| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.04.14 14:10:00 -
[61]
As a Professional Artist, I can say that this thread is incredibly stupid, and at least half of you are idiots.
You know how long I've been waiting for this line to be useful?
 Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
True 1
Caldari
Black Podding
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 16:29:00 -
[62]
since birth id guess
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 16:39:00 -
[63]
Originally by: True 1
since birth id guess
Yes, basically. |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 16:51:00 -
[64]
Wouldnt all attempts to steal an image, even if found on google be thworted if:
¬ Joe Blow 2008
is found on the piece?
I mean many artists sign their work in the first place so wouldnt that atleast push the person or company who wants to use the item in question in the right direction?
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 17:24:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Wouldnt all attempts to steal an image, even if found on google be thworted if:
¬ Joe Blow 2008
is found on the piece?
I mean many artists sign their work in the first place so wouldnt that atleast push the person or company who wants to use the item in question in the right direction?
No, that actually does pretty much nothing. While the copyright does belong to them at creation, just putting a stamp on it does nothing. Aside from registering your copyright, there is no other legal defense.
Although in some countries, the "poor man's copyright" can help, where you mail it to yourself and get the post office's post mark, but it really isn't a substitute.
Secondly, I could easily make it my name and 2007 instead.
To sum up, there is no legal validity to just putting the stamp on there. |
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 19:39:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Fenderson on 14/04/2008 19:43:28
pay attention because i am only going to say this once:
It is impossible to enforce copyright on the internet. Once the internet became accessible to the general public, it was only a matter of time before it became completely impossible to enforce copyright.
the amount of material and the rate at which that material is being copied and distributed is way, way beyond what any law-enforcement effort can ever keep up with. the best that authorities could ever hope for is to go after a few token cases here and there and hope that will scare everyone else (which it doesn't). there simply arent enough cops or courts in the entire world to stop the amount of copyright infringement that is currently happening, and that amount is growing all the time.
this has nothing to do with laws, it is a basic structural issue of the internet. laws will not change this one way or an other.
we have 2 choices.
1) we can fundamentally restructure the way the internet works so that every time data is transmitted between any 2 points, it is checked for copyrighted content. we would also have to outlaw encryption except in specially allowed cases, or at least give the government all our encryption keys. God knows how you would enforce that internationally.
2) we can get rid of copyright laws, or greatly expand fair use rights to the point where copyright is basically pointless other than for attribution.
please note that this is not an expression of how i think things should be. this is not a moral judgement about copyright. this is simply a practical reality that we all must face in our conversation about copyright.
edit: also it is worth noting that option 1 is not really an option. if world governments attempted such a thing, i think that a free, unsanctioned "shadow internet" would spring up in its place to allow free exchange of information once more.
in other words, copyright is already dead. the question now is how should artists react.
DO YOU PLAY POKER????
Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
jongalt
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 19:44:00 -
[67]
those look like false choices to me.
-jg.
|
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 19:46:00 -
[68]
Originally by: jongalt
those look like false choices to me.
-jg.
your right, i forgot to mention the third choice, which is "continue to give artists the illusion that copyrights can be protected" so that lawyers can keep making money from suing people, while actual copyright protection continues to be non-existant.
DO YOU PLAY POKER????
Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:04:00 -
[69]
What is a more interesting, and less stupid thing to say, is how this really only applies to purely digital media.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:13:00 -
[70]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
What is a more interesting, and less stupid thing to say, is how this really only applies to purely digital media.
and can you name me one kind of art that cannot be digitized?
i guess sculpture would be one, but there are very very few kinds of art that cannot be digitized. and even sculpture could be digitized to a certain extent (CAD files could be made, etc)
DO YOU PLAY POKER????
Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
jongalt
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:27:00 -
[71]
copyrights are protected. all the time. why not call ASMP, or APA, or the graphic designer unions in NYC and ask them?
whats wrong with lawyers making money? thats a pretty cynical and bitter (and possibly NAIVE, read: from somebody who is "young") statement.
and anyway fenderson, there are less overt ways of "stealing" art.
many infringement cases are about an art director making a "comp" of a photo (or logo, or whatever) they saw in a portfolio, and giving it to another artist to copy. this ends up being cheaper than hiring the original artist and avoids the stigma of being accused of copyright infringement.
you would know this if you were a professional, fenderson. since you seem to talk from the "luxury" of being at most, a hobbyist, you might want to reconsider your position.
(read: dont talk pvp, if you dont pvp).
your theories are interesting, sure. as theories.
(read: EFT-warrioring is great, to a point)
but they dont address the reality of people trying to get by.
(read: EFT-warrioring is not the same as pvp-ing shin-ra.)
i love lev manovich as much as the next guy. richard prince, sherry levine? sure. all artists who "steal" (more accurately, they "appropriate"). however, there is a nuance that you dont get. art + commerce have different goals and are held to different standards.
if you're an artist working in the commercial sector, copyright infringement is an important protection of your efficacy to pursue a living wage.
if your an artist selling work in chelsea (NYC) galleries, copyright infringement is de rigeur. and has been since the 80's, yo.
-jg.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:31:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Fenderson
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
What is a more interesting, and less stupid thing to say, is how this really only applies to purely digital media.
and can you name me one kind of art that cannot be digitized?
i guess sculpture would be one, but there are very very few kinds of art that cannot be digitized. and even sculpture could be digitized to a certain extent (CAD files could be made, etc)
Anything with a physicality, or performance to it, where it will not exist properly in 2D, or a 3D render.
Installation, Sculpture, Performance Art. Even paintings in a way( and certain photographic process), the physicality of a painting does not transfer into digitization.
Just because something can be digitized does not mean that it is the same.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:32:00 -
[73]
Originally by: jongalt
copyrights are protected. all the time. why not call ASMP, or APA, or the graphic designer unions in NYC and ask them?
I'd be interested to know if there were other members of the ASMP in Eve (Or APA, or PPA or whatever acronym I'm missing).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:36:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Fenderson
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
What is a more interesting, and less stupid thing to say, is how this really only applies to purely digital media.
and can you name me one kind of art that cannot be digitized?
i guess sculpture would be one, but there are very very few kinds of art that cannot be digitized. and even sculpture could be digitized to a certain extent (CAD files could be made, etc)
just because something can be digitized, doesnt mean its right to infringe on copyrights.
and just because its digital doesnt give one the luxury of claiming ownership unless one made it. (digitizing somebody else's work doenst give you sufficient ground to say "you made it").
which is what copyright is about, right?
being able to claim ownership over a work (digital or otherwise).
lev manovich might claim differently. sure.
and its great theory.
but it doesnt address the hard reality of anybody trying to make rent with their "art" skillz.
which was never the point of his "theory".
-jg.
|
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:37:00 -
[75]
Originally by: jongalt
copyrights are protected. all the time. why not call ASMP, or APA, or the graphic designer unions in NYC and ask them?
whats wrong with lawyers making money? thats a pretty cynical and bitter (and possibly NAIVE, read: from somebody who is "young") statement.
and anyway fenderson, there are less overt ways of "stealing" art.
many infringement cases are about an art director making a "comp" of a photo (or logo, or whatever) they saw in a portfolio, and giving it to another artist to copy. this ends up being cheaper than hiring the original artist and avoids the stigma of being accused of copyright infringement.
you would know this if you were a professional, fenderson. since you seem to talk from the "luxury" of being at most, a hobbyist, you might want to reconsider your position.
(read: dont talk pvp, if you dont pvp).
your theories are interesting, sure. as theories.
(read: EFT-warrioring is great, to a point)
but they dont address the reality of people trying to get by.
(read: EFT-warrioring is not the same as pvp-ing shin-ra.)
i love lev manovich as much as the next guy. richard prince, sherry levine? sure. all artists who "steal" (more accurately, they "appropriate"). however, there is a nuance that you dont get. art + commerce have different goals and are held to different standards.
if you're an artist working in the commercial sector, copyright infringement is an important protection of your efficacy to pursue a living wage.
if your an artist selling work in chelsea (NYC) galleries, copyright infringement is de rigeur. and has been since the 80's, yo.
-jg.
gotta love people who resort to character attacks when they run low on intellectual capital. i am not even going to respond to your claims of "young, non-professional, etc.. except to say that you don't know me.
anyway, my point is simply that copyright can not be, and is not enforced. limited enforcement is not enforcement. just ask the RIAA. yes, there are still ways that copyright violators can be prosecuted, or other retaliatory actions taken. however, the rate at which original works are being copied and shared far outstrips, and is growing much, much faster than our ability to enforce copyright. carry that trend out a bit further eventually there will be so little enforcement relative to the amount of copying that nobody even bothers anymore.
as the internet becomes larger and faster, our ability to enforce copyright goes down proportionally.
DO YOU PLAY POKER????
Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
ThaMa Gebir
Gallente
Raddick Explorations
Friend or Enemy
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:39:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Trolsk
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh
Someone already has the trademark.
Heh, a few funnies there 
This one I particularly enjoyed; "As the conference abruptly ended, Carla Pitt, manager of Despair's Customer DisserviceÖ Department, was overheard to remark, "Would this finally mean we can finally call him "Colon" to his face?" "
----------------------------
Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........
Hah, no more hijacks here!!!!
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:40:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Fenderson
as the internet becomes larger and faster, our ability to enforce copyright goes down proportionally.
I just don't really think you know where the majority of copyright cases come from. Because very few people are as pedantic as to bother with dealing with the internet and the 14 year old who claims a Renoir painting is his on Myspace.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:42:00 -
[78]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: Fenderson
as the internet becomes larger and faster, our ability to enforce copyright goes down proportionally.
I just don't really think you know where the majority of copyright cases come from. Because very few people are as pedantic as to bother with dealing with the internet and the 14 year old who claims a Renoir painting is his on Myspace.
please enlighten me then... where do the majority of copyright cases come from, and how will they never, ever be effected by the internet?
DO YOU PLAY POKER????
Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:51:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Fenderson
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: Fenderson
as the internet becomes larger and faster, our ability to enforce copyright goes down proportionally.
I just don't really think you know where the majority of copyright cases come from. Because very few people are as pedantic as to bother with dealing with the internet and the 14 year old who claims a Renoir painting is his on Myspace.
please enlighten me then... where do the majority of copyright cases come from, and how will they never, ever be effected by the internet?
It's not that they won't be affected by the internet, it is that the internet does not suddenly mean that everything is being stolen everywhere.
A good chunk of the images on the internet that anyone would want to steal, are low-res files at something like 72dpi, which aren't much yes to anyone unless they're just going to use them for an online ad. Which does happen sometimes, but really not as often as you'd think.
Of course, any server in a Berne convention country is really easy to get them to pull it. And in the US, there was the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which makes it as easy as a phone call.
The majority of cases simply existed when images have been licensed (or not) for one thing, and are being used for more than that.
The one last thing that would be a tell-tale sign, is that stock agencies would collapse, because infringement was so rampant, and impossible to enforce, that no one would be paying for these stock images. Even with the current state of microstock. And that hasn't happened as of yet, or is close to happening, Microstock agencies are booming at the moment.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 20:51:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Fenderson
gotta love people who resort to character attacks when they run low on intellectual capital. i am not even going to respond to your claims of "young, non-professional, etc.. except to say that you don't know me.
anyway, my point is simply that copyright can not be, and is not enforced. limited enforcement is not enforcement. just ask the RIAA. yes, there are still ways that copyright violators can be prosecuted, or other retaliatory actions taken. however, the rate at which original works are being copied and shared far outstrips, and is growing much, much faster than our ability to enforce copyright. carry that trend out a bit further eventually there will be so little enforcement relative to the amount of copying that nobody even bothers anymore.
as the internet becomes larger and faster, our ability to enforce copyright goes down proportionally.
lol, fenderson. if you are taking my assumptions personally and getting offended, what can i say? im attacking your character???? LOL. ok. but am i wrong? you never corrected me, so im "assuming" that im still right.
(read: anybody can say, "you dont know me!". and we all know that's the cowards way out of any meaningful dialog because one is too afraid to stand behind a position of any substance, regardless if its "right" or "wrong".)
anyway,
nobody cares if work is copied and shared, fenderson. not even the original artists who make the work. thats not the point.
what the artists care about is getting paid if their work results in a financial transaction of some kind >as a direct result of their work (being copied, shared, or used)<. this is the part that is most important, and the fulcrum of copyright litigation.
-jg.
|
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 21:05:00 -
[81]
Originally by: jongalt
lol, fenderson. if you are taking my assumptions personally and getting offended, what can i say? im attacking your character???? LOL. ok. but am i wrong? you never corrected me, so im "assuming" that im still right.
(read: anybody can say, "you dont know me!". and we all know that's the cowards way out of any meaningful dialog because one is too afraid to stand behind a position of any substance, regardless if its "right" or "wrong".)
anyway,
nobody cares if work is copied and shared, fenderson. not even the original artists who make the work. thats not the point.
what the artists care about is getting paid if their work results in a financial transaction of some kind >as a direct result of their work (being copied, shared, or used)<. this is the part that is most important, and the fulcrum of copyright litigation.
-jg.
i am not offended, i am simply pointing out that your argument was more about who i am than about anything relevant to the topic at hand. and yes you are wrong, but i am not going to allow you to bait me into debating whether or not i am in a position to offer a valid opinion. if you want to argue against me, make a counterpoint to what i am saying not to who you assume i am.
and my point still stands. i am not saying that artists shouldnt be able to capitalize on their original work. i am simply saying that the internet increasingly makes it impossible to track who's work is who's, and allows people to use other's original work without paying for it. eventually there will be so much of this going on that there simply arent enough lawyers in the world to sue everyone.
DO YOU PLAY POKER????
Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
Lord Evangelian
Gallente
The White Mantle
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 22:38:00 -
[82]
I dont know about whats going ons...but is my pants safe...that is teh main things!!!
--------------------
The White Mantle |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
The Graduates
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 23:04:00 -
[83]
Originally by: jongalt
which is what copyright is about, right?
being able to claim ownership over a work (digital or otherwise).
No, that isn't what it is about. Copyright exists precisely because you cannot own something that can be reproduced indefinitely, and which impacts on other rights (like freedom of speech). A copy of a book has the same content as the manuscript: the story the author created. There is no way he can own that. As soon as one reader besides himself reads the story, it's no longer just his story. Reading the story is part of someone else's life and experience. The author cannot own someone else's mind and life experience.
Copyright grants a specific set of limited rights - which are not the same as ownership rights - to creators. Just to cite one difference, unlike ownership, copyright expires. Also unlike ownership, copyright allows for Fair Use (or Fair Dealing as the EU calls it) which means the author does not get to approve or disapprove of all uses of his work. Property isn't like that.
The Basics of Copyright
-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then --
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.14 23:37:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Guillame HerschelNo, that isn't what it is about. [/quote
What is Copyright?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
nahtoh
Caldari
Bull Industries
United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 00:21:00 -
[85]
Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 14/04/2008 12:08:32
guys this kind of thing already happens.
Vanilla ice with Ice Ice Baby
Queen's Under pressure
Naturaly Vanilla ice says he didnt copy the greatness that is queen and in the process destroy a song by one of the best bands to ever walk this earth...
Yeah when drunk I have been know to start a "lych the DJ" and "Vanila Ice Must Die" chants in clubs when i get faked out by the start of that &^$%ú%&*(*)(&% *&^(&(^$&^%*&& rip off.
=========
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Quincy TawHarr
Minmatar
Kanatami Co-Operative
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 00:35:00 -
[86]
Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 14/04/2008 12:08:32
guys this kind of thing already happens.
Vanilla ice with Ice Ice Baby
Queen's Under pressure
Naturaly Vanilla ice says he didnt copy the greatness that is queen and in the process destroy a song by one of the best bands to ever walk this earth...
I fail to see how creating one of the greatest songs ever recorded in the history of mankind utilizing the catchy part of a mediocre tune constitutes destroying...
After all Vanilla taught us all how to "Stop, Collaborate and Listen." It's called "sampling" it's not infringement if you only take a little TINY piece... well at least if the end result is one of the single biggest hits of a decade.
Scrapheap fun on Bombs:
Takahashi: Atm you're essentially "firing the equivalent of a Ferox"
Dixon: Letting people fire actual Ferox's would be nice... it'd make them almost useful. |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 16:26:00 -
[87]
Edited by: SiJira on 19/04/2008 16:26:36
unlikely to harm ccp
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Norwest
Siege Warfare And Recon Missions
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 16:53:00 -
[88]
For those who are interested, the OP's panic was caused by this article in Animation World Magazine.
[Yes I say panic, because it the bill hasn't been drafted yet, and, and the US hasn't even whispered about withdrawing from the Berne Convention - which governs international copyright law]
A more informed take on this matter (and one that's nicely linked to actual US government info) can be found Here
Just to insert a bit of outside sources into the discussion 
*****
Rule 27: 'Don't be afraid to be the first to resort to violence.'
-The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates [schlockmercenary.com] |
xJillianx
Gallente
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 18:38:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Nova Fox
Chibbera would respond he wouldn't know who did the art work.
Who the F**K is Chibbera? I think you mean to say Chribba :)
Develop the Eve-Dictionary and include "Chribba (n) - Owner of such wonders as the Veldnaught and eve-files.com"
|
Luh Windan
Minmatar
Republic University
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 18:49:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Norwest
A more informed take on this matter (and one that's nicely linked to actual US government info) can be found Here
Sadly that article didn't seem to improve the quality of thinking when I linked to it earlier on in this thread. Perhaps another link will help but sadly I think that panic and overreaction are the past times of a great many of the posters on this forum (ranging from "oh noes eve is dead (again)" to "carebears/pirates* get an unfair advantage" (*delete as applicable).
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |