So, briefly, what do you think about the Kindle now?

[rflashman]

The issue isn't the picture itself, it is how it is used. Of course we all agree your use is no big deal (I strongly believe socially Copyright is DEAD). But legally it would appear that your use seems to go beyond 'fair use' and in light of your strong statements about copyrights, it is why I brought it up.

I'm pretty sure if you take a picture of your purchased Ford car, put it on a brochure and call it "the new Harry Motors prototype" and promote that as yours, that Ford will not only have a problem with that but that they probably have the car copyrighted and have legal grounds to go after you.

In a similar example, I remember when Ferrari successfully sued several studios for using replica Ferrari cars in TV shows. The studios clearly owned the replicas, but Ferrari had the copyright to their image/logo/car shape/etc.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by rflashman

In a similar example, I remember when Ferrari successfully sued several studios for using replica Ferrari cars in TV shows. The studios clearly owned the replicas, but Ferrari had the copyright to their image/logo/car shape/etc.

That sounds familiar. Wasn't the Miami Vice Corvette-that-looked-like-a-Ferrari-Daytona one such case? I seem to recall that was one of the reasons the producers blew the thing up and replaced it with a white Lambo.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I've said, neko, I don't believe that it is an infringement, any more than taking a photograph of a Ford car and posting that would infringe Ford's rights.

I disagree. I think the Dalek is a fictional character (well, a group of them), and has different status under the law than a commercial product for sale.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bingle

I'm not saying it's OK to copy MS Word. I'm saying that people will copy it, OK or not. The same with music and movies and books.

I will give you this, it is absolutely true.

However, you have to agree that the above is also true, even if the producer tries to put DRM on it.

So, the DRM basically only causes problems for those that legally obtain the digital item. It also cost the producers time and money to try to apply it. So, why use it?

BOb

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

So, the DRM basically only causes problems for those that legally obtain the digital item. It also cost the producers time and money to try to apply it. So, why use it?

Because the Content Cartel wants consumers to get comfortable with the idea that they can no longer own a copy of something. They want the consumer to get used to the idea that every time they want to read that book, watch that movie, listen to that song, that they have to pay someone for the privilege of doing so.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I will give you this, it is absolutely true.

However, you have to agree that the above is also true, even if the producer tries to put DRM on it.

So, the DRM basically only causes problems for those that legally obtain the digital item. It also cost the producers time and money to try to apply it. So, why use it?

BOb

Good question. ;-) I think DRM is at best pointless, at worst harmful.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Because the Content Cartel wants consumers to get comfortable with the idea that they can no longer own a copy of something. They want the consumer to get used to the idea that every time they want to read that book, watch that movie, listen to that song, that they have to pay someone for the privilege of doing so.

If that is the case, then...

1. They need to define that in the purchase agreement, etc. For example, while I only "license" software the license tells me what that term is, a month/day/in perpetuity, etc. This is not the current agreement when a pbook is bought.

2. They need to drastically adjust the price. For example, I spend $6 to watch a movie at a theater one time. I spend $2.99 to rent that move for perhaps 5 days with no limit on number of times watched. I spend $30 for a DVD copy of that movie to watch unlimited times. All of those are well understood, and also there are reasons the pricing is different. So, I would be happy to spend say $3 to read a book once, which means I also have to pay $3 for my wife to read it.

Still, in neither of the above cases is DRM needed.