Nonsense. Both are akin to listening to a song on the radio. Copying a song without authorization to play whenever you want, and allowing others to copy your unauthorized copy, is a totally different animal.
What hogwash to justify music piracy. Replace "photos" with "songs."
Not the same thing, as I'll explain in a second.
Have you ever read those long, seemingly meandering and wordy use agreements when you use an online photo sharing or storage service? You'll notice that in dealing with copyright, there are provisions allowing for the online service to transfer your files to backup systems and whatnot.
What a great way to put it!! There are some things I wish I had written myself - and the statement above is one of them.
This is a key point for me, and to me, exposes the false justifications
That is funny, when analyzed. "Greed is bad. I desire that music,
I disagree. I have a philosophy which says that some things are
Yes - sad git that I am I do sometimes read the legal statements and surprisingly (or not) some of them have all sorts of words about only uploading content that belongs to you, but very little about not downloading that self same content - perhaps because the mere act of looking at the page and results in that material being downloaded to your PC (that's the way most web pages work)
I think we are agreed here.
I totally agree - Unless the copyright owner has authorised it I won't distribute content that has been put on my PC to anyone else. But I reserve the right to manage my own PC and put such content where I want for my own personal use.
But not automatically. However, the exact rules on this vary greatly from country to country. In Germany and most of the European Union, you have to have produced something with a certain level of artistic value to be given protection under copyright rules automatically, or you have to apply for "legal protection of registered designs" (weaker type of copyright protection) or in the case of a technical design patent it. In the latter case, there obviously must not be prior art, and again, a degree of novetly (is/should) be required. There are some grey zones when it comes to software ("computer-implemented implementions": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_the_patentability_of_computer-implemented_inventions ).
That's pretty simple, isn't it? You look back to the contract that the
This is exactly where the argument I was making is misunderstood in the replies. I wasn't saying that you should take whatever you want, I was saying that there are a lot of artists who are not asking for money, or for anything really. So you can take from them, and decide for yourself what to give back (a compliment, a bit of respect, your attendence at a concert, purchasing of merchandise...)
My gf is an amateur singer/songwrite. My perspective has been watching / admiring / being amazed at the amount of effort it takes for her to produce a single song. It takes weeks if not months to write one. First she has to have an idea, come up with lyrics, revise them, create chord progressions, practice. This is on top of a day job of being a teacher. Finally if she wants to start playing for others, she has to attend late night events and really self-promote. She's also spent about $20k in the studio trying to make her first CD this year by going to a studio to get her songs mixed by a sound engineer.
How does that mean both? I make a difference in commercial and personal use of my photographs in my (creative commons) license. People who use my images for themselves do this legally, people who use them commercially do this illegally, since they are not allowed to do that according to my license.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. Yes, you making a difference about how your work may be used is normal and perfectly okay.
