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 18 Oct 2009 17:57 michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4adb57dc$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> 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 you just tried to argue that punishing a few people excessively is justified by the actions of others. > But they're all equally guilty of infringing copyright. Which is wholly irrelevant. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 17:57 Frank ess <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> 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? > >That's not what he said. Yes it is. > Get a grip. Learn to read. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 19:35 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. > Tell us: Do you also insist that having ones hands chopped off for > stealing is also justice? > Completely unrelated. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 19:36 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. >> If you don't violate a copyright, then you have no problems. > > Simplistic nonsense. > Nope. Don't break the law and you have no problems. >> 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. Your post is public domain. Or, if you want to argue that - you copied my words. You owe me $1,000,000. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: sobriquet on 18 Oct 2009 21:44
On 19 okt, 01:36, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...(a)attglobal.net> wrote: > Ray Fischer wrote: > > Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...(a)attglobal.net> wrote: > >> Ray Fischer wrote: > >>> michael adams <mjadam...(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > >>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...(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. Your argument is absurd. Tell me how long a bitstring has to be before we allow people to claim ownership or accuse people of theft who happen to reproduce or distribute it? 111010101101010111010001010001011011010101011101001 Copyright is proof that there are no limits to human stupidity. > > >> If you don't violate a copyright, then you have no problems. > > > Simplistic nonsense. > > Nope. Don't break the law and you have no problems. Nonsense. The government is merely the dominant crime syndicate. > > >> 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. Your post is public domain. > > Or, if you want to argue that - you copied my words. You owe me $1,000,000. Justice is available for those for those who have the cash to exploit the justice system to their advantage. People who advocate the notion of intellectual property are professional criminals who belong in jail. The full potential of information technology can only be exploited if intellectual property is exposed for the myth it really is. > > -- > ================== > Remove the "x" from my email address > Jerry Stuckle > JDS Computer Training Corp. > jstuck...(a)attglobal.net > ================== |