The real cost of being sued by Getty
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: Eric Stevens on 19 Oct 2009 04:21 On 18 Oct 2009 18:10:12 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >>Ray Fischer wrote: >>> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>> In my experience none of the judgments I've encounter (we prevailed) for >>>> copyright infringement were listed a fines. These are judgments basically >>>> for damages plus court cost and legal fees. >>> >>> It looks to me like it's well past damages and into punitive >>> maliciousness. >> >>That's your opinion. The courts differ. >> >>As others have said - it's not unusual at all for fees to increase >>significantly when you do something wrong. > >Let's put this in concrete terms... > >You doubtless have music on your computer. Did you pay licensing fees >for EVERY bit of music? If not then you could be sued for $1000 (or >more) for each $0.90 song you didn't pay for. You could be sued for >thousands for each bit of software you didn't pay for. > >Is THAT justice? Yes. > >Did you READ those license agreements in detail to ensure that you are >fully in compliance? Did you make a backup of software that does not >allow for backups? Did you install the same software on two computers >without paying for two copies? Did you transfer music from one >machine to another without making sure that you had permission to do >so? You can't be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't. It's the same with stealing. You either are or you aren't a thief. Your choice. Eric Stevens
From: Eric Stevens on 19 Oct 2009 04:26 On 18 Oct 2009 18:00:22 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>: Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>: >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>: >> >>: >> >>: >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. >>: >> >>: >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >>licensable >>: >> photo isn't ridiculous? >>: > >>: >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >>: >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. >>: >>: The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks >>: like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. >> >>Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more >>(sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The >>court makes a judgment on what equitable. > >"I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll >screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." > >But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. The more you write, the more you sound like a self-righteous thief. Eric Stevens
From: Jerry Stuckle on 19 Oct 2009 06:08 Ray Fischer wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>> NotMe <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>> : Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> : >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>>>> : >> >>>>>> : >> >>>>>> : >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. >>>>>> : >> >>>>>> : >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the >>>>>> licensable >>>>>> : >> photo isn't ridiculous? >>>>>> : > >>>>>> : >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the >>>>>> : >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. >>>>>> : >>>>>> : The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks >>>>>> : like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more >>>>>> (sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The >>>>>> court makes a judgment on what equitable. >>>>> "I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll >>>>> screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." >>>>> >>>>> But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. >>>> That is justice. >>> In what bizarro world is that? >> U.S. Copyright law. > > You're a stupid liar. Copyright LAW says nothing about justice. > It describes law. > Justice is based entirely on the law. >>> Tell us: Do you also insist that having ones hands chopped off for >>> stealing is also justice? >> Completely unrelated. > > Run away, rightard. > Nope. Completely unrelated. But now I see you're running out of arguments, so you're resorting to personal attacks. How like a troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Jerry Stuckle on 19 Oct 2009 06:16 Ray Fischer wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(a)attglobal.net> wrote: >>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>> michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: >>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the licensable >>>>>>> photo isn't ridiculous? >>>>>> Not if they only ever expected to ever catch say 1 in 100 copyright infringers, >>>>>> then no it isn't. >>>>> Since when is one person supposed to be responsible for the actions of >>>>> others? >>>> They're not. But it is meant to discourage ALL copyright violations. >>> You're trying to argue both sides. >> Not at all. My argument is consistent. > > No, it isn't. You say it's okay to use unreasonable punishment to > deter others. That's punishing one person for the acts of others. > Nope. I said nothing about punishing one for the acts of others. It is punishment for the acts of the person who performed the theft. And I think it is completely reasonable. >>>> If you don't violate a copyright, then you have no problems. >>> Simplistic nonsense. >> Nope. > > Mindless idiocy. > You don't violate a copyright, you have no problem. A very simple concept. >> Don't break the law and you have no problems. > > You're a lawbreaker. Why aren't you punished? > And exactly what law have I broken? If you think I have violated your copyright, you are free to sue me. >>>> You can be honest and pay a small price, or attempt to be dishonest and >>> You copied my words without asking permission. You violated copyright. >>> >>> You owe me $1000. >> Nope. > > Hypocrite. > >> Your post is public domain. > > Just like Getty's photos. > Nope, just because something is posted on the internet does not mean it is public domain. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: sobriquet on 19 Oct 2009 06:52
On 19 okt, 10:26, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On 18 Oct 2009 18:00:22 GMT, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > > > > > > >NotMe <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >>"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...(a)sonic.net> wrote in message > >>: Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>: >On Oct 17, 4:17 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>: >> > >>: >> > >>: >> >The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief. > >>: >> > >>: >> Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the > >>licensable > >>: >> photo isn't ridiculous? > >>: > > >>: >Hmmm. So you think that the thief -or you- should be able to set the > >>: >value of an item, and the actual owner shouldn't. > >>: > >>: The actual owner HAS set a value. They demand far more. It looks > >>: like about ten times what the usual licensing fee might be. > > >>Which is quiet typical for any civil court case. One party asks for more > >>(sometimes the moon) the other party ask for less usually nothing. The > >>court makes a judgment on what equitable. > > >"I you don't give us ten times what we charge for the photo then we'll > >screw you over for 200 times what the photo is worth." > > >But that's what happens when law triumphs over justice. > > The more you write, the more you sound like a self-righteous thief. > > Eric Stevens You sound like a fascist cockroach. |