Am 08.08.2011 05:50, schrieb nemesis:

> Subtle watermarks?  Meta information in the image file?  They just pass it on,
> don't even bother with editing, I guess.
>
The Tumblr-people re-blogging stuff do not care, but the original poster 
who has found it "somewhere" in the internet does sometimes. I've seen a 
picture from Gilles where the copyright notice was cropped away.
Meta tags is something I'm already using (but they get usually lost if 
the image is e.g. resized) and (what I've learned so far) in the future 
I will always add a notice on the image itself. Well, this can be 
cropped, but this act does actually show something about the person.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

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.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

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.

  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.

  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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:04:51 +0200, Ive wrote:

> 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.

Usually it has more to do with "I don't know what I'd be buying, and if I 
open it and don't like it, I can't return it".  I know a few people who 
approach it that way - they want to 'try before they buy'.

Of course, these days there are plenty of ways to actually do that 
legally without resorting to piracy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:40:22 +0200, Ive wrote:

> Am 08.08.2011 06:16, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of
>> your work and ask that they deal with it.
>>
>>
> Yes. It is just not my way to run to the authorities when I have a
> problem with someone. I am considering it but I'm still hesitating.

Well, it seems to me you have two choices.

1.  Do nothing and just continue to be pissed about it
2.  Since you've contacted those who have violated your copyrights, you 
can escalate to the site owners or to law enforcement.

Law enforcement is by its very nature a complaints-driven business.  They 
don't tend to enforce laws that nobody has complained about.  (That's 
something I've been told by people who work in law enforcement)

You did a reasonable thing by trying to discuss the situation with those 
who actually engaged in the copying.  Since they've been non-responsive, 
you're really left with just those two choices (or you could 'get over' 
being pissed about it, which is just a variant of #1).

> Also I'm wondering, if the people responsible for (and earning money
> with)  Tumblr would be serious about copyright infringement they had to
> shut down 99% of all Tumblr-blogs and this is obviously NOT part of the
> business-model.
> And from what I've seen so far I already know what will happen: The
> blog-owner gets a mail notifying him about the issue including a thread
> to shutdown his/her account.
> He/she publishes this mail on his/her blog (so well, finally something
> new and unique to blog about) and this is followed by a loud outburst of
> the Tumblr-"community" about some stupid guy (this would be me) who
> instead of being proud to be recognized by the Tumblr-community insists
> in censorship and internet fascism. Guess I could live with that and a
> few hours later the whole issue within Tumblr-folks is forgotten anyway.
> But seriously, what is he point?

The point is that you've protected your copyright, as is your right.

Of course, there's another possible outcome as well - that of someone who 
has violated copyrights learning something about them.

There's a legal principle (I've heard) as well that says that if you do 
nothing to enforce your copyright, you may lose the ability to enforce it 
for that work down the road.  Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I have 
heard of this happening.

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2011 7:40, Ive wrote:
> Am 08.08.2011 06:16, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> Contact enq### [at] tumblrcom with references to the uncredited use of
>> your work and ask that they deal with it.
>>
>
> Yes. It is just not my way to run to the authorities when I have a problem
> with someone. I am considering it but I'm still hesitating.

http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html

(Not my site - yes, it's crappy design - use readability. :-)

You don't have to go to the authorities. You go to the ISP, who is not 
responsible for the content *until* you tell them its yours. Then they turn 
off access to the image and give the people using it a chance to prove they 
own the copyright.

It's not the authorities. It's just the ISP, or probably tumblr in this case.

Assuming this is in the USA that is. I don't know how it works other places.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:40:22 -0400, Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> ... followed by a loud outburst of the Tumblr-"community" about some  
> stupid guy (this would be me) who instead of being proud to be  
> recognized by the Tumblr-community insists in censorship and internet  
> fascism.

So insisting that people not steal your stuff is "censorship" and  
"fascism"?  How does that work?  Are they communists over there?

-- 
<Insert witty .sig here>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:43:50 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:40:22 -0400, Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
>> ... followed by a loud outburst of the Tumblr-"community" about some
>> stupid guy (this would be me) who instead of being proud to be
>> recognized by the Tumblr-community insists in censorship and internet
>> fascism.
> 
> So insisting that people not steal your stuff is "censorship" and
> "fascism"?  How does that work?  Are they communists over there?

Some people feel that if it's on the 'net, they should be able to use it 
in any way they wish regardless of the creators' wishes.

ie, they think "if it's on the 'net, it's public domain".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2011 11:56 AM, Ive wrote:
> Am 08.08.2011 05:50, schrieb nemesis:
>
>> Subtle watermarks? Meta information in the image file? They just pass
>> it on,
>> don't even bother with editing, I guess.
>>
> The Tumblr-people re-blogging stuff do not care, but the original poster
> who has found it "somewhere" in the internet does sometimes. I've seen a
> picture from Gilles where the copyright notice was cropped away.
> Meta tags is something I'm already using (but they get usually lost if
> the image is e.g. resized) and (what I've learned so far) in the future
> I will always add a notice on the image itself. Well, this can be
> cropped, but this act does actually show something about the person.
>
> -Ive
>
>
>
>
>
you know it's more about people not caring or respecting boundaries 
anymore ... as an example: how many shops have you been in that allow 
the customer behind counters? Yet I almost daily have to politely ask 
people not to go behind the counter. I even have signs with a traffic 
cop ... has his hand up in the stop position with "Employees Only" in 
two languages, but that doesn't stop them. Also interesting that 8 out 
of 10 times the customer seems put out that I've ask them out from 
behind the counter ... couple of years ago even had one chap inform me 
that I have major control issues (lol) ... so like I said most people 
don't care who they trample on to further whatever agenda they might have

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message