|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 21:30:43 GMT -5
I can mostly get behind that, but I would like to know the reason why that law was made in the first place. I don't understand it and for all I know, it could have a vital purpose. It's to prevent the selective abuse of trademark lawsuits. If a company ignores trademark violations against them until they find a really juicy target, that makes the case a bit suspicious. That said, some lawyers will get overzealous and come up with really fucking stupid lawsuits. :V ... Um... :V While that may be suspicious.... is it necessarily wrong? :V It means they'll go after the people who have enough money to actually support the lawsuits levied against them. Theoretically. It just seems like it creates more problems than it solves. I mean, just look at how the RIAA handles... any of their cases, really.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 21, 2011 21:49:12 GMT -5
Or against people who actually represent a threat to the owner's rights on the product and ability to make use of them.
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Nov 21, 2011 22:32:30 GMT -5
$1000!?!?!? HELL yes they should. Even if their product wasn't being pirated, they should lower those prices. How the hell can anyone afford that price!? That price alone is more damaging to company profits than the piracy itself :< Photoshop CS5 is aimed at professionals, and is $700 (most people will claim that as a tax deduction). There's an educational discount that brings it down to $200 for students and teachers. Photoshop Elements is the consumer version and is only $100. Adobe have a fairly good pricing model.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 22:40:21 GMT -5
$1000!?!?!? HELL yes they should. Even if their product wasn't being pirated, they should lower those prices. How the hell can anyone afford that price!? That price alone is more damaging to company profits than the piracy itself :< Photoshop CS5 is aimed at professionals, and is $700 (most people will claim that as a tax deduction). There's an educational discount that brings it down to $200 for students and teachers. Photoshop Elements is the consumer version and is only $100. Adobe have a fairly good pricing model. Well that makes more sense, though $100 is still pricy, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 21, 2011 23:09:23 GMT -5
I think a lot of stuff that is pirated is naturally overpriced, frankly.
|
|
Paimun
Full Member
Captain Punderpants!
dick fingers
Posts: 221
|
Post by Paimun on Nov 22, 2011 1:12:37 GMT -5
Photoshop CS5 is aimed at professionals, and is $700 (most people will claim that as a tax deduction). There's an educational discount that brings it down to $200 for students and teachers. Photoshop Elements is the consumer version and is only $100. Adobe have a fairly good pricing model. Well that makes more sense, though $100 is still pricy, in my opinion. It looks like a lot on paper for software, being a little bit of code on a disc and all, but you do have to consider all the man hours and sophisticated algorithms that go into Photoshop alone. Adobe definitely makes good graphics editing software. And I forget who I was talking to about it, but a game developer in #FSTDT once told me some kind of Microsoft dev kit for the Xbox cost well over 10 grand. I'm not exactly sure what it entails, but apparently it comes in a very large physical case so no one can steal the physical PC, as well as the completely unlocked copy of the Xbox OS that (I think, if I remember correctly) comes with it. Software can definitely be some pretty intense and expensive shit.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 22, 2011 1:24:17 GMT -5
Well that makes more sense, though $100 is still pricy, in my opinion. It looks like a lot on paper for software, being a little bit of code on a disc and all, but you do have to consider all the man hours and sophisticated algorithms that go into Photoshop alone. Adobe definitely makes good graphics editing software. And I forget who I was talking to about it, but a game developer in #FSTDT once told me some kind of Microsoft dev kit for the Xbox cost well over 10 grand. I'm not exactly sure what it entails, but apparently it comes in a very large physical case so no one can steal the physical PC, as well as the completely unlocked copy of the Xbox OS that (I think, if I remember correctly) comes with it. Software can definitely be some pretty intense and expensive shit. While I do understand that man hours and much work has to go into coding (it never even occurred to me that it's just a "code on a tiny little disc"), the problem is that when you make your product too expensive, people aren't going to rush out and buy it, which will actually hurt your profit. Now, $700 for a corporation (which is kind of a pittance, if you think about it) and $200 for a student/teacher make a little more sense. That's fine. $100 is a bit much for the "average" consumer who generally does not expect to make money from the results of the product. Then again, I'm confused as to why people are buying Skyrim by itself at $60 when they can wait some years and get it and all of its DLC for $20-30, so maybe a cheapskate like me has no place in this discussion.
|
|
Paimun
Full Member
Captain Punderpants!
dick fingers
Posts: 221
|
Post by Paimun on Nov 22, 2011 3:10:01 GMT -5
the problem is that when you make your product too expensive, people aren't going to rush out and buy it, which will actually hurt your profit. Of course, kind of like the bicycle in Pokemon Red that cost a million poke. I honestly have no idea if Photoshop is overpriced or not though; it probably is to some degree, and at the same time, it probably is going to be a little expensive, no matter how you can slice it. I guess what I'm trying to say is I agree with you, but I also don't think Photoshop is something they'd give away for $20 either. The $700/$200/$100 pricing model actually seems very generous all things considering. Microsoft Office is a load of trash and that's $150 to start with. Of course, GIMP is free, but don't let anyone fool you into thinking it's half as good as Photoshop. Also the pricing scheme is totally socialist! Why should corporations pay more, everyone should pay the same, boycott Adobe rabble rabble rabble. Then again, I'm confused as to why people are buying Skyrim by itself at $60 when they can wait some years and get it and all of its DLC for $20-30, so maybe a cheapskate like me has no place in this discussion. Because they want it now. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people want to wait for it to go down in price and sell as a player's choice/GOTY edition/whatever, some people are willing to shell out the extra cash to play it ASAP. It's all in what your priorities are, playing games or saving money. It's also why some people wait for games to be released as used. That and you can return used games at Gamestop for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 22, 2011 3:31:04 GMT -5
I can mostly get behind that, but I would like to know the reason why that law was made in the first place. I don't understand it and for all I know, it could have a vital purpose. It's to prevent the selective abuse of trademark lawsuits. If a company ignores trademark violations against them until they find a really juicy target, that makes the case a bit suspicious. That said, some lawyers will get overzealous and come up with really fucking stupid lawsuits. I understand the reasoning but I think they should instead look at it in the case of people profiting from copyright violation. As has been mentioned people use pictures of characters and snaps and segments of shows in forums, and this law would close all that down (well not really, people will just shift to sites beyond American regulation). However, none of the people who use these images are doing so for any kind of profit. If anything the images that these people use act as free marketing. (of course the company lawyers don't realize that.)
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 22, 2011 7:01:38 GMT -5
I cannot for the life of me understand how people arguing the anti piracy angle can blithely ignore the capacity for abuse inherit in this bill-basically giving anyone with an axe to grind access to a free cease and desist notice they can slap on any website that's legally binding. Piracy won't even be affected in the long term, people will get around that but the chilling effects of censorship will stay.
Sure protect your intellectual copyright, but not at the fucking price of human fucking rights, not at the cost of scumbags censoring anyone they don't like. These are your American laws, don't make your American problems fuck over non Americans who aren't pirating but could be getting censored by their own governments who will use your shiny new anti piracy law to shut down dissent away from your borders! It's probably a bad idea allow them to use your anti piracy laws to squelch dissent in America for that matter.
Because that's what will happen right quick if this stupid moronic bill gets passed!
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 22, 2011 7:43:01 GMT -5
I understand the reasoning but I think they should instead look at it in the case of people profiting from copyright violation. As has been mentioned people use pictures of characters and snaps and segments of shows in forums, and this law would close all that down (well not really, people will just shift to sites beyond American regulation). As has been said before, using copyrighted material in such a way falls under fair use. Fair use has Free Speech protection. One challenge and the law will be struck down for being unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 9:23:27 GMT -5
I cannot for the life of me understand how people arguing the anti piracy angle can blithely ignore the capacity for abuse inherit in this bill-basically giving anyone with an axe to grind access to a free cease and desist notice they can slap on any website that's legally binding. You should read the bill. Not stories about the bill, but the actually bill itself. It does not allow people to do what you are stating above. That being said, I do not think this bill is a good idea. As it has been pointed out there are laws in place now to go after individuals and sites that pirate copyrighted material. The thing that gets me is how many excuses and justifications for piracy there are in this thread. Something being over priced, or not being available in a certain country does not give people justification to steal.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 22, 2011 11:13:58 GMT -5
I've seen it explained (in a Comic Book Legends Revealed column, I think) that companies have a legal obligation to pursue every single possible breach of their copyright, no matter how innocuous, that comes to their attention lest their hold on that copyright be diminished. That is to say, if they let things slide then the next time they fight an infringement it can be held against them. Assuming this is true, why don't we remove that law (which I'd bet fuels more of this kind of legislation than anything else other than piracy - which is still copyright infringement) rather than bitch about what is being done to follow it? It's actually rather simple. The short answer is greed. The longer answer is that larger corporations are better able to watch and regulate fair use of their copyrights than small companies are, thus can maintain their profits better than their potential competition, and because the larger companies are able to bribe give contributions to politicians they are able to influence what laws are passed. Most of what I have read about the history of copyright, trademark, and patent laws is that it mostly benefits the wealthier and larger companies/people at the detriment of the not-so-wealthy or small companies/people. After all, an individual is not going to benefit from copyright protecting their idea for 70 years after their death, but a corporation will profit from it.
Now, I do actually have a question over the piracy of songs. Back in '99-2000 I took a TV production class at a local station's studio. Along with covering some basics of video design and how to use the equipment (from cameras to editing booths) was making sure people understood the legality of their productions. One of the popular items they would use to fill time between larger productions (so that they could stick to the normal half-hour broadcasting schedule) was to air music videos that people made. These videos consisted of various images, such as clips from home videos, films, shows, or still images, set to music made by a popular (or not so popular) artist/group. As long as they gave proper attribution (song name, artist's name, info on where copyrighted video/stills came from, etc) they were perfectly legal under fair use laws; as also proven that they had done so for years without any problems. Since there's really no difference between airing it on a local channel and uploading something to YouTube, say someone uploads such a music video for people to enjoy (in fact I have even done this, because they can be fun to make). Now, because of fair use laws these music videos can still be edited by other people, given the same rule and regulations they were created under. So, say someone else downloads the music video (which is perfectly allowable under fair use, and I really don't think you can say anything about it being against YouTubes terms of service since you do not have to read or accept their ToS in order to watch things since you can easily do so without having an account). Now, say they then rip the audio track from the music video; either with a program on their computer or one of the numerous sites online that will automatically do it for you. Because the audio in a video can be saved at the same quality as the song it was made from, and likewise can be removed at the same quality it was in the video, the extracted song can be identical to the song file originally used, aside from the name and other meta-data that is really unimportant as people can modify that depending on their file management preferences. So, now a question becomes: what is the difference between person A making a music video from which person B extracts the song from, and person A just giving person B a copy of the song itself?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 22, 2011 14:01:39 GMT -5
So, now a question becomes: what is the difference between person A making a music video from which person B extracts the song from, and person A just giving person B a copy of the song itself? B would be taking the music illegally in both cases. Unless of course he uses it in his own video. I guess "use" is the whole key in free use.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Nov 23, 2011 11:20:49 GMT -5
But what if person B only does it for personal use? How would extracting the audio track be any different from extracting video clips or still images to use in a music video, or to make as your desktop background/wallpaper? If person B was to then distribute the extracted audio track I could see it as being the same as releasing a torrent or otherwise directly handing out the song to people, but I just can't see there being any actual restriction if it's just for personal use.
People already make derivative works of derivative works quite regularly, and a lot is even published by companies that make a profit from it (such as games or game supplements made off of book that was based on a film). Obviously companies must obtain licence (permission) to use copyrighted and trademarked material for the purpose of selling it, but individuals who make derivative works and share them (such as uploading it to the 'net) freely don't need a licence to do so as it is covered under fair use (fanfiction and fanart are great examples of this).
|
|