's there for an eBook just as much as for a hardback.

All the editing would (or at least should, I know they don't bother fixing typos in ebooks) be done for the hardback. So either ebooks would be subsidising the price of hardbacks, or the editing cost is being counted twice. Ebooks aren't like audio books, where there would be additional costs in producing them beyond what has already been done. The cover is usually the same (or missing), and in an ideal world the text would be the same too.

Most of the cost of a book should be the fee paid to the writer, but that's a different argument. If that were the case I think less people would object so much.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

All the editing would (or at least should, I know they don't bother fixing typos in ebooks) be done for the hardback. So either ebooks would be subsidising the price of hardbacks, or the editing cost is being counted twice. Ebooks aren't like audio books, where there would be additional costs in producing them beyond what has already been done. The cover is usually the same (or missing), and in an ideal world the text would be the same too.

Most of the cost of a book should be the fee paid to the writer, but that's a different argument. If that were the case I think less people would object so much.

I would imagine, though, that most people buying the PDF would be buying it instead of the hardback, so the publisher would only be receiving a quarter of the income for that sale. That's probably not economically viable for them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Didn't you forget that the government has been elected by the public and thus represents the public? So the public indirectly agreed to the extension.

I don't know about where you live, but in the UK corporations pay a lot of money to government so that they will pass laws that they want passing. Which flavour of government you have at the time doesn't make any difference.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't know about where you live, but in the UK corporations pay a lot of money to government so that they will pass laws that they want passing. Which flavour of government you have at the time doesn't make any difference.

Yeah, that sounds strangely familiar.

So: After 100 posts, has anyone actually addressed the issue of improving the metaphors used for ebooks?

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Well, if you to to the pirate bay (or google for that matter) and search for Harry Potter torrent how many results will you get? And do you think they're all breaking the law? And that Rowling wouldn't defend her rights?

Soldim, I know what one can find on the web (but maybe not on the first pages of google). And I'm not thinking that if a million people does something (like using dalek photos), that makes this something necessarily right and legally.
I just tried to give Sil_lis a little hint how other people see this as his discussion with Harry is moving in a circle since a while.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Let's explore this a little further. In what way does my photograph of a Dalek differ from, let's say, a picture of someone wearing clothes? The design of those clothes is equally protected by copyright law, is it not? Are you suggesting that every photograph of someone wearing clothes is a copyright infringement?

No, they are not equally protected. It doesn't look like they can copyright much in design.

“It is going to be a very limited number of items that are going to be protected,” said Steven Kolb, the executive director of the fashion council.

In fact, it is difficult to imagine what exactly would be protected, though Mr. Kolb said that Kate Middleton’s wedding dress would probably be a good example, or anything you might see at the current Costume Institute exhibition of Alexander McQueen. But passage of the bill would be a symbolic victory for designers, especially those who have suffered financially by the widespread copying of their work. Cheaper versions of Proenza Schouler’s popular PS1 bag, for example, have appeared throughout the market, including at Target, where the designers once created a less expensive line.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Billi

Soldim, I know what one can find on the web (but maybe not on the first pages of google). And I'm not thinking that if a million people does something (like using dalek photos), that makes this something necessarily right and legally.
I just tried to give Sil_lis a little hint how other people see this as his discussion with Harry is moving in a circle since a while.

Who do you think is right, me or HarryT?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yeah, that sounds strangely familiar.

So: After 100 posts, has anyone actually addressed the issue of improving the metaphors used for ebooks?

It's not metaphors used for ebooks, but for ebook sharing. And I don't think that we need metaphors. Copyright infringement works just fine.