Warez

The glossary definition of Warez is a little light on -

Warez
Intellectual property (IP) that is distributed illegally. Examples are software, movies or music being given away or resold without the permission of the author, serial numbers or ways to crack software that is sold (serialz or crackz).

Warez is generally also accepted to be stuff you steal, ie if you "borrow" an install disc from work without there permission, install it on your home computer and take the install cd back to work. A nit picking bush lawyer comment, but if you read the glossary definition by the letter, this does not come under it as it is not distribution, given away or resold, (just straight theft).

In it broadest sense Warez is software etc you are using that the author generally requires payment to obtain, that you did not pay for.[/quote]

That's pretty funny. I would have never guessed that.

You guys are on to something. There needs to be a pronunciation following all the words in the glossary. Like in a dictionary. Could you imagine the arguments? The format wars would pale in comparison! Baldrick?... Anybody? ...

Warez is simply anything, whatever is as illegal and infringement of copyright of something.

Bootleg DVDs, music CDs and VHS videotapes for sale and someone have infringing copies in possession as all illegal.

This is just an example, having a DVD of movie before its release is as obvious as a pirate copy. No, no, this is stealing and better to get a real one on release date.

Warez also can be computer software you got as copied and you haven’t paid for such as from a source you know and installed it in your PC.

Look in glossary on warez.

Originally Posted by John James

having a DVD of movie before its release is as obvious as a pirate copy.

Not to be nitpicking again, but this is not obvious warez. I have an uncle whom is an old actor, and every year before our local movie awards (AFI) in Australia he gets sent copies of many of the latest movies, often not yet released, so he can decide "whom he is going to vote for" for best actor, movie etc etc. They are suposed to send someone around to collect them just before the awards but never do. I quiet often go around and watch them, sometimes months before they are released.

The only problem being that they often have "for your consideration" or something similar plastered all over them when the actor they are pushing shows up on the screen.

My Uncle would be most offended to be branded a "pirate" or a user of warez!

Warez the beef?
http://www.stargeek.com/item/86638.html

that has just GOT to be one of the most famous thong pictures ever!
Would like to see her face as well though....

Originally Posted by pyscrow

Originally Posted by John James

having a DVD of movie before its release is as obvious as a pirate copy.

Not to be nitpicking again, but this is not obvious warez. I have an uncle whom is an old actor, and every year before our local movie awards (AFI) in Australia he gets sent copies of many of the latest movies, often not yet released, so he can decide "whom he is going to vote for" for best actor, movie etc etc.

You're just a smart ass on about the screeners. I am saying a copy of a film on DVD before release as generally normally a pirate, not the screeners though.

Your uncle can't distribute the screeners or copy it then if he does would be infringing copyright.

Doramius, yes you would be if the photographer who took it retained all copy rights. This is very common. Professional photographers often sell you the photo under a license whereby you can only get additional copies by having the photographer develop some more. Of course if this was the case then you probably would have signed an agreement stating so.

But that's ridiculous how the guy would question your right to copy it. I guess he's assuming its a professional print just because of its quality. You easily could have used the timer on the camera or had a friend take it, and there would be no way to prove this.

But Doramius since this IS a professional photo then you probably are in the wrong. Just because you are in the photo doesn't mean you have a right to make a copy. You bought a single photo, nothing else. If you want a second one or a different version of it you have to go back to the source and order another one. Of course I'm saying this under the assumption the photo was in fact sold to you under a license, which is usually the case.

Well I would have no problem with a release form, its the the outright disallowance of their services without PROOF of a right to copy that gets me. For the typical things people photocopy, 99% of the time it would be impossible or utterly impractical to prove that you have a right to copy it.

If you draw something and want to make copies, there is no way to prove that it isn't copyrighted under someone else's name.

My wife visits Kinko's almost daily to photocopy things from packets that she distributes in her classroom to a bunch of 9 year old rugrats. The works she is copying are clearly copyrighted, and her copying of them is clearly protected under Fair Use. But in order for her to PROVE to the Kinko's employee that she has a right to copy these she would first have to go get a declatory judgment from a court.

A copy shop only has the duty of ordinary care in preventing copyright infringement. If something seems fishy, they have a duty to investigate and if necessary disallow the copying. Now in Doramius' case that may be all that happened, its impossible to know. But no copy shop has a right to force someone to prove they are the outright owner of the work they are copying, the burden to follow copyrights is on the individual doing the copying.

Now the shop certainly has a right to protect themselves via release forms, and I suppose its true that they can refuse anyone's business that they want, but I do think its unreasonable and ridiculous to force someone to prove they have a right to copy something, when strictly speaking, almost no one can ever do this.

Originally Posted by adam

Professional photographers often sell you the photo under a license whereby you can only get additional copies by having the photographer develop some more.

This an example of copyright going too far as to retrict freedom in a free country of America.

Copyright on your own family photos as obscene and better to do yourself on your own scanning and printing at home.

I don't think this would be any different than backing up your own music CDs as fair use.

This is another ridiculous situation, I want to view a DVD movie on the TV coming from a PC using a S-video out. The DVD software is WinDVD.

I can't watch it that way due to macrovision blocking the picture as a black bar over it.

This is another example of the movie industry going too far and I need freedom to watch my DVD on the TV.

I have to use a normal DVD player and this way as so much better.

Originally Posted by John James

This an example of copyright going too far as to retrict freedom in a free country of America.

Well that's one man's opinion. But there is more to a photo then just the print. A good photo can be the product of years worth of training and equipment which you wouldn't care to purchase yourself. Photography is art and having a professional take your picture is alot different then just taking that same picture yourself. Its often not profitable for a photographer to sell just 1 copy of each picture, taking into account all he may be investing in it. Take a wedding for example. A photographer will often factor in duplicate copies and additional copies for friends and relatives, when quoting his price. If he didn't have the right to be the sole duplicator of those prints, well he'd have to charge alot more for each picture. Some people, including you would be willing to pay this price I presume. But there is a good chance that overall, the market wouldn't and that's why the law is the way it is. Of course this is just another man's opinion.

Originally Posted by John James

I don't think this would be any different than backing up your own music CDs as fair use.

If we are still talking about America, then Fair Use doesn't allow you to copy your music cds either. So compared to professional photographs, its basically the same situation. You purchased x number of items, typically one photo or one cd. If you want another copy you have to purchase another one. This is because you purchased the medium (the actual print or the actual disk) not the content. I know its a picture of YOU, but if you could have taken as good of a picture then you wouldn't have bothered to go to a professional. You are the subject but the content is still a product of the photographer's investment in it too (knowledge, equipment, time,etc..)

And then of course there is the issue of free will. If you aren't happy with the photographer's license you can either take your business elsewhere or negotiate for a less restrictive license, which presumably wouldn't cost anymore then he would have to charge without the copyright.

i was working for a photography company up till last month. all our prints were stamped with a copyright logo before they went out, fairly normal for big photo companies. we regualrly got pissed off customers on the phone who'd been refused service in a copy shop. "they say i need some copyright release or something?!" they shut up a bit sharp when we pointed out the copyright and original negative belonged to the company and copying it IS illegal. and then, hello, why not just buy another print from us?

i remember one guy was so pissed off he went back to the copy shop after cutting off the part of the photo with the copyright stamp. same woman saw him so refused and called us up. after the guys wife went nuts (because he cut a hole in their pciture.....) he bought some new prints.

we did a package where the cust pays £20 for four photo sessions and get a free 8x10 from each. they didn't seem to understand we didn't make money on that deal which is why the rest of the prints were more expensive than £5 each

but where will you get the originals from once the phot companies go out of business?

my sole point being not everyone has/wants lighting equipment, an expensive camera, a computer, a scanner, a digital printer big enough to make 20x24's and half a forest of photo paper.

Originally Posted by flaninacupboard

but where will you get the originals from once the phot companies go out of business?

Asking for Warez.