Why is corporate music/movies more cared about than the average intellectual property holder?

[AlabamaLibrul]

Random photos are posted all the time on the Internet without observing copyright. Going to Wal-Mart with the professional photographer's picture to get a $2 copy made, hell even a photocopy out of a book is as much theft as downloading a song.

Do photographers have any less expectation of copyright for their work, which has very real (and can be very HIGH) cost of production? Same for writers, artists, anyone else. Or do we only care about intellectual property when it's held by a multinational corporation?

[spanone]

1. most photographers i know protect their assets.

[AlabamaLibrul]

4. Fair enough, but how does a writer protect how they use the English language?

nt

[Drale]

2. We can dig way to far into this if you like

Say I take a picture at yellowstone, and put it on the internet, do I have to pay every American citizen to use that likeness? Because after all its the American citizens who own the National Parks.

[AlabamaLibrul]

3. That's textbook putting up a straw man

and not really digging into anything. The question is on the illegal use of copyrighted materials/intellectual property. Public lands aren't copyrighted.

[gater]

5. Perhaps because an 8 1/2" by 11" copy of the mona Lisa...

is way different than the actual Mona Lisa. With a digital song, there ain't much difference between the original recording and millions of possible digital copies. Something to think about. It is just an observation, not a comment on the ethics of downloading free tunes.

[AlabamaLibrul]

6. Good point, buuuut

an 8.5x11 copy of an Ansel Adams is a bigger deal than an 8.5x11 copy of the Mona Lisa, for the points you state.

I mean, there are all these various ways and scenarios in which it's this or that, but I'm trying to boil this down to the direct ripping, if you will, of writing, photos, music, whatever it may be.

[gater]

8. True. So what is needed is an even handed approach.

Even-handed in both recognition of what is protected by a copywrite, and in the punishment for those who do violate a copywrite. Having been in the music industry, it still seems stupid to fine a college kid tons o' cash for acquiring a Mettalica song. (I just couldn't resist. Sorry Lars!) But them again, The Goo Goo Dolls had their career nearly damaged by "pirating" an album a few years back. Resolution, as my Dad used to say, is somewhere between the two extremes.

Edited for dumb spelling error.

[Newest Reality]

7. I thought the original intent of

copyright laws was to protect a creator or artist for a certain amount of time so that they would have the right to profit and also have incentive? The limits on the length of the copyright was to assure that, eventually, (unlike Mickey Mouse) the works would eventually contribute to the commons thereby, enrich it, free of charge.

Then, in comes large corporations that form an industry which profits, (more-so than most artists) also from said works. Along with the term, "intellectual property" we also have the emergence of the digital age, which changes the perception and the stakes involved. The Record Industry was notorious for charging back on newly signed artists who didn't reach a certain number of sales. So, the companies made money and forced the bands to pay-back their signing fee. Only big artists managed to breakout of that Ponzi scheme and some used their wealth to produce themselves independently.

My only contention is that there is that we can still continue to abide by what is a differentiation between a tort and an actual crime. The industries involved, are, IMHO trying to blur this distinction. Companies and artists, (though companies can usually end-up owning the artist's rights to successful works, royalties to them or no) have always had the right to file a civil suit against any infringement without the party being considered a criminal, per se.

We could also benefit from distinguishing between the use of other people's works by way of plagiarism and derivative works. This usually involves selling a new work that utilizes elements of someone else's and implies a profit motive.

Now, people tell me they want to make a common person a criminal for "xeroxing" any work only for their personal use? That's not pro artist to me, (some artists actually gain recognition and sales from "pirating") that's pro-corporate. The difference is that corporations, (like the predatory and profit-hungry RIAA) have the money and power and teams of lawyers on retainer, as well as extensive, propagandist PR firms to get what they think is rightfully theirs. That is not out of an altruistic motive to enrich or enhance the artists who are not on the upper tiers of their profit machine.

The RIAA has already shown that they can use their leverage, (and try to make an example) to sue little people for exorbitant amounts of money that those people have never seen in their lifetime, (and without any financial gain from the act) and make it stick. What more do you want to give them? Prison sentences?

The rhetoric has sunk-in, (maybe all those condescending advertisements) so much now that people will equate a copy with a thing and even consider arguing that a tort is a crime. That supports some heavy corporatist influence and not the artists, (that, like the use of children) who are being considered and exploited.