I don't know that all value is based on scarcity. This is used to set the price of commodities but some things are really important like fuel and food and when circumstances permit such commodities are subject to rationing rather than the price mechanism. This posting seems to suggest that digitized material since it can be copied so easily has no value. This assumption is based on the perception of the possible lack of morals in those that view such material (and may be correct!) That if one published photos or other material on the Internet then it may be copied and reproduced freely. I suppose it may be as the cost of a law suite precludes only the rich from taking out proceedings. but for a company to actually sell someone's else's work without permission and for a website company to deter their customers from publishing a complaint about this is unbelieveable.
Maybe the poster is able to take photographs of acknowledged quality and is prepared for some other company to sell his (or her work) without paying the appropriate fee, but why should other photographers have to accept this? Flickr should NOT have deleted that post but should have investigated the complaint. But to be cynical, it is easier to back off from time consuming, possibly expensive proceedings that may involve the law courts.
My reservations: I won't use Flickr or any other similar service, that offers no copyright protection, to publish my photographs, and will make sure that my photographs are of low resolution or only include part of the photograph at high resolution whenever I publish material.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that all value is based on scarcity. This is used to set the price of commodities but some things are really important like fuel and food and when circumstances permit such commodities are subject to rationing rather than the price mechanism. This posting seems to suggest that digitized material since it can be copied so easily has no value. This assumption is based on the perception of the possible lack of morals in those that view such material (and may be correct!) That if one published photos or other material on the Internet then it may be copied and reproduced freely. I suppose it may be as the cost of a law suite precludes only the rich from taking out proceedings. but for a company to actually sell someone's else's work without permission and for a website company to deter their customers from publishing a complaint about this is unbelieveable. Maybe the poster is able to take photographs of acknowledged quality and is prepared for some other company to sell his (or her work) without paying the appropriate fee, but why should other photographers have to accept this? Flickr should NOT have deleted that post but should have investigated the complaint. But to be cynical, it is easier to back off from time consuming, possibly expensive proceedings that may involve the law courts. My reservations: I won't use Flickr or any other similar service, that offers no copyright protection, to publish my photographs, and will make sure that my photographs are of low resolution or only include part of the photograph at high resolution whenever I publish material.