|
|
Posted by Steve King on 12/05/06 15:10
"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:4574fe04$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4dd9n29k5vcacmjsnnic9vjh6gmpru2m3l@4ax.com...
>
>> I produce video for a very selective market and I have had people who
>> steal our stuff try to convince me that it exposes my work to more
>> people, some of whom may buy my products and besides that those who
>> have the pirated works would never have bought it from me in the first
>> place.
>>
>> To this I say emphatically.....BULLSHIT!!
>> If you don't plan to buy it legally then don't copy it either.
>>
>> That's what I think of the arguments in Freddy boys blog :-(
>>>
>>>See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Bob Ford
>> Images In Motion
>> www.imagesinmotion.com
>
>
> I think the point being made in Fred's blog http://fredhere.blogspot.com
> is that the QUALITY of the copy on youtube is nowhere near as good as the
> original, so people need to buy the original DVD to properly enjoy the
> movie etc. But if copyright holders think they are losing sales as a
> result of inferior and partial copies of their work that is uploaded
> without their consent to a site such as youtube, then I'm sure that their
> complaints to the site would result in the offending material being
> removed. However, if the copyright holder found that, after their work had
> been uploaded to youtube, a significant increase in sales took place, they
> may consider that the inferior copy served only to whet the appetite of
> viewers and could be regarded as successful advertising of their work.
>
> I think the youtube situation is quite different from those pirates who
> make exact copies of DVDs and then sell them illegally for personal gain.
> No one would condone this sort of copyright infringement, so there are
> different types of infringements, and I think Fred's blog is suggesting
> that the "youtube" infringements are at the low end of the scale. This
> would be because the person who uploaded the video gained nothing from
> doing it, and quite possibly the copyright holder lost no revenues, and in
> effect, gained free advertising.
This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on a
copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is for
the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals from
children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the copy has
nothing to do with it. Nothing. Usurping the copyright holder's decision
where and when to publish under what terms is a crime, which should be
punished vigorously.
Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|