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: Ray Fischer on 30 Oct 2009 02:32 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 30 okt, 04:32, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >[.. drivel ..] > >More drivel from the nazi cockroach. The truth must have stung you since you chose to delete it all and spew your sleazy lies. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Savageduck on 30 Oct 2009 15:55 On 2009-10-29 14:33:01 -0700, sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> said: > On 29 okt, 04:31, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On 28 okt, 18:39, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >>>> sobriquet wrote: >>>>> But I guess the concept of a tax on information is beyond the >>>>> comprehension skills of a nazi cockroach like you. >> >>>> If you want respect for you ideas then you will need to be >>>> respectable. >> >>> If people refrain from calling people thieves in case they infringe >>> copyrights, >> >> If you don't want to be called a thief then don't steal, crook. > > If you don't want to be called a nazi cockroach, don't accuse people > of theft when they copy bitstrings. > >> >>> Calling people thieves when they share information is demonization. >> >> YOU ARE STEALING! > > Nonsense. You can't steal if you don't take something away. > Steal this bitstring 1111010101011010000010101011100. > Go ahead. Make my day, you nazi cockroach. Godwin having been trampled into the ...bitstream here, consider there are others who are not happy about your philosophy. You gave Pirate Bay as a source of "bitstrings" to steal, however you should keep pace with the news. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10221666-93.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/jul/31/pirate-bay-ordered-out-netherlands http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/10/global-gaming-pirate-bay http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-taken-offline-by-swedish-authorities-090824/ http://www.macworld.com/article/143592/2009/10/piratebay_fine.html It seems there are some in Sweden and the Netherlands who do not agree with you. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Mason Barge on 30 Oct 2009 18:56 On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:23:11 -0500, "NotMe" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4ada506f$0$1607$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >: >On 17 Oct 2009 16:54:15 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >: > >: >>Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >: >>> Ray Fischer >: >> >: >>>> A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague. >: >>> >: >>>A good reason not to steal images. >: >> >: >>When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from >: >>people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business >: >>with them. >: > >: >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? > >Paying $1 to $3 per hour parking fee in a major city is not unreasonable >provided you pay the fee in advance. Park without paying or with the >expatiation of scuffing and you get hit with a much higher free (some call >it a boot fee) that can and often does run upward of $150. > >The principle is simple and legal, pay me now a fair and agreed upon fee or >pay me later a fee determined by the court. Your choice, pick one. > The principle of law is actual damages. This wasn't a fine. There might be a cause for punitive damages -- the information is insufficient to tell, but I'm betting they wouldn't apply here. In the US at least, we have a pleading called an "offer of judgment". The defendant can offer to pay damages of a certain amount. If the plaintiff insists on trial and does not get more than the offer, he gets to pay all the attorneys' fees that accrue after the offer is made. It's just made to prevent this kind of abuse. Reminds me of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce :)
From: Mason Barge on 30 Oct 2009 19:00 On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:10:38 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet(a)listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:21:58 +1300, Eric Stevens put finger to >keyboard and typed: > >>On 18 Oct 2009 18:10:12 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>> >>>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. > >That's true, but there are degrees of theft. Stealing a doughnut does >not incur the same penalty as stealing a million dollars, for example. > >However, this is rather missing the point, since copyright >infringement isn't theft. In most cases, it isn't even a criminal >offence - it's a matter of (civil) contract law. In contract law, the >amount of damages you can win for breach of contract by the other >party is dependent on the nature of the contract and the nature of the >breach. It's not contract law. It's a tort. "Soft" damages are a lot more likely. >In this particular case (which occurred in the UK, so UK law applies), >the amount the infringer has had to pay to Getty comprises the normal >commercial rate for using the image, plus Getty's costs in detecting >and pursuing the infringement, plus reasonable damages incurred by >Getty as a result of their loss of control over the image, plus >interest, plus court costs for both parties incurred as a result of >disputing (and losing) the case. Individually, none of these elements >are excessive, what makes the final payment seem so high is simply a >result of adding them all together. I think you are correct about that; if a tort is intentional, however, punitive damages are a possibility. Still, I agree with your bottom line.
From: Alfred Molon on 30 Oct 2009 20:04
In article <ofrme596usgc5adhcfceo5b425omrqitpl(a)4ax.com>, Mason Barge says... > The principle of law is actual damages. That may differ from country to country. In this specific case the infringer paid around 2000 GBP for the infringement, which is much more than the licencing fee would have cost. Plus another 24000 GBP of legal fees. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040-8080, E-series DRLRs forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |