Let's remember that, "non-profit" doesn't mean, "does good works for free".
Lets also remember that when punishing someone legally, you can be 'right', but also look like an ass when the details hit the front page.
I think people should get to decide how their creative works are used.
Then don't leave it somewhere that anyone can pick up and use it.
Put a big friggin watermark over it, anything but posting the image online where it can be copied freely and infinitely at no cost.
Of course say you do that and then you license it and someone uses it legally, and they just copy it from them instead...
It is in conflict of copyright law (currently) but copying things is what the internet and computers do. You can't prevent that when it can scale to infinite numbers at no cost.
If he found a 'lot' perhaps he should question whether any real harm is being done. Since he didn't know about the usage yesterday and was seemingly quite happy with everything, finding many instances of illegal use should make you question whether that illegal use has actually caused you any harm.
Plus, given her reaction, do you really think she would have responded any more reasonably if he had just contacted her directly?
Nope, but we'll never know. The 'good guy' move was contacting her directly and waiting a reasonable amount of time for a response. She likewise wouldn't have gone nearly as postal if all her sites hadn't been taken down either. Sure GoDaddy bears some responsibility there, but if you're going to fire a cannon like the DMCA, there's bound to be collateral damage that he now found uncomfortable. Know what your weapon will do before you use it. Did he ask GoDaddy what their policy was? Did he bother to look it up?
He was legally correct in his actions. Doesn't make him look 'good' though.
I'm no lawyer, but I would assume the woman actually has a case against Go Daddy (not the photographer), for taking down the non-infringing sites. Especially if she really did suffer financial damages.
I'd expect that their TOS absolves them of any liability as they do have lawyers writing that drivel.
I will compensate him for everything was deprived of...which is nothing.
This is of course in conflict with copyright laws, but the fact remains that copies can be made infinitely and with effectively no resources - if it's infinitely available, it has no intrinsic value...just like air. It's only of 'value' when it's in short supply; i.e. scarce. Digital copies on the internet are not scarce.
The problem is this mentality is created because there is 'no harm' done when a copy of an image is made and used. People rightly realize that the original person still has their copy and was never deprived of it.
If you're selling digital files that can be copied infinitely as a business model, you're going to lose in the long run. Everyone can just make a copy once it's on the internet.
Now, this technically is copyright infringement, but when it's for personal use (this case doesn't exactly fit that, but many would argue non-profit use should be included in Fair Use) there is simply no harm to the copyright owner. Gain has been had by the user of it, but no harm has been done to the copyright owner, since by definition, they didn't even know about the pictures use previously and would have said they were fully satisfied with the 'use' of the copy they had.
I have been sending DMCA take-down notices on so many sites it was becoming an cookie cutter assembly line process and I was not paying all that close attention.
So he filed legally binding documents without reading them through or investigating the consequences. Technically invalid DMCA's are supposed to be perjury...now his may have been accurate and he just decided 'this time' to call it back, but if we have this law it needs to have teeth against abuse.
Uh, no, the straight to the DMCA is a douche bag move. Contacting the people and politely ask them to take it down is the 'good guy' move. He didn't do that.
He went legal first without even talking to her. Sure it's his right, but so is ambulance chasing; doesn't make him a 'good guy' though.
She fully acknowledges she's got some name recognition. The loyal following? You don't get that without being good and providing what people want (and surpassing even).
Are you going from zero to Amanda Palmer status overnight? Not likely. But technically it's possible - without any label intervention, just crowd funding. You have to provide a compelling reason for people to donate, but if you can't do that, you probably weren't getting that demo tape advance either...
BR
The tools exist for anyone with the talent and skill to do this - without the aid of the labels. That is fundamentally different than ever before.
Shame you posted AC. You're 2nd paragraph is almost word for word what I've been saying for years. The internet is taking music back to the 17th century; when you wanted to hear music you needed live musicians...period.
You can't copy that feeling and experience. That's where the money is...and also why even established bands are touring like crazy. That money is primarily theirs and not the labels.
Yes, but then the music will be freely copied, and you won't make any money
False. If you only try to 'sell' copies of music, perhaps you won't make any money, but using those free copies to drive people to buy things that can't be copied leverages the infinite supply available on the internet. Sell tickets to a concert, sell t-shirts, sell signed prints, whatever.
Google 'Amanda Palmer' for an example. She's got a Kickstarter project that's grossed upwards of I think $800k, $100k in the first seven HOURS. You don't need labels to make records and sell things around them.
Old school is going to lose in the modern digital world. It will probably survive somewhat, but the music labels are no longer the gate keepers determining who makes it big and who doesn't.
The new 'boss' can be used to drive people to buy things from you that can't be freely copied. The 'boss' is you. Spotify are indeed just a revamp of the old, but the tools now exist for anyone to be able to produce/record quality music and distribute it far and wide at very little cost.
You don't *need* the labels anymore. It's the known and comfortable thing, but if you change the business model from selling music to selling actual 'stuff' using the music now your potential market is as vast as the internet.
Centrailia, PA is about 1 sq mile. And people still live there. Evacuation of a few thousand people perhaps. Not Tokyo sized by any stretch. And it's not 100 miles away from the problem, it's right on top of it.
Acid rain, again, operational issue that was FIXED not a failure issue. No evacuations of major cities.
Cuyahoga River - yep, sure glad we had to evacuate Akron and Cleveland...oh wait.
None of those things are at the scale of nuclear.
Gulf disaster. Last I checked nobody was starving.
Fracking, guess what I'm against that too. They claim it's 'safe' though. Doesn't require evacuation, just water delivery.
RENEWABLE is the only way forward though we will need these techs for the next 50-100 years. Which is what I said and you seem to agree with.
'proven reserves' doesn't mean cheap. Hence why we are only now talking about the tar sands. We've known they were there for decades but they weren't viable because it costs so much to get it out.
In the nice theoretical world of economics you are correct. You simply switch when the prices go up. Unfortunately other solutions don't magically appear when you need them though. If they have 20 year lead times to get to scale, you're stuck for that 20 years paying high prices for both.
My point is that when you are artificially keeping the cost of the status quo down through tax cuts and not taxing the effects of it (global warming) then you changing the rules of the economic game being played.
Coal will run out, though yes we have centuries of it available. It has other problems that are going to be sooner in their emergence. You can wait until those problems become significant, but when you can see trends that parallel the historical record that leads to bad things like sea level rise of meters, you might want to dump your 'theories' and actually start trying to change the direction you're going on before you have to do both at the same time. That will be significantly more expensive than spreading out the cost over time.
In economics it's call Amortization or perhaps better a Loan. You spread the cost out over time rather than eat it all at once. You don't wait till you have cash to buy a house because you'll have paid rent for 40 years while also saving for the house. You take out a loan and pay it off over time.
It is ironic indeed. I was amazed to find out that they kept 3 other reactors running for years after the disaster. They finally closed the last one though and there are no plans to go back in.
9/11 was not a failure of aircraft. It was a calculated attack so as to maximize damage.
But if you want to go that route, how about a 9/11 hitting a spent nuclear fuel pond which is NOT hardened against attack? Double whammy.
If the gov't hadn't lied to people about the dangers of ground zero, I have friends who worked there from day 2 for weeks btw, proper safety gear could have been worn and prevented the problems you claim. They were told it was safe when we knew, or at least should have known, that it could very possibly not be safe.
You also make my point. Manhattan is not evacuated and uninhabitable. A nuclear disaster at that site would have rendered the entire island off limits for decades.
It goes beyond filtering... after you filter, what do you do with what you filtered out...
We already have that problem with nuclear waste. So I'll take a lack of 100 sq miles being evacuated and deal with filter cleaning thank you. Is it an issue? Sure, but it's 'operational' not 'failure'. BIG difference.
Again, everything with coal 'failures' you can walk into the 'disaster' zone the very next day wearing a wind breaker and clean it up. Not great, but it's not the scale or hazard that nuclear presents.
The only reason coal even has a leg to stand is that people often see the pollution which is not the case with nuclear. People are scared of what they don't see/understand.
No, coal has issues of 'design' and 'operation' but not failure issues. Acid rain caused by power plants was solved. When the issue becomes significant enough we can choose to fix them because they are operational issues. Lead in the environment was solved. Operational issues can be fixed. Failures can't because by definition they have failed and your safe guards have been overcome.
You can't 'fix' a failure where the area is contaminated so as to prevent human presence.
Gore's Tennessee house uses a massive amount of electricity, something people call him a hypocrite for. Yet he generates almost all that energy on site via solar (he had to get a permit to be a power plant his installation was so large). So he is following his own preachings. That indoor AC'd court likewise. If he's generating that AC's power via solar, what's the problem?
Likewise they called him a hypocrite for buying a 'beach front' house in CA while warning about rising sea levels. The problem? His house is on a 50 foot CLIFF above the water.
Don't buy into the people calling him a hypocrite when he actually does things that follow his exact preachings if you dig into the details.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's remember that, "non-profit" doesn't mean, "does good works for free".
Lets also remember that when punishing someone legally, you can be 'right', but also look like an ass when the details hit the front page.
I think people should get to decide how their creative works are used.
Then don't leave it somewhere that anyone can pick up and use it.
Put a big friggin watermark over it, anything but posting the image online where it can be copied freely and infinitely at no cost.
Of course say you do that and then you license it and someone uses it legally, and they just copy it from them instead...
It is in conflict of copyright law (currently) but copying things is what the internet and computers do. You can't prevent that when it can scale to infinite numbers at no cost.
Ok he went 'legal' on her first before talking to her. Happy?
Ask GoDaddy what their policy is before filing maybe?
Also, ambulance chasing is illegal in the US. your argument is invalid.
Ok, I concede, lawyers have a stellar reputation and are among the most upstanding individuals in the world....at least until they get to work.
Plus, given her reaction, do you really think she would have responded any more reasonably if he had just contacted her directly?
Nope, but we'll never know. The 'good guy' move was contacting her directly and waiting a reasonable amount of time for a response. She likewise wouldn't have gone nearly as postal if all her sites hadn't been taken down either. Sure GoDaddy bears some responsibility there, but if you're going to fire a cannon like the DMCA, there's bound to be collateral damage that he now found uncomfortable. Know what your weapon will do before you use it. Did he ask GoDaddy what their policy was? Did he bother to look it up?
He was legally correct in his actions. Doesn't make him look 'good' though.
The perspective is the DMCA is flatly unconstitutional by design.
I accuse you of a crime. You get punished for that crime until you can prove otherwise.
Oh and you just contacted me and now I'm contacting you...on the internet.
because copyright infringement is so similar to drug use and abuse...
And using marijuana, a drug that is becoming legal in many places as your example isn't exactly a strong point.
So it's guilty until proven innocent? that just oozes 'good guy'
I'm no lawyer, but I would assume the woman actually has a case against Go Daddy (not the photographer), for taking down the non-infringing sites. Especially if she really did suffer financial damages.
I'd expect that their TOS absolves them of any liability as they do have lawyers writing that drivel.
I will compensate him for everything was deprived of...which is nothing.
This is of course in conflict with copyright laws, but the fact remains that copies can be made infinitely and with effectively no resources - if it's infinitely available, it has no intrinsic value...just like air. It's only of 'value' when it's in short supply; i.e. scarce. Digital copies on the internet are not scarce.
Going straight to the lawyers is now the 'good guy' move?
The problem is this mentality is created because there is 'no harm' done when a copy of an image is made and used. People rightly realize that the original person still has their copy and was never deprived of it.
If you're selling digital files that can be copied infinitely as a business model, you're going to lose in the long run. Everyone can just make a copy once it's on the internet.
Now, this technically is copyright infringement, but when it's for personal use (this case doesn't exactly fit that, but many would argue non-profit use should be included in Fair Use) there is simply no harm to the copyright owner. Gain has been had by the user of it, but no harm has been done to the copyright owner, since by definition, they didn't even know about the pictures use previously and would have said they were fully satisfied with the 'use' of the copy they had.
I have been sending DMCA take-down notices on so many sites it was becoming an cookie cutter assembly line process and I was not paying all that close attention.
So he filed legally binding documents without reading them through or investigating the consequences. Technically invalid DMCA's are supposed to be perjury...now his may have been accurate and he just decided 'this time' to call it back, but if we have this law it needs to have teeth against abuse.
Uh, no, the straight to the DMCA is a douche bag move. Contacting the people and politely ask them to take it down is the 'good guy' move. He didn't do that.
He went legal first without even talking to her. Sure it's his right, but so is ambulance chasing; doesn't make him a 'good guy' though.
You're a dinosaur ;-) Enjoy being made into fuel...
She fully acknowledges she's got some name recognition. The loyal following? You don't get that without being good and providing what people want (and surpassing even).
Are you going from zero to Amanda Palmer status overnight? Not likely. But technically it's possible - without any label intervention, just crowd funding. You have to provide a compelling reason for people to donate, but if you can't do that, you probably weren't getting that demo tape advance either...
BR The tools exist for anyone with the talent and skill to do this - without the aid of the labels. That is fundamentally different than ever before.
Shame you posted AC. You're 2nd paragraph is almost word for word what I've been saying for years. The internet is taking music back to the 17th century; when you wanted to hear music you needed live musicians...period.
You can't copy that feeling and experience. That's where the money is...and also why even established bands are touring like crazy. That money is primarily theirs and not the labels.
Yes, but then the music will be freely copied, and you won't make any money
False. If you only try to 'sell' copies of music, perhaps you won't make any money, but using those free copies to drive people to buy things that can't be copied leverages the infinite supply available on the internet. Sell tickets to a concert, sell t-shirts, sell signed prints, whatever.
Google 'Amanda Palmer' for an example. She's got a Kickstarter project that's grossed upwards of I think $800k, $100k in the first seven HOURS. You don't need labels to make records and sell things around them.
Old school is going to lose in the modern digital world. It will probably survive somewhat, but the music labels are no longer the gate keepers determining who makes it big and who doesn't.
The new 'boss' can be used to drive people to buy things from you that can't be freely copied. The 'boss' is you. Spotify are indeed just a revamp of the old, but the tools now exist for anyone to be able to produce/record quality music and distribute it far and wide at very little cost.
You don't *need* the labels anymore. It's the known and comfortable thing, but if you change the business model from selling music to selling actual 'stuff' using the music now your potential market is as vast as the internet.
Centrailia, PA is about 1 sq mile. And people still live there. Evacuation of a few thousand people perhaps. Not Tokyo sized by any stretch. And it's not 100 miles away from the problem, it's right on top of it.
Acid rain, again, operational issue that was FIXED not a failure issue. No evacuations of major cities.
Cuyahoga River - yep, sure glad we had to evacuate Akron and Cleveland...oh wait.
None of those things are at the scale of nuclear.
Gulf disaster. Last I checked nobody was starving.
Fracking, guess what I'm against that too. They claim it's 'safe' though. Doesn't require evacuation, just water delivery.
RENEWABLE is the only way forward though we will need these techs for the next 50-100 years. Which is what I said and you seem to agree with.
'proven reserves' doesn't mean cheap. Hence why we are only now talking about the tar sands. We've known they were there for decades but they weren't viable because it costs so much to get it out.
In the nice theoretical world of economics you are correct. You simply switch when the prices go up. Unfortunately other solutions don't magically appear when you need them though. If they have 20 year lead times to get to scale, you're stuck for that 20 years paying high prices for both.
My point is that when you are artificially keeping the cost of the status quo down through tax cuts and not taxing the effects of it (global warming) then you changing the rules of the economic game being played.
Coal will run out, though yes we have centuries of it available. It has other problems that are going to be sooner in their emergence. You can wait until those problems become significant, but when you can see trends that parallel the historical record that leads to bad things like sea level rise of meters, you might want to dump your 'theories' and actually start trying to change the direction you're going on before you have to do both at the same time. That will be significantly more expensive than spreading out the cost over time.
In economics it's call Amortization or perhaps better a Loan. You spread the cost out over time rather than eat it all at once. You don't wait till you have cash to buy a house because you'll have paid rent for 40 years while also saving for the house. You take out a loan and pay it off over time.
It is ironic indeed. I was amazed to find out that they kept 3 other reactors running for years after the disaster. They finally closed the last one though and there are no plans to go back in.
9/11 was not a failure of aircraft. It was a calculated attack so as to maximize damage.
But if you want to go that route, how about a 9/11 hitting a spent nuclear fuel pond which is NOT hardened against attack? Double whammy.
If the gov't hadn't lied to people about the dangers of ground zero, I have friends who worked there from day 2 for weeks btw, proper safety gear could have been worn and prevented the problems you claim. They were told it was safe when we knew, or at least should have known, that it could very possibly not be safe.
You also make my point. Manhattan is not evacuated and uninhabitable. A nuclear disaster at that site would have rendered the entire island off limits for decades.
It goes beyond filtering... after you filter, what do you do with what you filtered out...
We already have that problem with nuclear waste. So I'll take a lack of 100 sq miles being evacuated and deal with filter cleaning thank you. Is it an issue? Sure, but it's 'operational' not 'failure'. BIG difference.
Again, everything with coal 'failures' you can walk into the 'disaster' zone the very next day wearing a wind breaker and clean it up. Not great, but it's not the scale or hazard that nuclear presents.
The only reason coal even has a leg to stand is that people often see the pollution which is not the case with nuclear. People are scared of what they don't see/understand.
No, coal has issues of 'design' and 'operation' but not failure issues. Acid rain caused by power plants was solved. When the issue becomes significant enough we can choose to fix them because they are operational issues. Lead in the environment was solved. Operational issues can be fixed. Failures can't because by definition they have failed and your safe guards have been overcome.
You can't 'fix' a failure where the area is contaminated so as to prevent human presence.
Gore's Tennessee house uses a massive amount of electricity, something people call him a hypocrite for. Yet he generates almost all that energy on site via solar (he had to get a permit to be a power plant his installation was so large). So he is following his own preachings. That indoor AC'd court likewise. If he's generating that AC's power via solar, what's the problem?
Likewise they called him a hypocrite for buying a 'beach front' house in CA while warning about rising sea levels. The problem? His house is on a 50 foot CLIFF above the water.
Don't buy into the people calling him a hypocrite when he actually does things that follow his exact preachings if you dig into the details.