John, Didn't the copywrite laws pre-date the music industry? How can they be caused by the music industry? Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM, John Sessoms<jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > From: "William Robb" >> >> From: "John Sessoms" >> Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ... >> >> >>> > >>> > I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my > >>> > responsibility was at the photolab regarding customers who came in to >>> > make > >>> > copies of copyrighted images. Under the DMCA, it's the equipment owner > >>> > who's financially liable for any infringement. The penalties are quite > >>> > draconian. >>> > >>> > I suggested anyone who shoots weddings and provides the couple with a >>> > CD > of the images to print their own should include a copyright release. >>> > >>> > I was roundly condemned for being a "bad cop", and informed it was not >>> > my > job to "enforce bad laws". >>> > >> >> Bad law or not, if you don't enforce it, you will, ultimately, take a hit >> for it. >> Interestingly, and I believe I've mentioned this before, a lot of the >> problems you guys have with copyright isn't the DMCA, it's who you grant >> ownership to. >> It's ludicrous that a photographer can claim ownership of something he was >> hired to make, and paid, often very expensively, in full for making. It's >> like Joe Airwrench claiming ownership of my truck because he bolted the >> driver's side front wheel onto it. > > It's a stupid law, bought and paid for by the record companies and movie > studios. > > The whole purpose of assigning liability for copyright infringement to the > owner of the equipment was so they could put the factories that produce > bootleg CDs/DVDs out of business. The way it's written, they can collect 1/2 > million dollars for each instance of infringement, where every individual > CD/DVD stamped out was a separate instance. > > Except that the factories that stamp out the pirate CDs/DVDs aren't located > in the good ol' U. S. of A. and the DMCA can't be enforced against them. > > The unintended consequence is that the "owner" of the mini-lab that has a > scanner or digital print from CD facility is also liable, where each > individual print is an separate instance of infringement. I say "unintended" > because you know damn well the record companies & movie studios don't give a > damn about the individual photographer's rights. They'll rip you off in a > heartbeat and claim "fair use" exemption if you attempt to claim > compensation from them. > > But, because the mini-lab is owned by a corporation, the corporation have > "policies" that direct the operator not to print anything that looks like it > might place the corporation at risk. The corporation doesn't actually give a > damn if you print them or not; the policy is simply there so they can push > the liability off onto you as the lab operator if any photographer DOES > object to having his copyrighted images printed. > > Of course, the flip side is that if you DO follow the CORPORATE POLICY > regarding copyright and the customer makes a fuss, you're subject to > disciplinary action because you're guilty of bad customer service. > > But to take your "Joe Airwrench" analogy - as a lab operator, I'm in the > position of crossing with the light, in the crosswalk, i.e. obeying the law, > when the truck in question is about to run over me. > > I was told repeatedly that, because "Joe Airwrench's" ownership claim is > bogus, I have no right to dodge the speeding truck. > > Obviously, that sticks in my craw. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
