“What does a bill like PIPA/SOPA mean to our shareable world? At the TED offices, Clay Shirky delivers a proper manifesto — a call to defend our freedom to create, discuss, link and share, rather than passively consume.“
“What does a bill like PIPA/SOPA mean to our shareable world? At the TED offices, Clay Shirky delivers a proper manifesto — a call to defend our freedom to create, discuss, link and share, rather than passively consume.“
Evidence of this type of upside-down logic that shifts the burden of proof to services can be seen EVERYWHERE… one of my current soapbox issues in this genre is photo labs, which now face a $25,000 fine if they print a picture that ‘belongs’ to a professional photographer. I had a TERRIBLE experience where our daughter hired a professional photographer in North Carolina to take some pics of our grandson. She paid the $150 to get the rights to the JPG files on the disk she was provided. Her Sam’s Club wouldn’t print the photos until she produced a hard copy of the release… then she had some of the photos delivered to the local PA Sam’s for delivery to us and ours wouldn’t print them for pickup until THEY had hard copy releases… to add insult to injury, the Sam’s in North Carolina wouldn’t fax the release they had received and we needed to start all over again. Now I realize that some photogs put releases on their disks, but since when does it make more sense for every photo processing lab in the world to enforce digital rights of photogs? Doesn’t it make more sense for photogs to put watermarks on the ‘proof’ JPGs that they produce if they release disks of ‘proofs’ even if some hack might try to airbrush the watermark away? WHAT A CRAZY UPSIDE DOWN WORLD (and yes I am screaming on the inside ;)
That’s an interesting (and for you, frustrating) example of the challenges of protecting and enforcing media rights. Talk about overkill on Sam’s Club’s part. And think of the wasted expense too. Ugh.