On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:35:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 8/8/2011 10:09, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> ... as an example: how many shops have you been in that allow the
>> customer behind counters?
> 
> Yeah, when I was young we had the same problem at the gas station I
> worked at. The cash register was there, the accounting books, etc. We
> found that a german shepherd under the desk worked wonders tho.

Oddly, I never had that problem at the software store I worked at when I 
was in high school - the counter was raised, so perhaps having a step up 
made a 'barrier' that people wouldn't cross when they didn't work there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

not related to Tumblr.

Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and 
the very first try lead me to this:

www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm

Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses 
POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an 
image of mine some others by well known povers and no need to mention 
that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images 
are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 18:29, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> Well, it seems to me you have two choices.
>
> ...
>
> You have to decide what the value is to you for your copyrighted work and
> whether the aggravation of having to deal with it is worth the value you
> assign to your work.  Only you can make that decision.
>

Thanks Jim, this pretty well summarizes it for me. Indeed if just one 
out of five would have responded positive I'd have no problem with it 
but now I'm gone this far (really should have listened to my wife - as 
usual - and ignore the whole thing) and will continue. I'll keep you 
informed if something interesting happens ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.08.2011 18:39, schrieb Darren New:
> http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html
>

Thanks Darren, great link, makes it much easier for me to think about 
persuading the whole issue.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 2011-08-08 10:33, Warp wrote:
>    He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
> some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
> playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
> by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
> of sense does that make?

I think that, to an extent, it relates to the ability to reproduce the 
game/music/movie/whatever losslessly, an unlimited number of times.  It 
throws a wrench in the supply-and-demand model, because supply becomes 
infinity.  It makes the actual-value of the product 'zero'.

It's part of why it's so hard to get any money for a digital drawing 
you've made; value lies in uniqueness.  Even if you make 1,000,000 
prints of a drawing, those are numbered and you can sell the physical 
item for more than a copy of the digital file, even though the image is 
the same (and, for all intents and purposes, what is supposedly being 
bought).

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:
> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".

Do the lawyers know this?


-- 
<Insert witty .sig here>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:04:27 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:03:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>> ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".
> 
> Do the lawyers know this?

Given the number of lawsuits from MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, and other 
intellectual property bodies, I bet they do know that people think that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 17:33, Warp wrote:
> Ive<ive### [at] lilysoftorg>  wrote:
>> Am 08.08.2011 01:48, schrieb Darren New:
>
>>> And this is why creative people hate pirates, even if "they wouldn't
>>> have bought the content anyway."
>
>> This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."-argument is something I was
>> always wondering about. Does it mean that someone prefers (take music as
>> example) to listen to songs he actually doesn't like just because he was
>> able to get them for free.

Often it means that people do like things, but not enough to buy them. 
One potential flaw in this argument is that they don't like them enough 
to buy, *because* they can get it and similar things for 'free'.

I also know people that collect music. Even the sort of music they don't 
like themselves. Just for the sake of collecting. They might simply be 
addicted to collecting, I don't know.

>    Some time ago I was at a friend's home, and another friend of his gave
> him a pirated and cracked version of Assassin's Creed 2 on DVD-R. I asked
> why. It's not like his life depended on the 50 euros that it would have
> costed to buy the game.

I have been given copies of music CD's for my birthday. Most people know 
that I try to keep my music collection clean from content that I did not 
buy. Even knowing that does not stop them. I simply can not understand 
that. Why would you give somebody something you know he doesn't want and 
certainly is not going to keep?

(OK, you might do that to introduce me to some music that I might like, 
so I would buy it myself if I liked it, but I am pretty sure that was 
not the intention)

BTW I find it hard to throw these disks away, because they were gifts. 
But I never listen to them again. (just once, see above).


>
>    His answer: "What if I don't have 50 euros?"
>
>    I was perplexed. I asked what exactly forces him to play the game in
> question if he can't afford it.
>
>    He presented the argument completely seriously. I don't understand why
> some people honestly think that's any kind of justification. It's not like
> playing a computer game is necessary for anything at all. I don't understand
> by what logic if you can't afford a game, it's ok to pirate it. What kind
> of sense does that make?

None at all (to us).



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 20:05, Ive wrote:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>
> www.optimadekor.com/povray_mutfak_demo.htm
>
> Seems to be a kind of commercial interior design software that uses
> POV-Ray as a render engine. As you can easily see they use besides an
> image of mine some others by well known povers

I see about 7 images that I recognize without going to the hof, some 
were just in the pba newsgroup, I think.


> and no need to mention
> that I was never asked for permission. To my understanding these images
> are used to advertise a commercial product so really WTF?
>
> -Ive


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2011 20:05, Ive wrote:
> not related to Tumblr.
>
> Just did a search with the new Google reverse image search engine and
> the very first try lead me to this:
>

I can only find one image of mine included in two blogs, so that is not 
too bad. And they were of a ceramic thing (the death of rats in this 
case), so in a sense it is not even what I would consider original work. 
(it is, but the proces of making and baking it was what took most of the 
time, whereas a POV image is the direct result of spending time, so i 
would feel more infringed if they took a POV image from me).


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message