Copyright discussion

[Jeremy Neish]

In the interest of keeping the original x thread on topic, I have moved my followup comments about copyright to this thread.

You cannot be serious. My wife's company spent $75,000 on a stock shoot just recently. So after 2-3 years she should just give the images away? Why don't we just give our cars away too when they are two to three years old - the finance is paid off and we've had our money's worth!

And we wonder why the entire industry seems to be in a race to the bottom.

The stock photography/videography business is a rather unique part of the intellectual property industry, in that it relies on low volume, high price sales, where as the majority of the IP industry is based on low cost, high volume. So I can see where you are coming from, but in the end, yes I still think a much shorter term would be more fair for society as a whole. Again, if she's good at what she does, most people are willing to pay, whether the law forces them to or not.

And the comparison of giving your car away after it's paid for is simply a bad analogy. Cars are tangible products and there is only ONE of your car, so no of course you shouldn't be forced to give it away. But IP is non-tangible and infinitely duplicatable without any harm to your original.

[Jeremy Neish]

I'm intrigued by your post and find it difficult to understand how you come to this viewpoint, could you answer me this:

1. Did you create your DVD with the view to make a profit, ie to make some money to put food on the table for your children?
2. Was there another motive for giving away the content ie for propaganda, political or just spreading the word?

1 - Yes we did create the DVD with the hope to turn a profit (and we did many times over).
2 - No other motive, other than a pure belief in the inherent unfairness of copyright. At first my partners were a little bit skeptical of the idea, but in the end we all agreed, self distributed + creative commons was the right path for us.

By the way, the day after we released our documentary on bittorrent, our sales quadrupled.

[Mark Pavy]

What was the title?

[Jeremy Neish]

Done The Impossible

[Iain Philpott]

In the interest of keeping the original x thread on topic, I have moved my followup comments about copyright to this thread.



The stock photography/videography business is a rather unique part of the intellectual property industry, in that it relies on low volume, high price sales, where as the majority of the IP industry is based on low cost, high volume. So I can see where you are coming from, but in the end, yes I still think a much shorter term would be more fair for society as a whole. Again, if she's good at what she does, most people are willing to pay, whether the law forces them to or not.

And the comparison of giving your car away after it's paid for is simply a bad analogy. Cars are tangible products and there is only ONE of your car, so no of course you shouldn't be forced to give it away. But IP is non-tangible and infinitely duplicatable without any harm to your original.

Clearly we are going to have to agree to differ. I think your argument is fatally flawed. IP is definitely tangible. My images (if I do not sign over 'all rights') are my images - they are a product. The same as if I had built a car. It is a product. Products have value until people no longer wish to buy that product.

If somebody has taken a product that RED has designed and somebody comes along and copies it (they did not think of the product first themselves) why should they then take that business from RED. It's like Lycra. Dupont spent millions and millions developing Lycra and bringing it to market. If you want to use Lycra in your clothing you buy it from Dupont. If the moment Lycra came out and everyone was free to copy it where would that leave Dupont.

IP needs to be protected whether it's images, RED or Lycra.

[Jeremy Neish]

Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree. And, that's okay, I recognize my view is in the extreme minority, but hopefully it made you think a bit.
This is a great presentation from Lawrence Lessig you should watch:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

[Iain Philpott]

Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree. And, that's okay, I recognize my view is in the extreme minority, but hopefully it made you think a bit.
This is a great presentation from Lawrence Lessig you should watch:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

Very interesting article. Thank you for posting. The problem with copyright is we try to take a view that 'one size fits all' and it does not. It's much more complex than that and certainly there needs to be a bit more thinking outside the box.

[Tehben Dean]

I kind of agree with you Jeremey ;)

As I understand it patent laws were originally created to encourage innovation, where the creator was protected for 4 years or so and could profit from his efforts but after that everybody could benefit from it and the original guy would be encouraged to invent something new to stay ahead of the game.

Patent laws have gotten so out of hand these days that you can now patent plant varieties and big companies regularly buy up patents to squash competition as was the case with Texaco and the Nickel Metal Hydride battery back in the early 90's. (if I remember correctly)

I also feel that with IP most people will pay for something if they really like and want it. Also seems like it's usually the middle man that gets the most upset with torrented Music/Movies as the artists themselves seem to all to often lose out anyway....

[Tehben Dean]

Check out this video on copyright in the fashion industry. Very Interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

[Jon Thomasberg]

Perhaps I am mistaken on the chronology in the matter, and if I am feel free to correct, but wasn't x the same guys that came out with all the accessories that Epic owners were needing when Red was backordered for months on end, and without whom many Epic owners would have been left hanging with incomplete (and in some cases unshootable and/or unrentable) kits until the rest of the bits came off backorder, much less see a CNC machine. I know a handful of owner/ops, including myself, that would have been otherwise screwed or at best have to find some wonky DIY workaround on certain productions were it not for some WC bits for their Epics and Scarlets.

"The customer ultimately has to pay....". true, but each of those customers also have THEIR business to run so they can make money in which to take-on and complete projects to ultimately pay for more gear. Opportunity cost is real, as are its losses if poorly executed. First to market has its rewards, as do other factors like timely responses with real answers, shipping on schedule, and steller customer service. x filled that void when Red couldn't/didn't, yet now they are to be punished for seizing the opportunity to fill a void for making accessories that Red didn't 2 years on? I am glad that Red seem to have sorted those issues now. Nonetheless, I guess I am missing it. My point being, after all that they have really done to supplement and support the DSMC platform and Red's customers....Man, what a kick in the 'nads to WC !

While I have been a self-proclaimed so-called 'Red fanboy', and have a nice view from the 'cheap seats' as I have no horse in this race, aside from Red themselves, I would hazard a guess that x has helped Red to sell more Epics and Scarlets, because of the availability of their products in support of the Red DSMC platform, than almost anyone out here. Now that Red is by-and-large out of backorder and have accessories for sale, now they are filing an IP suit...really? Truly saddening.