Kathy says:

I currently am trying to work with the digital medium as a photographer and find the opposite of you column applies. I give the customers ALL their poses on a CD along with printed proofs. They have the rights to print and share for personal use all their photos. My customers have a very hard time accepting that fact. I have shown them identicle photos printed on my home printer and printed professionally that they can not tell the difference in and they still want professional printing. I make more money that way but I really can’t understand why they order so many prints.

As for the file sharing you have hit the nail right on the head. Times have changed and they don’t want to change with it. Until they accept this revolution they will lose money and drive clients away. I don’t think they should hear these cases in court when the industry refused to work with the tecnology that is available.

Thomas King says:

In the case of the great “Shift key encryption bust”, could there be a legal remedy for claims against companies that include unauthorized programs on their CDs? Isn’t their currently a legal debate over said software?

Andrew says:

Kathy: Ah, I wish I had a photographer like you for my wedding. Ours was (is) the opposite — refused to give us or even let us buy the negatives. The only way we could ever get more prints was through them, even in 20 years.

So I suggested that I could scan and reprint the photos. They told me that my results wouldn’t be “professional.” [grin] Maybe not, but all my relatives complimented the shots, and no one complained about the quality.

Maybe today they’re doing things differently — dunno. I like to think that photographers in general are moving with the times, but I wouldn’t be surprised if nothing has changed.

Andrew says:

Thomas: My guess is that these programs aren’t unauthorized. I bet that in the (long) license agreement you have to agree to is something about the copy-protection product that’s included. Personally, I don’t think that cramming a notice like that in a long agreement is fair to consumers, but it certainly keeps the legal dogs at bay.

Juan says:

I tried to make the point to my US Senators and US Rep, that the movie studios did not provide me a solution to children damaging original movies. They did not allow me to make a back up copy nor provide a mechanism to replace my damaged original.

Of course, just a form letter back that everything is fine and well in Washington.

Tom says:

I just bought a DVD player/recorder at Wal-Mart. I was surprised to find on the internet how easy it is to change it so I can play DVDs from any Region. There was also code to bypass Macrovision when copying my old personel VHS to DVD. Macrovision can stop you from copying family VHS.

I also found, with little trouble how a two-step process allows you to make copies of commercial DVDs using your computer. The software is easily available on the web and does not seem to be a secret.

If the publishing industry ever finds out.
God help those who buy a book, read it and then pass on to a friend. Or the charity thrift stores who sell used books for a dollar or less.

For the music and movie industry the answer is simple. Lower prices to an honest amount. DVDs costing more then the same movie on VHS is absurd.
The extra stuff they load the DVD with doesn’t justify the HIGH cost.

One last thing. Where does the money the RIAA extorts form people really go. The performers? PLEASE!

KATHLEEN says:

Like Tom, I just bought a VHS/DVD recorder from Walmart and ran home so excited that I could back up my TONS of VHS movies with DVDs. I am so P$%@*&$%#&@!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom says he found it easy to find remedy on the net. I have not been so lucky. It’s not like I’m selling DVDs on the corner. I ALREADY bought these movies. I think it’s greedy and ludicrous for the industry to soak me for the same movies again!!

Irritated!
Kathleen