Your analysis of this is incorrect. The law is perfectly reasonable, and is aimed at the organisation or person that copies the material, whether it's a bootlegging organisation or a minilab or an individual. None of them has the right to copy material that belongs to someone else. The employer is quite correct in having policies that tell their employees not to infringe copyright. They cannot push the liability off onto their employees under any circumstances, but especially if the employees have no say in the matter. If the employer subsequently punishes the employee for refusing to break the law then it is the employer that's at fault, not the law. The employer is acting illegally by doing that, and the employee would almost certainly win a case against them in the circumstances you describe.
Bob > It's a stupid law, bought and paid for by the record > companies and movie > studios. > > The whole purpose of assigning liability for copyright > infringement to > the owner of the equipment was so they could put the factories that > produce bootleg CDs/DVDs out of business. The way it's > written, they can > collect 1/2 million dollars for each instance of infringement, where > every individual CD/DVD stamped out was a separate instance. > > Except that the factories that stamp out the pirate CDs/DVDs aren't > located in the good ol' U. S. of A. and the DMCA can't be enforced > against them. > > The unintended consequence is that the "owner" of the > mini-lab that has > a scanner or digital print from CD facility is also liable, > where each > individual print is an separate instance of infringement. I say > "unintended" because you know damn well the record companies & movie > studios don't give a damn about the individual photographer's rights. > They'll rip you off in a heartbeat and claim "fair use" > exemption if you > attempt to claim compensation from them. > > But, because the mini-lab is owned by a corporation, the corporation > have "policies" that direct the operator not to print anything that > looks like it might place the corporation at risk. The corporation > doesn't actually give a damn if you print them or not; the policy is > simply there so they can push the liability off onto you as the lab > operator if any photographer DOES object to having his copyrighted > images printed. > > Of course, the flip side is that if you DO follow the > CORPORATE POLICY > regarding copyright and the customer makes a fuss, you're subject to > disciplinary action because you're guilty of bad customer service. > > But to take your "Joe Airwrench" analogy - as a lab operator, > I'm in the > position of crossing with the light, in the crosswalk, i.e. > obeying the > law, when the truck in question is about to run over me. > > I was told repeatedly that, because "Joe Airwrench's" > ownership claim is > bogus, I have no right to dodge the speeding truck. > > Obviously, that sticks in my craw. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
