Attached Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/AWR/petition.htmlhttp://

have finally had enough with the theft of work. Artists are loosing income and work due to such thefts. If a person would not be allowed to walk out of a store with a poster or print under their arms and claim fair use when arrested for theft then theives online shouldnt be able to claim that either. We do have a right to be able to publicly display our work safely. We have a right to prosecute those that steal. Please I encourage you to sign. each voice that is heard makes a difference.

Please pass the link on tomarrow I will have a banner for it for those that wish to put a link ontheir sites.

Attached Link: http://www.petitiononline.com/AWR/petition.html

Here is the proper link, the other one has http// at the end of it.

It's not quite the same as walking out of a store with a poster or print as they have per unit costs involved, which a jpg on the web does not have. Let's face it, your PC "walks off" with a copy of every image you view, they're all there in your cache. Violation of copyright is still wrong and you're right to protest against it.

With all due respect, I think it's redundant. Copyright infringement involving more than ten copies and a value of $2500 dollars is a felony in the U.S. (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01847.htm)

Under the DMCA, the host is required to act to remove the violating material from a site, or THEY are also liable. If you're not getting results from the ISP, take it higher.

Also, no offense intended, but the capitalization, spelling, and grammar laws don't make this look very professional.

IMHO, every time the U.S. government gets involved in copyright, they screw it up more. The duration of term is too long (I'm sorry, anyone who thinks 75 to 150 years is a 'limited time' is suffering mental problems), the scope is too vague, and the loopholes too many. Instead of adding more to wade through, the government should simplify the copyright code so it's clear to the layman what is and isn't allowed. (Don't tell me it is. Not even lawyers and judges understand it fully. Is fair use a right or a defense? No one knows. Just one of many examples. Your chances of winning a case depend highly on the individual judging the case.) As it is now, it's disturbingly similar to the U.S. tax code: a convoluted mess made by and for wealthy individual entities, filled with loopholes that can be exploited with the money to find them.

I'd have to agree that there is adequate protection under existing copyright laws. At issue is the question of how to properly enforce them on the internet. Generally, ISPs will take action against sites, on their service, when a complaint is filed by the copyright owner. They usually won't do anything if the complaint is filed by somebody else. The problem with the net is that it is so pervasive and has created a culture (or at least fostered what was already there) that believes everything ought to be free and doesn't usually concern itself with copyrights. Fair use is very restrictive and was mostly intended for reviews and scholarly works where a few quotes or images were used as examples in what is otherwise a completely original treatise. Fair use is not putting up a page with favorite images culled from the net or scanned from magazines.

I've seen on a few artist sites that they can disable the right click on jpgs - when you right click you get a message like "This artist's works are copyright". You don't get the regular right click menu that allows you to snag the pic. Why doesn't Renderosity use this? I think it would cut down on the number of pics just taken from the site on a whim. And if an artist WANTS their art as wallpaper on other's machines, they can release it in freestuff. This wouldn't be that hard, would it? Now I know there's a flip side to this - let me have it! Pardon me for the somewhat off-topic post. Jack

yes you can disalbe right click on pictures.. but that does not matte... if you are using windows xp all you have to do is hold the curso over the picture for few sec and you will get a little save/print/ and more.. and with mac you can just drag the picture wherever you like it. So if you want to steal a picture there is nothing stopping you.. you even got print screen.. sorry..

Hmm. I also have to say, with my apologies, that what was presented was redundant, unprofessional-looking, and lacked a clear purpose. "Strengthening artist's rights" is not much of a platform. Now, if you were to circulate a petition with some specific recommendation... This is not an argument against copyright, or the rights of the artist. I fully recognize that many artists feel strongly about image theft of all description, and they are both morally and (in the US at least) legally right to do so.

The no-right-click idea was thrashed out here last year and it was decided it would serve no useful purpose other than to annoy those who would like to copy an image to disk for personal archive purposes.

Right click disabled is not much use anyway. When you look at a web page the files are saved in the temporary internet files drawer, so any screens you see will be in there.

oki for the merchangts loosing money by that thefts, but what about people who are robbed the "property" of their free work ? (free to view, not to use, or not to pretend being the author i mean, or for making others to pay for it while it was free at first) ? i guess we do not have any rights as long as we are not making money and our claims are worthless ?

Huh? Copyright is copyright, regardless of whether money changes hands. US law makes no essential distinction.

Sorry to say, but this survey is a waste and will do absolutely nothing to change what is going on. Existing laws are already in place for such copyright violations, but people continue to steal. If laws actually stopped thiefs, there wouldnt be any theft to complain about! lol

well I am pleased to say that the petition has gotten some notice by some prominent people. it is still floundering but I have great hope. as for the laws no. they do not go far enough to protect artists online. if someone walked into a store and picked up a poster poped an exacto knife out cut the person out of it set the poster down and said I am going to use this to make a tube/webset/stationary/etcetcetc...and walked out claiming "fair use" they would be laughed at as they are handcuffed. meanwhile.... if you do just that online...you get reported and a site closed IF the artist is lucky. sorry it just doesnt pan out. THOSE laws do not work...but ONLY if artists make their voices heard can it work or get better. if you dont wish to speak up then you have no voice to complain as you are not willing to change the laws.