Quote:
Originally posted by UnseenWorld
That SOME (not all) celeb photo owners don't care is not the point. The point is, it's property, and if they don't care, then you can get PERMISSION (ever heard of that?).
Maybe you don't think your neighbor would mind lending you his lawnmowever, but do you go over and take it out of his garage and use it without going up and asking, "Hey, Joe, can I borrow your lawnmower?" No, you do it because it's the way things are done.
What content producers and artists are always fighting is the idea that their output is not property. Well, here's the news: it IS.
|
Well said, and you know what, I agree with you on that. If it were the copyright owners complaining to iBill, I'd be fine with it, because I wouldn't be claiming a right to the pictures. Your analogy is a little flawed, however. Better would be to say, your neighbor has let you take his lawnmower over and over again for years, to the point where you no longer think it's necessary to ask permission to use it. This sort of thing happens all the time in the real world.
Also, there is a little part of copyright law that says copyright owners have to aggressively go after infringing users, and they (in this case) are not, and have not for the five years I've been in this business. I find it disturbing that no one has a problem with people that have NO LEGAL RIGHT to these pictures illegally strong-arming the industry using the threat of legal action? That's just fucked up, and if it continues to work, others are going to try the same shit.
Someone else brought up a good point, though - apparently it is OK for iBill to make money off of this "stolen" content, but not webmasters. Many celeb webmasters have been processing with iBill for years, and made them quite a lot of money, aside from Cyberwave's full MONTH of billing that they have decided to keep. That also screws surfers, you know. I somehow doubt they're going to be refunding a month's worth of charges.