Go Back   Huntsville Car Scene.com > Huntsville Car Scene Forums > General Discussions

General Discussions When the thread doesn't fit anywhere else...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 20th   #41
dragginbody87
dragginbody87
has no status.
Official Huntsville Car Scene Grammar Police
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by aminga View Post
Speaking of censorship, what ever happened to the thread about the 2 corvettes racing in The Woodlands, TX.
Censorship denotes government interference with communication. This website is Samir's private property and we are guests. He can do anything he wants here.

I haven't searched to see if he deleted the thread, but we have no censorship argument we can make against him if he did.
dragginbody87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th   #42
Felix
Felix
has no status.
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by aminga View Post
Speaking of censorship, what ever happened to the thread about the 2 corvettes racing in The Woodlands, TX.
This thread?

http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/sh...#axzz1k2MU6Wic
__________________
Justin
Felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th   #43
aminga
aminga
has no status.
 

Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 141
Send a message via MSN to aminga
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
Yea, I don't know nuthin bout computers.
__________________
HONDA: Horsepower Option Did Not Appear.
aminga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th   #44
Beckham
Beckham
is at our new location in MADISON now!
Huntsville Car Scene Staff and Site Sponsor
 
Beckham's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,517
Send a message via AIM to Beckham
Hahahaha @ Aminga.
__________________
www.TheSpeakerbox.net - 256.852.0300

www.facebook.com/TheSpeakerboxHSV
Beckham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st   #45
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson! View Post
the problem is the way they are wanting to battle this. by giving themselves and big business the power to censor and shut down what ever they want without due process will kill many upstart internet based businesses. all the larger company has to do is CLAIM the new company has copyright infringement on their site and they get shut down.
This implementation would never make it to the reality of enforcement. It would be just another 'blue law' on the books. All the hype surrounding such a practice is completely blown out of proportion.

What is reality is that the current systems are not protecting IP creators rights, and it's starting to limit the revenue they can produce which in turn will reduce the number of productions that will see the light of day. I mean, if I posted all my stuff on photobucket, it would've been in a 100 magazines right now, and I would've quit taking photos years ago. No one wants to work for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aminga View Post
Speaking of censorship, what ever happened to the thread about the 2 corvettes racing in The Woodlands, TX.
Should be right here somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
THIS x1,000,000!

To add, it'll be even worse with any business that financially backs a politician.
I really don't think 'censorship' is the right word. That's PR people and news agencies getting a hold of what's going on. It's all in the bills. Read them and make your own decision based on the facts as you see them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragginbody87 View Post
Censorship denotes government interference with communication. This website is Samir's private property and we are guests. He can do anything he wants here.

I haven't searched to see if he deleted the thread, but we have no censorship argument we can make against him if he did.
I have never deleted or hidden anything from public view except in one instance when both parties actually contacted me to remove the same content. I don't think anything that abides by the rules should ever be hidden from public view. If you can't find something, please let me know asap! That could mean a database issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
I didn't think it went anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aminga View Post
Yea, I don't know nuthin bout computers.
lol!
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st   #46
aminga
aminga
has no status.
 

Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 141
Send a message via MSN to aminga
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir View Post
This implementation would never make it to the reality of enforcement. It would be just another 'blue law' on the books. All the hype surrounding such a practice is completely blown out of proportion.
What if it does?



There, Huntsville Car scene can be shut down under SOPA.
__________________
HONDA: Horsepower Option Did Not Appear.
aminga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st   #47
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by aminga View Post
What if it does?



There, Huntsville Car scene can be shut down under SOPA.
Actually, since that image is not hosted by HCS, that is still in complete compliance of IP laws. In fact, this type of misunderstanding is what's fueling all the worry.

That image is hosted on Coca-cola's web site and is therefore still within their direct control. They may modify, amend, remove that content since they own it and host it.

But if you download that image and upload it to photobucket and then post it here, that's where the problem begins. Now, the image is stolen IP from coca-cola, and photobucket is in possession of it and profiting from it. Now, photobucket's use policy probably has a DMCA policy in it, and coca-cola can contact them about the infringing image. But the reality of the situation is that photobucket has no vested interested in making sure they are not damaging coca-cola's IP, especially since their business model can benefit from not doing so.

And this is the heart of the problem. If Coca-cola is wasting lots of resources playing 'police man' on the content that they already spent their time creating, it's a little upsetting to say the least. And after years of trying to get USG (user generated content) companies like photobucket to take a vested interest in IP protection, they've finally had to get mean and take a different direction.

I did months of research on all this before I started HCS in 2004. The Terms of Use here were created with legal resources to ensure compliance for not only the present, but the future. It's one of the reasons attachments can be a sticky issue for any forum that allows them, especially in light of this potential new law. Every attachment would have to be moderated for IP content unlike what's being done now. On large sites, this would require a dedicated person almost 24x7. And this is why the websites are fighting this. Their costs would skyrocket and their profits erode vs the same happening to the companies that own the IP.
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #48
Beckham
Beckham
is at our new location in MADISON now!
Huntsville Car Scene Staff and Site Sponsor
 
Beckham's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,517
Send a message via AIM to Beckham
A good article explaining how online piracy doesn't hurt the entertainment industry as much as we are being led to believe.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...t-the-numbers/

Quote:
Julian Sanchez has an excellent piece in Ars Technica which takes a look at the claim that content creators are being discouraged from creative pursuits due to online piracy – a claim that has fueled the recently stalled anti-piracy legislation in congress.

Whether SOPA and PIPA would have actually worked is an open question, but whether they were ever even necessary to begin with is even more important.

Sanchez looks at the music and movies industry and finds that, relative to many other struggling industries, these entertainment industries have done far better on average during the recession:

Quote:
Since the core function of copyright is to incentivize the production of creative works, it’s also worth looking for signs of declining output associated with filesharing. Empirically, it’s surprisingly hard to find an effect. Rather, a recent survey study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee of the Harvard Business School concluded that “data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers” from producing more works, at least in the US market.

So, for instance, Nielsen SoundScan data shows new album releases stood at 35,516 in 2000, peaked at 106,000 in 2008, and (amidst a general recession) fell back to mid-decade levels of about 75,000 for 2010. That’s against a general background of falling sales since 2004—mostly explained by factors unrelated to piracy—which finally seems to have reversed in 2011. The actual picture is probably somewhat better than that, because SoundScan data is markedly incomplete when it comes to the releases by indie artists who have benefited most from the rise of digital distribution.

If we look at movies, the numbers compiled by the industry statistics site Box Office Mojo show an average of 558 releases from American studios over the past decade, which rises to 578 if you focus on just the past five years. The average for the previous decade—before illicit movie downloads were even an option on most people’s radar—is 472 releases per year. (As we learn from a recent Congressional Research Service report, it’s weirdly hard to detect a strong overall correlation between output and employment in the motion picture industry, which actually fell slightly from 1998 to 2008, even as profits and CEO pay soared. One reason is the growing trend in recent decades for “Hollywood” features to actually be produced in Canada
But wouldn’t these numbers be even higher minus piracy? Well, not necessarily, Sanchez argues. He points out that the top pirated movies also tend to be at the top of the box office.

The whole thing is worth the read. Sanchez argues convincingly that the economic impact of piracy and the impact on employment is being wildly inflated by the entertainment industry and that steps to reduce piracy would actually likely have very little effect.

This makes sense. I suspect a great deal of piracy stems from either people who already spend their budget on entertainment goods and simply can’t afford more – and thus would have no additional economic benefit sans their piracy – or from people who don’t have access to those goods online without resorting to piracy.

In other words, as these pirates earn more they’re going to be more likely to spend it on the goods they now pirate, and as content creators find ways to monetize their content online more people will switch to legal streaming as opposed to downloads.

The data simply doesn’t suggest that piracy is causing any serious economic harm to the US economy or the entertainment industry. Heavy-handed approaches to preventing piracy are wrong-headed and reveal a dangerous level of short-term thinking on the part of both lawmakers and industry leaders. Worse, the impetus to crack down on piracy is based largely on industry data that wildly inflates the problem:

Quote:
As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can’t see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that’s literally about the level of evidence we’re dealing with here.
As Sanchez concludes, “On the data available so far, though, reports of the death of the industry seem much exaggerated.”
__________________
www.TheSpeakerbox.net - 256.852.0300

www.facebook.com/TheSpeakerboxHSV

Last edited by Beckham; January 23rd at 09:24 AM.
Beckham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #49
ray
ray
...
 

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 936
Quote:
As a rough analogy, since antipiracy crusaders are fond of equating filesharing with shoplifting: suppose the CEO of Wal-Mart came to Congress demanding a $50 million program to deploy FBI agents to frisk suspicious-looking teens in towns near Wal-Marts. A lawmaker might, without for one instant doubting that shoplifiting is a bad thing, question whether this is really the optimal use of federal law enforcement resources. The CEO indignantly points out that shoplifting kills one million adorable towheaded orphans each year. The proof is right here in this study by the Wal-Mart Institute for Anti-Shoplifting Studies. The study sources this dramatic claim to a newspaper article, which quotes the CEO of Wal-Mart asserting (on the basis of private data you can’t see) that shoplifting kills hundreds of orphans annually. And as a footnote explains, it seemed prudent to round up to a million. I wish this were just a joke, but as readers of my previous post will recognize, that’s literally about the level of evidence we’re dealing with here.
That made me laugh so hard. And is a really good analogy.
__________________
-Ray
ray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #50
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
In your Forbes article, he states that piracy doesn't hurt because it's only on the popular stuff? What type of logic is that? So your best selling product, which in turn has higher demand and more revenue potential, doesn't hurt revenues when it is pirated? I completely disagree, and any person who has run a business would disagree too.

There's too many people who don't have any real knowledge in any of the business matters making too much noise. If the IP owners and those that are infringing their rights sat down and laid the real issues on the table, this would get resolved sooner. Instead, it's like a two drama queens dragging the whole Internet into their spat. And of course, it seems people have waaaay too much time to talk about this since they're jobless. What a mess this world has become...

I'm so glad I have no touch with current events other than car stuff.
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #51
Felix
Felix
has no status.
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir View Post
I completely disagree, and any person who has run a business would disagree too.
No, they wouldn't.

Sites that participated in the blackout are businesses, big and small. So apparently not all of us disagree.

This bill couldn't potentially hurt a lot of businesses, more than it has ever hurt the music or movie industry. To add, it's one more damn expenses that this nation does not need and can't afford.
__________________
Justin
Felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #52
Felix
Felix
has no status.
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9
I've got ask, what do you stand to gain from this bill, Samir?

What do you have that is being ripped off?
__________________
Justin
Felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #53
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
Sites that participated in the blackout are businesses, big and small. So apparently not all of us disagree.
I agree that all of us do not agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
This bill couldn't potentially hurt a lot of businesses, more than it has ever hurt the music or movie industry. To add, it's one more damn expenses that this nation does not need and can't afford.
I'm not sure I'm following. Do you mean that it would hurt more than has hurt the music/movie industries? I don't see how the nation would be paying for it. I think that's one of the reasons people that would be responsible for enforcing it on their sites are fighting it--they would have to pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
I've got ask, what do you stand to gain from this bill, Samir?

What do you have that is being ripped off?
I'd have piece of mind knowing that if I ever have something published or ripped off online again, I actually have some sort of recourse. Not the 'go away' brushoff I've gotten regarding my stolen material that streetfire, Decatur Daily, and others have given me. It's the reason I have a strict policy on not letting my originals out. They always end up in a magazine that's making bank off my work, and I get a 'go away' brushoff. It's not fair, and it's not right. And yet, it's the norm right now.

If IP rights enforcement got stepped up, people would have to be responsible or pay the price. And I don't mind collecting if they want to be irresponsible.

Thank you for reminding me to call my attorney regarding the most recent infringement I have to deal with.
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #54
Beckham
Beckham
is at our new location in MADISON now!
Huntsville Car Scene Staff and Site Sponsor
 
Beckham's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,517
Send a message via AIM to Beckham
Just curious (and not trying to start drama), but how did your work get stolen in the first place? What I mean is, how did they steal your pictures/video?
__________________
www.TheSpeakerbox.net - 256.852.0300

www.facebook.com/TheSpeakerboxHSV
Beckham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #55
Felix
Felix
has no status.
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir View Post
I don't see how the nation would be paying for it. I think that's one of the reasons people that would be responsible for enforcing it on their sites are fighting it--they would have to pay for it.
How else are they going to enforce it? They have to higher personal to police the internet, which last time I checked, is not to small. Not to mention legal fees, court cost, and so on and so on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir
Not the 'go away' brushoff I've gotten regarding my stolen material that streetfire, Decatur Daily, and others have given me. It's the reason I have a strict policy on not letting my originals out. They always end up in a magazine that's making bank off my work.
I'm still having a hard time understanding this. Anyone I know that has ever had a picture of their vehicle used in a magazine or internet site has had it removed without any problems, IF they wanted it removed. Most of the time they are/were flattered that someone thought enough of their vehicle to put it in an add, or what ever the case may be.

The only time I've known of someone to complain was when their vehicle was used to promote another business, that had nothing to do with their vehicle. IE: A shop taking credit for the vehicle that they didn't build.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir
If IP rights enforcement got stepped up, people would have to be responsible or pay the price.
Big companies paying a fine, aren't going to care. They could pay a $20-30k fine for something that made them $100-150k. I have seen this first hand, it happens.

The smaller companies are simply not going to pay, they'll dissolve and resurrect as under another name, or stay closed.
__________________
Justin

Last edited by Felix; January 23rd at 04:05 PM.
Felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #56
Felix
Felix
has no status.
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9
On and unrelated note...


Samir, what the hell do you have the "auto log out" set to? 2-3 mintues? Haha!

I have to re-log in, almost every time I check the thread.
__________________
Justin
Felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #57
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
How else are they going to enforce it? They have to higher personal to police the internet, which last time I checked, is not to small. Not to mention legal fees, court cost, and so on and so on.
That's true, but it's not as bad as they make it out to be. Sites that are based on UGC (User Generated Content) are the ones that are a big target for these bills, and they would simply have to moderate everything to make sure it isn't illegal. Under current DMCA, they can just say this is the 'responsibility of the user' and wash their hands of it.

The court costs and such are going to be only when things can't be resolved in a civil manner. Most businesses know that being financially right is more important than being morally or legally right. 1-800-Radiator franchising corp stole almost $60k from myself and my partner. We have it documented and could have went to court over it. But in the end, it would have been another year and we would have still lost the same amount since whatever we recouped would've went to attorney's fees. I can see problems if IP creators use this legal muscle to push people around, but it can already be done, so this wouldn't be a new factor.

Compliance isn't hard. For example, HCS is in compliance even now. It's just about making the right ethical questions rather than just legal ones, because the legal will always change. And if you've based a business model on a legal loophole, well then when it is closed, you're out of business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
I'm still having a hard time understanding this. Anyone I know that has ever had a picture of their vehicle used in a magazine or internet site has had it removed without any problems, IF they wanted it removed. Most of the time they are/were flattered that someone thought enough of their vehicle to put it in an add, or what ever the case may be.
They had it removed, but the magazine or site still gained monetarily without paying any royalties to the person that created the art, which is what they normally would do. Most people are flattered because they never thought they could get there, and to them the work of creating is just fun, so they don't expect payment. For others, this is work.

I felt flattereed the first few times. But after a couple of times being published, you know your work is on the same level as those that are getting paid, and you want to get paid too. And if they don't want to, that's fine, but then don't use the work. The problem is that a lot of publications are publishing the work and then assuming that people will be flattered. That's not how it's supposed to work. And bringing up the infringement to their attention is brushed off, which it shouldn't be. Does this help?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
The only time I've known of someone to complain was when their vehicle was used to promote another business, that had nothing to do with their vehicle. IE: A shop taking credit for the vehicle that they didn't build.
And that's an interesting case because there's almost nothing to legally prevent someone from doing this. The only rights that could be exercised are the rights to the images if they weren't shot in a public environment, and the original copyright holder wishes to help the vehicle owner. If the vehicle was shot, say at a local car show by someone from the shop--there's almost nothing that can be done. I'm sure there's something related to false advertising or misleading business practices, but that stuff gets complicated and needs the professional advice of an attorney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
Big companies paying a fine, aren't going to care. They could pay a $20-30k fine for something that made them $100-150k. I have seen this first hand, it happens.

The smaller companies are simply not going to pay, they'll dissolve and resurrect as under another name, or stay closed.
It's not really a 'fine' as you put it. You sign a license agreement that pays x amount per view or play or something like that. It's why there are certain tracks available on youtube.

They can pay, but the courts are going to see that the damages don't make it something they'll want to repeat. And that's what they're fighting over. They don't want it to happen at all because it will amount to millions in damages since that they've already made millions on content that wasn't theirs.

Smaller companies won't have such high expenses to license content. But if their primary content is not legally theirs, they will either have to pay up or become barren.

On a side note, I removed the commercial links in your signature as these type of signatures are reserved for site advertisers. Advertising starts at only $15/month, so check it out:
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/events/Packages.pdf
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #58
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix View Post
On and unrelated note...


Samir, what the hell do you have the "auto log out" set to? 2-3 mintues? Haha!

I have to re-log in, almost every time I check the thread.
That's strange because I don't. Are you using www.huntsvillecarscene.com or huntsvillecarscene.com? The cookie domain is on www.huntsvillecarscene.com, so that may be the issue. Let me know if you keep having this problem! It definitely shouldn't be doing this.
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd   #59
Samir
Samir
is missing the scene
Administrator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckham View Post
Just curious (and not trying to start drama), but how did your work get stolen in the first place? What I mean is, how did they steal your pictures/video?
It's a matter of not having a license versus the common definition of theft. Similar to how software requires a license regardless if you have CD or not. So if someone gets a digital original, they have the ability to put it in the cover of the Sunday sports section like Decatur Daily did, but they don't have permission without a properly executed license. And only the owner of the copyright can issue this license. Photographers are compensated for this license, but beforehand. If something is already published, that's infringement.

The only time I've had infringement is when I've released an original. And almost each time without fail, the image gets published without my permission. That's why a digital copy comes with a very strongly worded license that includes a damages clause with a high dollar amount. I'm also extremely selective on releasing digital copies. If I feel like there's potential for infringement, I won't do it. It's not worth the hassle.
__________________
Don't hate...appreciate
Samir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th   #60
Felix
Felix
has no status.
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9
We'll just have to agree, to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir View Post
On a side note, I removed the commercial links in your signature as these type of signatures are reserved for site advertisers. Advertising starts at only $15/month, so check it out:
http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/events/Packages.pdf
I didn't realize you didn't allow that. Only one was a commercial link, the others were just public sites. Either way, no big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samir
That's strange because I don't. Are you using www.huntsvillecarscene.com or huntsvillecarscene.com? The cookie domain is on www.huntsvillecarscene.com, so that may be the issue. Let me know if you keep having this problem! It definitely shouldn't be doing this.

Read more: http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com/ne...#ixzz1kOMtLewR
I'm using http://www.huntsvillecarscene.com.
__________________
Justin

Last edited by Felix; January 24th at 10:03 AM.
Felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2001 - 2012, Huntsville Car Scene
Terms of Service