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: Frank ess on 18 Oct 2009 21:49 Ray Fischer wrote: > 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. You're wrong, Ray, and you're likely too smart not to know it. All this foot-stomping and hand-waving can't hide that. Ask your therapist to give you another session or two a week. It'll pay off in the long run. -- Frank ess
From: Jerry Stuckle on 18 Oct 2009 22:26 sobriquet wrote: > 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. > Copyright is protection of creative works. >>>> 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. > ROFLMAO. You'd rather have anarchy? Where anyone can do anything they want at any time? I want your house and car. I think I'll just take them. And there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it. Oh, and maybe I want your wife, too. >>>> 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. > Justice is available for those who have a case. The fact you think you need a lot of money to pursue a case shows how little you know. > 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. > Sure. So I can take anything you created and do whatever I want with it. Please email me everything you've ever done to the address in my sig. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex(a)attglobal.net ==================
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 22:54 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. >> Tell us: Do you also insist that having ones hands chopped off for >> stealing is also justice? > >Completely unrelated. Run away, rightard. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 22:56 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. >>> If you don't violate a copyright, then you have no problems. >> >> Simplistic nonsense. > >Nope. Mindless idiocy. > Don't break the law and you have no problems. You're a lawbreaker. Why aren't you punished? >>> 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. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Oct 2009 22:58
Frank ess <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> 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. > >You're wrong, Ray, You'll need something better than just your childish insistence. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |