|
Post by johnnyb on May 24, 2013 13:13:41 GMT -5
The digital age left some people behind. So did 7th grade.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 24, 2013 14:57:52 GMT -5
If my using your image damages you (and I don't mean in a you could have gotten $5 from me for it way) then you'd have a case against me. If I took a picture you took of yourself and started using it without your permission to advertise an adult website I've hurt your image and reputation and you'd have a case against me for damages. The employer can have anything written in the contract (to an extent. You can't offer a contract to someone that says at anytime of their choosing they may assault you but they can have it written that you must wear red hats every Tuesday.) So you can put in that the employee may not sell it or give it away. Companies put no compete clauses in contracts, put one in that says they cannot give company information to anyone even their wife or neighbor even after they leave the company. It is ridiculous because that's not at all what I'm saying. You obviously cannot make someone take part in a contract they didn't sign. You have no way of forbidding a company from donating or giving money to someone. They didn't sign anything. Yes, I know people who pirate music. I know a lot of people who pirate music and then go out and buy the CDs of the musicians. There are many musicians I never would have come to love if I hadn't heard their music first, most of it comes from people taking the music and putting in on youtube without permission of the record label. If I hadn't heard it illegally (according to the record company) then I wouldn't have known they were good and would never have went out and bought their music. So there are times where taking someone's work benefits that person. Let's say the taco guy did think Dorito shelled tacos would be a good idea. He's not the first person to think of it. There is no way for him to prove he thought of it first. Maybe he sent them an idea for it, again doesn't matter because I highly doubt he was the first to ever bring it up. The garage sale example was in reference to the book. You are saying someone shouldn't be able to sell something without compensating the maker. Me buying a book from someone doesn't put a penny in the author's pocket. If I had just bought the book at the store then they'd get money but since I bought from someone who already bought it the author is losing out on that sale. So, as long as I don't damage your reputation it's ok if I profit from your work without compensating you at all? Coke is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet. So let's say I open a sandwich shop and put all over my marquee that this is the official sandwich shop of Coca-cola. They can't stop me from doing this? Being associating with a sandwich shop doesn't really damage their brand at all. So I can benefit from Coke's brand image without compensating them at all? That should be completely legal? I now have to put in my employee contract that you can't steal company property? Shall I also put in it that you can't spray paint the building or beat your co-worker with sticks? Or can we simply have common sense laws against such things? You missed my point. Do you care that your friends pirate music? Does it affect your opinion of them at all? Of course not. If it came out that WFigs stole their logo from someone else's site without compensating them would you stop coming here? Of course you wouldn't. The garage sale is a completely different example from mine because the author was compensated at some point. If you bought my book and then sold it again later on (even if you sold it for more than you paid for it) I was still compensated at the original purchase and you no longer have access to my work after selling it. I was compensated at one point even if it was way back up the food chain. Completely different from you getting a copy of my ebook and selling it a billion times. Even if you pay for it once that doesn't give you the right to sell it multiple times without compensating me does it? Why should you profit from my work without compensating me for it? Why? They could, yes. However if they opened the restaurant with the intent of damaging the Coke brand (bad service and food) then Coke would have a claim for damages. I also don't think if you called yourself that that Coke would be willing to sell you Coke products for your restaurant so you'd have to go out and buy a ton of Coke yourself to meet the demands. What I want is not criminal penalties for the employee giving out company secrets. I want civil penalties that the employee would pay the employer. What good does it do the employer if the employee is sitting in jail? The employee's reputation would be damaged and who would want to hire a person who gives out company secrets? Sure the company he gave secrets to may hire him until a company with a better offer comes along to get their secrets. Then he'll go from company to company giving out secrets until one day no company will even go near him. Since I don't think it's that big of a deal, no, I don't care. But you are missing out on sales because of garage sales. I buy your book for $5 and then I sell it to a friend. Well you just missed out on $5 because that person didn't buy it from you. They then sell it to someone, that's another $5 you are missing out on. So it doesn't matter if you only sold one copy, as long as the copy that is going around is that one you sold, right? I buy your book for $5. I sell it to John for $5. John sells it to April for $7. John has just profited from your work without compensating you. Should he have to mail you a check for the $2?
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 24, 2013 15:27:38 GMT -5
at the end of the day i am all for copyright laws in some form protecting artists from having their work exploited and directly copied, but someone creating something inspired by your creation is simply the natural human creative process. everything is a rip off. why let crapty ass court lawyers and judges with no true understanding of art and it's purpose decide what merits copyright infringement or not? for example: in this scenario, i imagine you'd side with disney. it's a direct copy of the steamboat willie era mickie, despite what differences they make of the character's motives or traits. i, on the other hand, completely side with the artist on this. I would side with Disney. They're clearly using a Disney trademark and using it in such a way that the brand is damaged. Mickey as a drug dealer could be very damaging to Disney since their reputation is based on being a family friendly company (whatever that means). So yeah, I'd side completely with Disney. It's one thing to be inspired by previous work, but another thing altogether to use intellectual property that someone already created for your own use without compensating them. Look at My Fair Lady. By your logic, even though George Bernard Shaw wrote Pygmalion, those who adapted his play into a musical shouldn't have to pay him or his estate any royalties. Or look at the latest run of superhero movies. Iron Man is a comic book hero. If we make a movie based on him can we do so without compensating Marvel? Or what if we just make a movie about a guy who builds a suit of armor so he can fight crime and we call him Steel Dude? Is that ok? i simply don't believe in the idea that an image can be protected to the point that you cannot actually do anything with it, rather you necessarily profit or not. i believe that if these corporate giants and even individual artists expect to profit from us consuming their work, then it completely leaves their material free to cut, copy, and paste to our own will. herbert block made endless cartoons depicting president nixon in questionable scenarios, the majority of which featuring the president with a 5 o'clock shadow and a scowl. herbert block profited from these cartoons published in newspapers, being by far most well known by his nixon drawings. what that artist in the video i posted basically did was the same thing to mickey mouse, but due to ridiculous copyrights disney restricted him. and yes, i know the difference: mickey mouse is a copyrighted animation, nixon is a real person. but these are the exact kinds of balogna distinctions the copyright act created, not defined. mickey mouse should be just as touchable...or untouchable...as the president. i think that someone should have the freedom and right to their idea. any bastardization of it following shouldn't really be up to them. "good artists borrow, great artists steal..." seems applicable in this, art cannot be limited by capitalist interest. which is essentially what happened here.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 24, 2013 15:35:57 GMT -5
at the end of the day i am all for copyright laws in some form protecting artists from having their work exploited and directly copied, but someone creating something inspired by your creation is simply the natural human creative process. everything is a rip off. why let crapty ass court lawyers and judges with no true understanding of art and it's purpose decide what merits copyright infringement or not? for example: in this scenario, i imagine you'd side with disney. it's a direct copy of the steamboat willie era mickie, despite what differences they make of the character's motives or traits. i, on the other hand, completely side with the artist on this. So you think the girl making minimum wage at six flags taking pictures is an artist? I think copyright laws should apply to commercial propertys. And not to family pictures. It just makes me wonder now, if I go to the park and take some pictures, do I have to call the city and ask if I have the rights to publish those fotos on facebook. It's just non stop sillyness. media, in all mediums, is not regulated to art. i am merely discussing that facet of copyright law.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 24, 2013 18:37:11 GMT -5
So, as long as I don't damage your reputation it's ok if I profit from your work without compensating you at all? Coke is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet. So let's say I open a sandwich shop and put all over my marquee that this is the official sandwich shop of Coca-cola. They can't stop me from doing this? Being associating with a sandwich shop doesn't really damage their brand at all. So I can benefit from Coke's brand image without compensating them at all? That should be completely legal? I now have to put in my employee contract that you can't steal company property? Shall I also put in it that you can't spray paint the building or beat your co-worker with sticks? Or can we simply have common sense laws against such things? You missed my point. Do you care that your friends pirate music? Does it affect your opinion of them at all? Of course not. If it came out that WFigs stole their logo from someone else's site without compensating them would you stop coming here? Of course you wouldn't. The garage sale is a completely different example from mine because the author was compensated at some point. If you bought my book and then sold it again later on (even if you sold it for more than you paid for it) I was still compensated at the original purchase and you no longer have access to my work after selling it. I was compensated at one point even if it was way back up the food chain. Completely different from you getting a copy of my ebook and selling it a billion times. Even if you pay for it once that doesn't give you the right to sell it multiple times without compensating me does it? Why should you profit from my work without compensating me for it? Why? They could, yes. However if they opened the restaurant with the intent of damaging the Coke brand (bad service and food) then Coke would have a claim for damages. I also don't think if you called yourself that that Coke would be willing to sell you Coke products for your restaurant so you'd have to go out and buy a ton of Coke yourself to meet the demands. What I want is not criminal penalties for the employee giving out company secrets. I want civil penalties that the employee would pay the employer. What good does it do the employer if the employee is sitting in jail? The employee's reputation would be damaged and who would want to hire a person who gives out company secrets? Sure the company he gave secrets to may hire him until a company with a better offer comes along to get their secrets. Then he'll go from company to company giving out secrets until one day no company will even go near him. Since I don't think it's that big of a deal, no, I don't care. But you are missing out on sales because of garage sales. I buy your book for $5 and then I sell it to a friend. Well you just missed out on $5 because that person didn't buy it from you. They then sell it to someone, that's another $5 you are missing out on. So it doesn't matter if you only sold one copy, as long as the copy that is going around is that one you sold, right? I buy your book for $5. I sell it to John for $5. John sells it to April for $7. John has just profited from your work without compensating you. Should he have to mail you a check for the $2? Heck, I could sell Pepsi products at my official sandwich shop of Coca-cola. As long as the Coke brand brings in customers, what do I care? What happens to the employee is really irrelevant. Whether he gets off scott-free or pays me a bajillion dollars in damages is beside the point. My competitor now has my trade secrets. There is absolutely nothing at all I can do about it. I can't stop him from using my design and claiming it's his. I can't stop him from selling my design, slapping my brand name on it and pocketing all the cash. There is nothing at all I can do to stop him. Who cares what happens to the employee at that point? My property is gone out the door and my competitor has it and I can do nothing at all to stop him according to you. Of course you don't think it's a big deal. Neither do I. That's my point. Coca-cola could steal my work all day long and no one at all would care. You can re-sale my book all day long for whatever price you want. As long as I'm compensated at some point, I'm fine w/it. I got compensated for the original sale. At that point it becomes your property to do whatever you want with it. You can sell it for 10x what you paid for it or burn it for all I care. It's your property and I was compensated for it.
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on May 24, 2013 18:52:57 GMT -5
My phone has a camera on it.....so I just take my pictures with that, regardless where I am. Unless it clearly says "No phones/photography", this really isn't an issue for me.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 24, 2013 19:26:53 GMT -5
I would side with Disney. They're clearly using a Disney trademark and using it in such a way that the brand is damaged. Mickey as a drug dealer could be very damaging to Disney since their reputation is based on being a family friendly company (whatever that means). So yeah, I'd side completely with Disney. It's one thing to be inspired by previous work, but another thing altogether to use intellectual property that someone already created for your own use without compensating them. Look at My Fair Lady. By your logic, even though George Bernard Shaw wrote Pygmalion, those who adapted his play into a musical shouldn't have to pay him or his estate any royalties. Or look at the latest run of superhero movies. Iron Man is a comic book hero. If we make a movie based on him can we do so without compensating Marvel? Or what if we just make a movie about a guy who builds a suit of armor so he can fight crime and we call him Steel Dude? Is that ok? i simply don't believe in the idea that an image can be protected to the point that you cannot actually do anything with it, rather you necessarily profit or not. i believe that if these corporate giants and even individual artists expect to profit from us consuming their work, then it completely leaves their material free to cut, copy, and paste to our own will. herbert block made endless cartoons depicting president nixon in questionable scenarios, the majority of which featuring the president with a 5 o'clock shadow and a scowl. herbert block profited from these cartoons published in newspapers, being by far most well known by his nixon drawings. what that artist in the video i posted basically did was the same thing to mickey mouse, but due to ridiculous copyrights disney restricted him. and yes, i know the difference: mickey mouse is a copyrighted animation, nixon is a real person. but these are the exact kinds of balogna distinctions the copyright act created, not defined. mickey mouse should be just as touchable...or untouchable...as the president. i think that someone should have the freedom and right to their idea. any bastardization of it following shouldn't really be up to them. "good artists borrow, great artists steal..." seems applicable in this, art cannot be limited by capitalist interest. which is essentially what happened here. Why not? If I create something why should I not have the right to profit from it in whatever way I see fit? Why should you have the right to profit from what I have created? To be fair, it may be in my best interest to let anyone use my property. But so what? Herbert Block's cartoons were satire which is fair use. And he is a real person, not a copyrighted creation. Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 24, 2013 20:06:08 GMT -5
They could, yes. However if they opened the restaurant with the intent of damaging the Coke brand (bad service and food) then Coke would have a claim for damages. I also don't think if you called yourself that that Coke would be willing to sell you Coke products for your restaurant so you'd have to go out and buy a ton of Coke yourself to meet the demands. What I want is not criminal penalties for the employee giving out company secrets. I want civil penalties that the employee would pay the employer. What good does it do the employer if the employee is sitting in jail? The employee's reputation would be damaged and who would want to hire a person who gives out company secrets? Sure the company he gave secrets to may hire him until a company with a better offer comes along to get their secrets. Then he'll go from company to company giving out secrets until one day no company will even go near him. Since I don't think it's that big of a deal, no, I don't care. But you are missing out on sales because of garage sales. I buy your book for $5 and then I sell it to a friend. Well you just missed out on $5 because that person didn't buy it from you. They then sell it to someone, that's another $5 you are missing out on. So it doesn't matter if you only sold one copy, as long as the copy that is going around is that one you sold, right? I buy your book for $5. I sell it to John for $5. John sells it to April for $7. John has just profited from your work without compensating you. Should he have to mail you a check for the $2? Heck, I could sell Pepsi products at my official sandwich shop of Coca-cola. As long as the Coke brand brings in customers, what do I care? What happens to the employee is really irrelevant. Whether he gets off scott-free or pays me a bajillion dollars in damages is beside the point. My competitor now has my trade secrets. There is absolutely nothing at all I can do about it. I can't stop him from using my design and claiming it's his. I can't stop him from selling my design, slapping my brand name on it and pocketing all the cash. There is nothing at all I can do to stop him. Who cares what happens to the employee at that point? My property is gone out the door and my competitor has it and I can do nothing at all to stop him according to you. Of course you don't think it's a big deal. Neither do I. That's my point. Coca-cola could steal my work all day long and no one at all would care. You can re-sale my book all day long for whatever price you want. As long as I'm compensated at some point, I'm fine w/it. I got compensated for the original sale. At that point it becomes your property to do whatever you want with it. You can sell it for 10x what you paid for it or burn it for all I care. It's your property and I was compensated for it. Why would customers go to a Coke theme restaurant to be served Pepsi? I'm certain they'd take their business elsewhere. If group A can make the same thing as group B but cheaper and sell it cheaper to everyone then it is to our benefit that group A be able to sell and make the product. Yes, you could take their design and use their name and sell it. However, how does that help you any? You don't get brand loyalty, you split everything with the other company. People won't know which is which and you won't get someone buying your product all the time because they may choose the other company's product over yours because they are the same name. Now if you took their name and made the product they sell bad so that customers no longer want to buy from that company name then the original company can get damages from you. How would the person get a copy of the book? They'd have to buy it (even if it is an ebook). Someone had to originally buy it and then make the copies. Unless they hacked in and got your book but that's a different matter. Most things I've seen of someone hacking in and taking something like books have done it to just release it to the public without selling what they took. Like one of Stephenie Meyer's book. Someone hacked in and released some chapters. They didn't try to sell it, they just released it.
|
|
|
Post by HHH316 on May 24, 2013 21:27:42 GMT -5
I can tell you first hand, as a photographer, the laws can be extremely tricky with photos. I've shot about everything you can think of, both as a freelancer for a company, full time shooter for a company, or doing something on the side. The laws can vary depending on the subject & where its physically taken.
As a photographer, I have never signed over a copyright. That's my work. But I typically always give the client the option to have buy the rights.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 25, 2013 1:18:30 GMT -5
So you think the girl making minimum wage at six flags taking pictures is an artist? I think copyright laws should apply to commercial propertys. And not to family pictures. It just makes me wonder now, if I go to the park and take some pictures, do I have to call the city and ask if I have the rights to publish those fotos on facebook. It's just non stop sillyness. Why would Six Flags not have rights to pictures that they take of you? They took the picture using their equipment. Why should they not have the rights? You ask me why would Six Flags not own the rights to the picture, and I would respond with a question to you. Why would they own the rights? I've been going to Six Flags for as long as I can remember. My parents always got season passes, I've always purchased season passes. In all of those years we've had pictures taken, we've purchased pictures. And in all those years this issue of rights to the fotos has never once been brought up. But now that Six Flags wants to sell you a flash drive for 40 dollars, now all of a sudden they mention the rights to a picture. It seems fictitious, it seems like extreme greed, it's just so ridiculous to me. It reminds me of when I was a kid and we would go on vacation. You would be able to take 2 bags per person on the aircraft plus a carry on. You would get a meal. Not though you are limited a certain number of bags, which of course you have to pay to have them checked in on certain airlines. They have a weight limit imposed on your 1 bag. There is rarely a meal service these days. You get charged for a boarding pass on certain airlines. It's just non stop greed.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on May 25, 2013 2:46:38 GMT -5
No matter how many times your family has been to Six Flags, the laws don't change.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 25, 2013 8:40:24 GMT -5
Why would Six Flags not have rights to pictures that they take of you? They took the picture using their equipment. Why should they not have the rights? You ask me why would Six Flags not own the rights to the picture, and I would respond with a question to you. Why would they own the rights? I've been going to Six Flags for as long as I can remember. My parents always got season passes, I've always purchased season passes. In all of those years we've had pictures taken, we've purchased pictures. And in all those years this issue of rights to the fotos has never once been brought up. But now that Six Flags wants to sell you a flash drive for 40 dollars, now all of a sudden they mention the rights to a picture. It seems fictitious, it seems like extreme greed, it's just so ridiculous to me. It reminds me of when I was a kid and we would go on vacation. You would be able to take 2 bags per person on the aircraft plus a carry on. You would get a meal. Not though you are limited a certain number of bags, which of course you have to pay to have them checked in on certain airlines. They have a weight limit imposed on your 1 bag. There is rarely a meal service these days. You get charged for a boarding pass on certain airlines. It's just non stop greed. Their employee took the picture with their equipment. Yet you should own it? So if I photobomb you, I now own the rights to that picture? Do you see how ridiculous that argument is? Probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 25, 2013 8:54:54 GMT -5
Heck, I could sell Pepsi products at my official sandwich shop of Coca-cola. As long as the Coke brand brings in customers, what do I care? What happens to the employee is really irrelevant. Whether he gets off scott-free or pays me a bajillion dollars in damages is beside the point. My competitor now has my trade secrets. There is absolutely nothing at all I can do about it. I can't stop him from using my design and claiming it's his. I can't stop him from selling my design, slapping my brand name on it and pocketing all the cash. There is nothing at all I can do to stop him. Who cares what happens to the employee at that point? My property is gone out the door and my competitor has it and I can do nothing at all to stop him according to you. Of course you don't think it's a big deal. Neither do I. That's my point. Coca-cola could steal my work all day long and no one at all would care. You can re-sale my book all day long for whatever price you want. As long as I'm compensated at some point, I'm fine w/it. I got compensated for the original sale. At that point it becomes your property to do whatever you want with it. You can sell it for 10x what you paid for it or burn it for all I care. It's your property and I was compensated for it. Why would customers go to a Coke theme restaurant to be served Pepsi? I'm certain they'd take their business elsewhere. If group A can make the same thing as group B but cheaper and sell it cheaper to everyone then it is to our benefit that group A be able to sell and make the product. Yes, you could take their design and use their name and sell it. However, how does that help you any? You don't get brand loyalty, you split everything with the other company. People won't know which is which and you won't get someone buying your product all the time because they may choose the other company's product over yours because they are the same name. Now if you took their name and made the product they sell bad so that customers no longer want to buy from that company name then the original company can get damages from you. How would the person get a copy of the book? They'd have to buy it (even if it is an ebook). Someone had to originally buy it and then make the copies. Unless they hacked in and got your book but that's a different matter. Most things I've seen of someone hacking in and taking something like books have done it to just release it to the public without selling what they took. Like one of Stephenie Meyer's book. Someone hacked in and released some chapters. They didn't try to sell it, they just released it. So you walk in the door of the restaurant because it's endorsed by Coca-cola and why would Coke not endorse something good? You get up to the counter and place your order and I tell you we only have Pepsi products. You going to leave? Doubtful. The consumer might benefit, but the person who created the product doesn't. That's the point. I did the research and development. I did the marketing. I did all the testing. Now you're selling a product that I created using my brand name that I'm doing the marketing for and I get absolutely nothing at all in return for it. But you think that's ok because it's good for the consumer? It's not good for me at all. What is my motivation for developing the next great product if other people are just going to steal my work and benefit from it financially? How does it not benefit me to sell a product that someone else developed but that I didn't pay for? Think about what you're saying here. You are basically arguing that intellectual property is worthless to anyone other than who created it. You're saying there aren't soda companies who would love to have Coke's secret formula. You are saying that there are fast food joints who wouldn't want to have the Colonel's secret recipe. There are electronic companies according to you, that you could walk in and hand them the blueprints to the iPhone and they wouldn't be interested at all in them. That's insane. Who cares if half the people buy my Coca-cola and half buy the real thing because they're identical. I get to profit from Cokes very, very strong brand without paying a dime for marketing. Why would I not do that? Why would I not sell an iPod that's as good as Apple's because it's identical? They've got great brand loyalty that they've literally put billions of dollars into developing and it's a great product that they've literally spent billions developing and I get it for nothing. So they can buy the book once and sell it a bajillion times and it's ok even though I've only been compensated once? If I'm an author, what is my motivation to write anything if I can't profit from it?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on May 25, 2013 10:41:16 GMT -5
Why would customers go to a Coke theme restaurant to be served Pepsi? I'm certain they'd take their business elsewhere. If group A can make the same thing as group B but cheaper and sell it cheaper to everyone then it is to our benefit that group A be able to sell and make the product. Yes, you could take their design and use their name and sell it. However, how does that help you any? You don't get brand loyalty, you split everything with the other company. People won't know which is which and you won't get someone buying your product all the time because they may choose the other company's product over yours because they are the same name. Now if you took their name and made the product they sell bad so that customers no longer want to buy from that company name then the original company can get damages from you. How would the person get a copy of the book? They'd have to buy it (even if it is an ebook). Someone had to originally buy it and then make the copies. Unless they hacked in and got your book but that's a different matter. Most things I've seen of someone hacking in and taking something like books have done it to just release it to the public without selling what they took. Like one of Stephenie Meyer's book. Someone hacked in and released some chapters. They didn't try to sell it, they just released it. So you walk in the door of the restaurant because it's endorsed by Coca-cola and why would Coke not endorse something good? You get up to the counter and place your order and I tell you we only have Pepsi products. You going to leave? Doubtful. The consumer might benefit, but the person who created the product doesn't. That's the point. I did the research and development. I did the marketing. I did all the testing. Now you're selling a product that I created using my brand name that I'm doing the marketing for and I get absolutely nothing at all in return for it. But you think that's ok because it's good for the consumer? It's not good for me at all. What is my motivation for developing the next great product if other people are just going to steal my work and benefit from it financially? How does it not benefit me to sell a product that someone else developed but that I didn't pay for? Think about what you're saying here. You are basically arguing that intellectual property is worthless to anyone other than who created it. You're saying there aren't soda companies who would love to have Coke's secret formula. You are saying that there are fast food joints who wouldn't want to have the Colonel's secret recipe. There are electronic companies according to you, that you could walk in and hand them the blueprints to the iPhone and they wouldn't be interested at all in them. That's insane. Who cares if half the people buy my Coca-cola and half buy the real thing because they're identical. I get to profit from Cokes very, very strong brand without paying a dime for marketing. Why would I not do that? Why would I not sell an iPod that's as good as Apple's because it's identical? They've got great brand loyalty that they've literally put billions of dollars into developing and it's a great product that they've literally spent billions developing and I get it for nothing. So they can buy the book once and sell it a bajillion times and it's ok even though I've only been compensated once? If I'm an author, what is my motivation to write anything if I can't profit from it? I definitely would. Pepsi is terrible. Your example doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 25, 2013 10:46:15 GMT -5
So you walk in the door of the restaurant because it's endorsed by Coca-cola and why would Coke not endorse something good? You get up to the counter and place your order and I tell you we only have Pepsi products. You going to leave? Doubtful. The consumer might benefit, but the person who created the product doesn't. That's the point. I did the research and development. I did the marketing. I did all the testing. Now you're selling a product that I created using my brand name that I'm doing the marketing for and I get absolutely nothing at all in return for it. But you think that's ok because it's good for the consumer? It's not good for me at all. What is my motivation for developing the next great product if other people are just going to steal my work and benefit from it financially? How does it not benefit me to sell a product that someone else developed but that I didn't pay for? Think about what you're saying here. You are basically arguing that intellectual property is worthless to anyone other than who created it. You're saying there aren't soda companies who would love to have Coke's secret formula. You are saying that there are fast food joints who wouldn't want to have the Colonel's secret recipe. There are electronic companies according to you, that you could walk in and hand them the blueprints to the iPhone and they wouldn't be interested at all in them. That's insane. Who cares if half the people buy my Coca-cola and half buy the real thing because they're identical. I get to profit from Cokes very, very strong brand without paying a dime for marketing. Why would I not do that? Why would I not sell an iPod that's as good as Apple's because it's identical? They've got great brand loyalty that they've literally put billions of dollars into developing and it's a great product that they've literally spent billions developing and I get it for nothing. So they can buy the book once and sell it a bajillion times and it's ok even though I've only been compensated once? If I'm an author, what is my motivation to write anything if I can't profit from it? I definitely would. Pepsi is terrible. Your example doesn't make much sense to me. So you're ok with me using someone else's brand name to promote my products without compensating them at all?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 25, 2013 11:31:12 GMT -5
Why would customers go to a Coke theme restaurant to be served Pepsi? I'm certain they'd take their business elsewhere. If group A can make the same thing as group B but cheaper and sell it cheaper to everyone then it is to our benefit that group A be able to sell and make the product. Yes, you could take their design and use their name and sell it. However, how does that help you any? You don't get brand loyalty, you split everything with the other company. People won't know which is which and you won't get someone buying your product all the time because they may choose the other company's product over yours because they are the same name. Now if you took their name and made the product they sell bad so that customers no longer want to buy from that company name then the original company can get damages from you. How would the person get a copy of the book? They'd have to buy it (even if it is an ebook). Someone had to originally buy it and then make the copies. Unless they hacked in and got your book but that's a different matter. Most things I've seen of someone hacking in and taking something like books have done it to just release it to the public without selling what they took. Like one of Stephenie Meyer's book. Someone hacked in and released some chapters. They didn't try to sell it, they just released it. So you walk in the door of the restaurant because it's endorsed by Coca-cola and why would Coke not endorse something good? You get up to the counter and place your order and I tell you we only have Pepsi products. You going to leave? Doubtful. The consumer might benefit, but the person who created the product doesn't. That's the point. I did the research and development. I did the marketing. I did all the testing. Now you're selling a product that I created using my brand name that I'm doing the marketing for and I get absolutely nothing at all in return for it. But you think that's ok because it's good for the consumer? It's not good for me at all. What is my motivation for developing the next great product if other people are just going to steal my work and benefit from it financially? How does it not benefit me to sell a product that someone else developed but that I didn't pay for? Think about what you're saying here. You are basically arguing that intellectual property is worthless to anyone other than who created it. You're saying there aren't soda companies who would love to have Coke's secret formula. You are saying that there are fast food joints who wouldn't want to have the Colonel's secret recipe. There are electronic companies according to you, that you could walk in and hand them the blueprints to the iPhone and they wouldn't be interested at all in them. That's insane. Who cares if half the people buy my Coca-cola and half buy the real thing because they're identical. I get to profit from Cokes very, very strong brand without paying a dime for marketing. Why would I not do that? Why would I not sell an iPod that's as good as Apple's because it's identical? They've got great brand loyalty that they've literally put billions of dollars into developing and it's a great product that they've literally spent billions developing and I get it for nothing. So they can buy the book once and sell it a bajillion times and it's ok even though I've only been compensated once? If I'm an author, what is my motivation to write anything if I can't profit from it? Why wouldn't I leave? I'd walk in and order Coke and they tell me they only serve Pepsi I would seriously have to wonder what they are doing. We live in a time where information is literally at our fingertips so I could check out the place online and see what the deal is. I'd then see it's not an actual Coke sponsored restaurant. Why would I give this place my money after finding that out? It's not like there isn't going to be any other restaurants near by that I could go to instead. And maybe that restaurant makes the greatest food in the world but that would only increase Coke's image and reputation (though it's not an unpopular brand as it is). You are making a lot of assumptions. You are assuming that if I use your idea that every single person using your product or reading your book or whatever will no longer buy from you. You are assuming you lose 100% of your customers. You are also assuming that once your product or book is finished that I am taking it seconds later and somehow turning it out fast enough to get on the shelves or in people's hands before they have the chance to buy yours. You assume someone can get the blueprints or recipe from the companies. If it's as easy as you say it is then why hasn't Coke or KFC's recipe been somehow released in the past 80 years (or more in Coke's case)? You don't have a problem with me buying your book then selling it to a friend who sells it to a friend who sells it to a friend and you only making money off the original sale. You only care that I retain a copy after selling it. If I buy your book and then sell it to a friend for a million dollars and I no longer have it, that's ok. I buy your book and sell one million copies of it for $1 then that's wrong. I've made a million dollars either way that you will never see but because I retain a copy at the end of the day that is somehow terrible. Is me not profiting from selling your book just as bad? If I copy it and give it away for free, is that just as bad as selling it? If the original creator had forever copyright/patent on their work that is a monopoly. Prescription medicine has a patent on it for 20 years and after that time is up then any company can make the medicine and sell it and not pay the tremendous cost of drug trials and research the original makers did. Generic medicine lowers the price and is just as effective. If it were up to you the original maker would never lose the patent and they could charge a million dollars a pill. And since we have no other option we either pay it or we go without. So it is to great benefit of the consumer that generic drugs be made available. Giuseppe Verdi wrote music without the "benefit" of copyright. It didn't stop him from writing nearly 40 operas and countless other things because he didn't have exclusive rights to it. He was obviously not harmed because others could play his work. So you may go listen to Bill Johnson's exact replication but you'll still want to see Verdi perform the original. So what is the incentive to keep writing if you don't have copyright? People will still buy your books from you and you will get money for writing them. I take your work and sell it, well someone just became a fan of yours. Now when your next book comes out they'll be there to purchase it. Look at musicians and other authors who release their work to the public and then have a suggested sale price. That means you can pay (for example) $10 or more or less or you can pay nothing at all. Look at Cards Against Humanity. There is a file you can download with all the cards and you can print it off and play or take it to a print shop and have them make the cards. Or you can actually buy the game from them. This system works out, obviously, since they are still in business doing fine. Look at this for an example of them doing the pay what you want system. They spent roughly $226,000 and after credit card fees they made roughly $296,000. But they didn't keep the extra $70,000 they made, they donated it. But that shows you that people will still pay even if they don't have to. What should copyright extend to? An idea and/or the completion of that idea? If it's the former then no books could be written. Somebody would claim they thought up the idea for boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy fights to get girl back and does. How many books would that erase if someone claimed they owned that idea? Would a boycott work against people "stealing" the ideas or creations of another? Let's ask the Fashion Originators Guild of America. In the 30s they banded together. They were manufacturers and retailers who agreed to only deal with original creations. If retailers sold knock offs then they were red-carded and manufacturers and other guild members refused to do business with them. It was quite effective until the government stepped in and said they couldn't do that anymore.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on May 25, 2013 12:42:03 GMT -5
I definitely would. Pepsi is terrible. Your example doesn't make much sense to me. So you're ok with me using someone else's brand name to promote my products without compensating them at all? No, where did you get that? I said I would leave if I went to a restaurant advertising Coke that only sold Pepsi. The part that would really offend me is someone thinking Pepsi is better than Coke... because that's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 25, 2013 20:56:04 GMT -5
So you walk in the door of the restaurant because it's endorsed by Coca-cola and why would Coke not endorse something good? You get up to the counter and place your order and I tell you we only have Pepsi products. You going to leave? Doubtful. The consumer might benefit, but the person who created the product doesn't. That's the point. I did the research and development. I did the marketing. I did all the testing. Now you're selling a product that I created using my brand name that I'm doing the marketing for and I get absolutely nothing at all in return for it. But you think that's ok because it's good for the consumer? It's not good for me at all. What is my motivation for developing the next great product if other people are just going to steal my work and benefit from it financially? How does it not benefit me to sell a product that someone else developed but that I didn't pay for? Think about what you're saying here. You are basically arguing that intellectual property is worthless to anyone other than who created it. You're saying there aren't soda companies who would love to have Coke's secret formula. You are saying that there are fast food joints who wouldn't want to have the Colonel's secret recipe. There are electronic companies according to you, that you could walk in and hand them the blueprints to the iPhone and they wouldn't be interested at all in them. That's insane. Who cares if half the people buy my Coca-cola and half buy the real thing because they're identical. I get to profit from Cokes very, very strong brand without paying a dime for marketing. Why would I not do that? Why would I not sell an iPod that's as good as Apple's because it's identical? They've got great brand loyalty that they've literally put billions of dollars into developing and it's a great product that they've literally spent billions developing and I get it for nothing. So they can buy the book once and sell it a bajillion times and it's ok even though I've only been compensated once? If I'm an author, what is my motivation to write anything if I can't profit from it? Why wouldn't I leave? I'd walk in and order Coke and they tell me they only serve Pepsi I would seriously have to wonder what they are doing. We live in a time where information is literally at our fingertips so I could check out the place online and see what the deal is. I'd then see it's not an actual Coke sponsored restaurant. Why would I give this place my money after finding that out? It's not like there isn't going to be any other restaurants near by that I could go to instead. And maybe that restaurant makes the greatest food in the world but that would only increase Coke's image and reputation (though it's not an unpopular brand as it is). You are making a lot of assumptions. You are assuming that if I use your idea that every single person using your product or reading your book or whatever will no longer buy from you. You are assuming you lose 100% of your customers. You are also assuming that once your product or book is finished that I am taking it seconds later and somehow turning it out fast enough to get on the shelves or in people's hands before they have the chance to buy yours. You assume someone can get the blueprints or recipe from the companies. If it's as easy as you say it is then why hasn't Coke or KFC's recipe been somehow released in the past 80 years (or more in Coke's case)? You don't have a problem with me buying your book then selling it to a friend who sells it to a friend who sells it to a friend and you only making money off the original sale. You only care that I retain a copy after selling it. If I buy your book and then sell it to a friend for a million dollars and I no longer have it, that's ok. I buy your book and sell one million copies of it for $1 then that's wrong. I've made a million dollars either way that you will never see but because I retain a copy at the end of the day that is somehow terrible. Is me not profiting from selling your book just as bad? If I copy it and give it away for free, is that just as bad as selling it? If the original creator had forever copyright/patent on their work that is a monopoly. Prescription medicine has a patent on it for 20 years and after that time is up then any company can make the medicine and sell it and not pay the tremendous cost of drug trials and research the original makers did. Generic medicine lowers the price and is just as effective. If it were up to you the original maker would never lose the patent and they could charge a million dollars a pill. And since we have no other option we either pay it or we go without. So it is to great benefit of the consumer that generic drugs be made available. Giuseppe Verdi wrote music without the "benefit" of copyright. It didn't stop him from writing nearly 40 operas and countless other things because he didn't have exclusive rights to it. He was obviously not harmed because others could play his work. So you may go listen to Bill Johnson's exact replication but you'll still want to see Verdi perform the original. So what is the incentive to keep writing if you don't have copyright? People will still buy your books from you and you will get money for writing them. I take your work and sell it, well someone just became a fan of yours. Now when your next book comes out they'll be there to purchase it. Look at musicians and other authors who release their work to the public and then have a suggested sale price. That means you can pay (for example) $10 or more or less or you can pay nothing at all. Look at Cards Against Humanity. There is a file you can download with all the cards and you can print it off and play or take it to a print shop and have them make the cards. Or you can actually buy the game from them. This system works out, obviously, since they are still in business doing fine. Look at this for an example of them doing the pay what you want system. They spent roughly $226,000 and after credit card fees they made roughly $296,000. But they didn't keep the extra $70,000 they made, they donated it. But that shows you that people will still pay even if they don't have to. What should copyright extend to? An idea and/or the completion of that idea? If it's the former then no books could be written. Somebody would claim they thought up the idea for boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy fights to get girl back and does. How many books would that erase if someone claimed they owned that idea? Would a boycott work against people "stealing" the ideas or creations of another? Let's ask the Fashion Originators Guild of America. In the 30s they banded together. They were manufacturers and retailers who agreed to only deal with original creations. If retailers sold knock offs then they were red-carded and manufacturers and other guild members refused to do business with them. It was quite effective until the government stepped in and said they couldn't do that anymore. Ugh. You're missing my point completely. Would it make a difference if it was a Disney restaurant instead of a Coke restaurant? Official sandwich shop of Mickey Mouse. There's no way in the world Disney could claim that a family friendly sandwich shop damaged it's brand. I could benefit from the brand goodwill that Disney has built and their marketing and their popularity while paying them not a single dime. Why would I not do that? No, I'm assuming that you selling my book will cost me sales. People will buy the book from you instead of me. This is especially true since you can sell it cheaper than me because you didn't have to pay any editors, proof readers, publishers, etc.... and every penny you make off my book is profit for you. If you cost me one single sale from someone who wanted to buy a brand new copy and went to you instead of me, how have I not been harmed? Why hasn't Coke's recipe come out? Because it's highly illegal and wouldn't do anyone who got it any good. Let's say Pepsi paid some guy $10 mil to steal Coke's recipe. That's illegal of course even under your system. But let's say Pepsi provides the guy with a crack lawyer (they have the money to do so) and they get the guy off with a light sentence and there's $10 mil waiting for him when he gets out. Can Pepsi, under current laws, use that formula? No they can't. If they do, Coke will sue the bejesus out of them. They will end up paying a bajillion dollars in civil penalties. Those at Pepsi who were in charge of this whole operation will lose their job and possibly end up in jail. Any fake Coke they put out will be confiscated by the authorities. The civil penalties may well bankrupt the company. Virtually everyone in charge at the top will end up in the unemployment line. Further more, Pepsi will make no money at all off the formula. That is the reason why it doesn't happen in the current system. Even if you walked into them with Coke's formula, they would not be able to use it. Why spend the money, time and effort to acquire something you can't use? What's the point? Why do you have a right to profit off of my work without me being compensated appropriately? For a guy who claims to be a libertarian of sorts that's a remarkably communistic viewpoint. What I don't understand is how I only have rights to my work if it's something physical. If it's not physical it's worthless. Patents that last forever are a completely different argument. You have been saying all along that any good that's not a physical good should have no copyright protection at all. Verdi actually did have the benefit of copyright. Copyright protection has been around in some form (though not in the modern form) since the 1700s. Copyright doesn't cover ideas. It just covers the way they're expressed. What copyright extends to and what it doesn't is pretty well established. Fair Use can be murkier though but selling someone's work without compensating them doesn't fall under Fair Use. This has legal precedent going back several hundred years. Copyright laws governing performance of music can be tricky. Generally you can cover a song that's already been released, but need the composer's permission to record it for the first time. In either case, the composer makes money. We've all seen Chinese knockoffs. We all know they're cheap and the quality is lacking to say the least. The main reason for this is the manufactures are just guessing at what they're making. Imagine a market flooded with counterfeit goods that are as good as the original. You're telling me consumers won't buy them if they're cheaper than the real thing?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 25, 2013 21:54:36 GMT -5
Why wouldn't I leave? I'd walk in and order Coke and they tell me they only serve Pepsi I would seriously have to wonder what they are doing. We live in a time where information is literally at our fingertips so I could check out the place online and see what the deal is. I'd then see it's not an actual Coke sponsored restaurant. Why would I give this place my money after finding that out? It's not like there isn't going to be any other restaurants near by that I could go to instead. And maybe that restaurant makes the greatest food in the world but that would only increase Coke's image and reputation (though it's not an unpopular brand as it is). You are making a lot of assumptions. You are assuming that if I use your idea that every single person using your product or reading your book or whatever will no longer buy from you. You are assuming you lose 100% of your customers. You are also assuming that once your product or book is finished that I am taking it seconds later and somehow turning it out fast enough to get on the shelves or in people's hands before they have the chance to buy yours. You assume someone can get the blueprints or recipe from the companies. If it's as easy as you say it is then why hasn't Coke or KFC's recipe been somehow released in the past 80 years (or more in Coke's case)? You don't have a problem with me buying your book then selling it to a friend who sells it to a friend who sells it to a friend and you only making money off the original sale. You only care that I retain a copy after selling it. If I buy your book and then sell it to a friend for a million dollars and I no longer have it, that's ok. I buy your book and sell one million copies of it for $1 then that's wrong. I've made a million dollars either way that you will never see but because I retain a copy at the end of the day that is somehow terrible. Is me not profiting from selling your book just as bad? If I copy it and give it away for free, is that just as bad as selling it? If the original creator had forever copyright/patent on their work that is a monopoly. Prescription medicine has a patent on it for 20 years and after that time is up then any company can make the medicine and sell it and not pay the tremendous cost of drug trials and research the original makers did. Generic medicine lowers the price and is just as effective. If it were up to you the original maker would never lose the patent and they could charge a million dollars a pill. And since we have no other option we either pay it or we go without. So it is to great benefit of the consumer that generic drugs be made available. Giuseppe Verdi wrote music without the "benefit" of copyright. It didn't stop him from writing nearly 40 operas and countless other things because he didn't have exclusive rights to it. He was obviously not harmed because others could play his work. So you may go listen to Bill Johnson's exact replication but you'll still want to see Verdi perform the original. So what is the incentive to keep writing if you don't have copyright? People will still buy your books from you and you will get money for writing them. I take your work and sell it, well someone just became a fan of yours. Now when your next book comes out they'll be there to purchase it. Look at musicians and other authors who release their work to the public and then have a suggested sale price. That means you can pay (for example) $10 or more or less or you can pay nothing at all. Look at Cards Against Humanity. There is a file you can download with all the cards and you can print it off and play or take it to a print shop and have them make the cards. Or you can actually buy the game from them. This system works out, obviously, since they are still in business doing fine. Look at this for an example of them doing the pay what you want system. They spent roughly $226,000 and after credit card fees they made roughly $296,000. But they didn't keep the extra $70,000 they made, they donated it. But that shows you that people will still pay even if they don't have to. What should copyright extend to? An idea and/or the completion of that idea? If it's the former then no books could be written. Somebody would claim they thought up the idea for boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy fights to get girl back and does. How many books would that erase if someone claimed they owned that idea? Would a boycott work against people "stealing" the ideas or creations of another? Let's ask the Fashion Originators Guild of America. In the 30s they banded together. They were manufacturers and retailers who agreed to only deal with original creations. If retailers sold knock offs then they were red-carded and manufacturers and other guild members refused to do business with them. It was quite effective until the government stepped in and said they couldn't do that anymore. Ugh. You're missing my point completely. Would it make a difference if it was a Disney restaurant instead of a Coke restaurant? Official sandwich shop of Mickey Mouse. There's no way in the world Disney could claim that a family friendly sandwich shop damaged it's brand. I could benefit from the brand goodwill that Disney has built and their marketing and their popularity while paying them not a single dime. Why would I not do that? No, I'm assuming that you selling my book will cost me sales. People will buy the book from you instead of me. This is especially true since you can sell it cheaper than me because you didn't have to pay any editors, proof readers, publishers, etc.... and every penny you make off my book is profit for you. If you cost me one single sale from someone who wanted to buy a brand new copy and went to you instead of me, how have I not been harmed? Why hasn't Coke's recipe come out? Because it's highly illegal and wouldn't do anyone who got it any good. Let's say Pepsi paid some guy $10 mil to steal Coke's recipe. That's illegal of course even under your system. But let's say Pepsi provides the guy with a crack lawyer (they have the money to do so) and they get the guy off with a light sentence and there's $10 mil waiting for him when he gets out. Can Pepsi, under current laws, use that formula? No they can't. If they do, Coke will sue the bejesus out of them. They will end up paying a bajillion dollars in civil penalties. Those at Pepsi who were in charge of this whole operation will lose their job and possibly end up in jail. Any fake Coke they put out will be confiscated by the authorities. The civil penalties may well bankrupt the company. Virtually everyone in charge at the top will end up in the unemployment line. Further more, Pepsi will make no money at all off the formula. That is the reason why it doesn't happen in the current system. Even if you walked into them with Coke's formula, they would not be able to use it. Why spend the money, time and effort to acquire something you can't use? What's the point? Why do you have a right to profit off of my work without me being compensated appropriately? For a guy who claims to be a libertarian of sorts that's a remarkably communistic viewpoint. What I don't understand is how I only have rights to my work if it's something physical. If it's not physical it's worthless. Patents that last forever are a completely different argument. You have been saying all along that any good that's not a physical good should have no copyright protection at all. Verdi actually did have the benefit of copyright. Copyright protection has been around in some form (though not in the modern form) since the 1700s. Copyright doesn't cover ideas. It just covers the way they're expressed. What copyright extends to and what it doesn't is pretty well established. Fair Use can be murkier though but selling someone's work without compensating them doesn't fall under Fair Use. This has legal precedent going back several hundred years. Copyright laws governing performance of music can be tricky. Generally you can cover a song that's already been released, but need the composer's permission to record it for the first time. In either case, the composer makes money. We've all seen Chinese knockoffs. We all know they're cheap and the quality is lacking to say the least. The main reason for this is the manufactures are just guessing at what they're making. Imagine a market flooded with counterfeit goods that are as good as the original. You're telling me consumers won't buy them if they're cheaper than the real thing? It's just a name. There is a restaurant here in town called Dynasty. Now I know it's not the only restaurant in the country named Dynasty. Recently the owners of that restaurant were arrested and since then people have stopped going there. Should they be the only ones able to run a restaurant called Dynasty? Of course not. I know you'll say that Dynasty isn't a well known name or a multi-billion dollar company. So that means what our government is doing is protecting large corporations. And I am not a fan of a corporatocracy. Are we talking ebooks or actual physical books? Because you can't tell if an ebook is new or used. If I sell or give away my ebook copy to someone I have cost you a sale because they will not buy the book from you. Now if we are talking physical books then I would have to worry about editing and publishing (at least self-publishing) the book. I would have to buy a brand new copy of your book then either copy it out by hand on my computer or scan each page. Then I'd have to bind it together. I'd have to market it to people and distribute it. I could do it cheaper only because the book publishing company has everyone from janitors to secretaries to their CEO to pay. I can shop around to get the best deal which if you are signed to a publisher, you aren't able to do. If you self-published then you could probably do it for the same price I did it for and you wouldn't have to worry about paying everyone and their mother just to get your book to the world. Why would Pepsi use the Coke formula? People wouldn't buy it. Unless the companies merged, people aren't going to buy Coke *A Pepsi production*. Sure they can make the can look the same but there would be obvious differences like the bar code (because if it was the same then Pepsi obviously wouldn't get any money from it) for example. And just because you have the recipe doesn't mean it's going to turn out like the original. A guy in Georgia claims he has the Coke recipe and he's trying to sell it for millions of dollars. Coke is saying it's fake. But would they admit it's the real thing if it truly was? Of course not. As I explained. If you write something down and I copy it either by hand or with a copy machine, we both have a copy. That cannot happen with a bike. I cannot take your bike and copy it to make one for myself. That is why it is not stealing. That is why I don't support copyright because if I can leave you with a copy while I also have a copy then ok. And being against copyright is a view a lot of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist hold. Others were able though to take Verdi's music and play it right away. That is if he published it or they even were in the audience and wrote down each note (which may be hard to do, I don't know, I'm not a musician). If they had copyright it certainly wasn't enforced. In the example of WCW, they took Smells Like Teen Spirit and didn't pay Nirvana because they ripped it off and made their own version. Another example would be the Iron browser. They took Google Chrome and copied it exactly except they took out all the things Google had in Chrome to track you and things of that nature. Now they do give it away for free but they encourage people to donate to them. Neither Nirvana (or more accurately their label) or Google were harmed. If they are cheaper than the real thing then that is a problem for the original maker and they should find a way to sell their goods for a better price. It's just breaking up monopolies and I do support that (citizens breaking them up not government).
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 26, 2013 9:51:10 GMT -5
You ask me why would Six Flags not own the rights to the picture, and I would respond with a question to you. Why would they own the rights? I've been going to Six Flags for as long as I can remember. My parents always got season passes, I've always purchased season passes. In all of those years we've had pictures taken, we've purchased pictures. And in all those years this issue of rights to the fotos has never once been brought up. But now that Six Flags wants to sell you a flash drive for 40 dollars, now all of a sudden they mention the rights to a picture. It seems fictitious, it seems like extreme greed, it's just so ridiculous to me. It reminds me of when I was a kid and we would go on vacation. You would be able to take 2 bags per person on the aircraft plus a carry on. You would get a meal. Not though you are limited a certain number of bags, which of course you have to pay to have them checked in on certain airlines. They have a weight limit imposed on your 1 bag. There is rarely a meal service these days. You get charged for a boarding pass on certain airlines. It's just non stop greed. Their employee took the picture with their equipment. Yet you should own it? So if I photobomb you, I now own the rights to that picture? Do you see how ridiculous that argument is? Probably not. I paid them for the foto they took using there equipment. So now I own it. That is how they have done business for decades. But now because they want you to buy a flash drive, now all of a sudden you dont own what you just paid for? You can do what you want, as long as you dont take money from me and still expect to own what you made.
|
|