Well, Tom, there is the law and there is reality. It would
cost far more than it is worth to sue people for making
copies for their own use, not to mention the difficulty even
finding out about it. If you run off a couple of thousand
copies to sell then you are probably in trouble. The rub
that copyright owners (especially software copyright owners)
never seem to get is did they lose a sale or would the (c)
violator just have done without their product is they had to
pay for it. We all have to make such decisions for
ourselves, I guess.
--Tom
aimcompute wrote:
>
> Just to keep this thread going... I know this has been discussed over and
> over again... and that many of you are familiar with the law, where I am
> not.
>
> In my mind at least I (could be rationalizing, I admit) there is a
> difference between a technical copyright violation and being immoral. I
> guess I say this because, for one, if there was not room for interpretation
> in the law, there would not be the hundreds of infringement lawsuits, some
> won by the copier. I think a lot depends on what is done with the copy and
> how the original artist feels about it. I go off topic here somewhat
> (what's new?).
>
> Technically, if I make a copy of a CD and use it for myself, that is
> unauthorized copying of copyrighted material, right? I don't write Paul
> McCartney or Apple records when I want to make a second copy of an album for
> my personal use. I don't think this is wrong to do and would do it w/o
> hesitation. I think the law believes this is fine as well, regardless of
> the copyright warning. I suppose we could split hairs and wonder if it
> would be wrong in the instance that my wife wanted one in her vehicle and I
> wanted one in mine. We are two separate people so I suppose I should have
> bought it twice. The copy in her car is a bootleg and I'm a renegade (I
> secretly wonder if I AM a renegade).
>
> If I copy that CD for someone else and give one to them, depriving the
> original artist (regardless of how wealthy they are) of royalties, I think
> that is technically wrong. Of course the artist and recording companies
> know that happens and do they care? I don't know. It's possible that by
> introducing a friend to an artist, the result may be more sales for the
> artist, though having lost one sale, because of the copy.
>
> If I copy the CD and then try to sell the copies, then I should go to jail.
>
> Now what if I lend a CD to a friend, knowing that they are going to copy it?
> Am I the lawbreaker or am I an accessory? I don't know how I feel about
> that. What if instead, the friend went to the library and checked out the
> CD? What if they then recorded it at home? Are they breaking the law? Is
> the library? Did the library KNOW they were going to copy it? What does
> the library THINK people do with it when they take it home? Do I, as a
> taxpayer, and therefore indirectly a partial purchaser/owner of everything
> in the library, have the right to make that copy? I don't know, I could
> argue that I do... I again say that the very existence of libraries
> violates the SPIRIT of the laws intentions in a major way. Thousands and
> hundreds of thousands of sales, millions (when all instances of borrowing
> are combined), are lost because people have free access to the same instance
> of copyrighted material. One can wonder whether those borrowers would have
> purchased the item themselves, if they did not have easy access to it
> through a public institution, created and funded by the same government that
> creates and enforces copyright laws. Should I feel sorry for the artist
> when I go to the library? The fact remains that I am depriving the artist
> of a sale, whether I borrow it and read it, or whether I borrow it and copy
> it, right?
>
> It seems we live in a very dichotomous society. Making a copy is illegal,
> but industry & government, bends over backward to sell products and provide
> opportunities to make that copying as easy as pie. Libraries have copy
> machines. They also have signs saying "Don't copy material that is
> copyrighted". I think we'd all be hardpressed to find anything in the
> library that WAS NOT copyrighted, though I am sure there must be something.
>
> I suppose that if I hung a photo in an exhibition, or let's say it's my
> photo hanging on a restaurant wall, I would prefer to sell the photo, as
> opposed to have someone come take a picture of it. I would probably be
> flattered if someone came and took a picture. In some sense, though, just
> hanging the picture on the wall is providing hundreds of people the
> opportunity to experience the work without having to personally pay for it.
>
> Let's say I had a business card in the picture frame, hoping to sell copies
> of the picture. OK, THEN I'd really be torqued if I found out the
> restaurant was letting people take the print out of the frame and go down to
> their friendly photo lab and make a copy.
>
> Getting back more on topic... When the painting in question was painted
> (from all I understand about the scenario), the artist(s) did not intend to
> profit from the piece. Maybe the art school did in some small way, and they
> used this forum as a means of schooling, and maybe the restaurant got a nice
> piece of art work for a reasonable price. That was the deal that was
> arranged. But at that point ownership of the work passed to the restaurant.
> So should I feel bad if I go take a picture of it? Am I depriving the
> artist of something by doing so? Personally I don't believe I am.
>
> We also have a similarly styled painting reproduced on cardboard and in a
> gold frame, in the typical 60's fashion, that we bought for 50 cents at a
> garage sale. I plan on taking a picture of it and getting it reproduced on
> canvas as well. Should I worry? I don't think so.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
