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: Eric Stevens on 20 Oct 2009 18:09 On 20 Oct 2009 04:09:18 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >>On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >>>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? >> >>Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing. > >It must make it very easy for simple people like you to simply assume >that other people are guilty. In this case, Getty proved his claims in front of a judge. Eric Stevens
From: sobriquet on 20 Oct 2009 19:16 On 21 okt, 00:07, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:03:44 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > > > > > <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet > > >> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> >>[..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..] > > >> >IPR is a figment of your lively imagination. > >> >All people with any understanding of information technology and a > >> >tight budget can simply download everything > >> >for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement. > > >> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed > >> by the state? > > >> Eric Stevens > > >The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food, > >clothing, shelter and > >internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange > >for money. > > From where does the state get the resources for the "unconditional > basic income (for food, clothing, shelter and internet)"? It's simply a matter of coming up with smart technology that can create and maintain itself. If you have one robot that can build a copy of itself from scratch, you don't need any money to finance the production of an army of robots, because they can build themselves and once they are build they can produce things like basic housing, clothing, etc. as well as doing all sorts of chores. The technology to do this is already available, it's just a matter of a little technological innovation and we could have mass-produced universally deployable robots that are as common as cellphones or cars are today. > > >There are ample opportunities to let robots, machines and computers do > >all of the work and > >the few jobs that can't be automated yet can be done by people who are > >willing to work for > >a little extra luxury. > > Should they be paid, or is it morally acceptable to just take their > work product? If their product is not scarce, it's necessarily free. That doesn't mean you can't sell it, but it's very moronic and silly to sell it. You can also sell holy water, but obviously that's just as much of a scam as selling bitstrings for anyone who has the ability to do some independent critical thinking. Besides, it's not necessarily a product they produce.. it might be a service they provide. > > > > >Such an unconditional free income will ensure that people can always > >follow their passion > >and devote time to something they think is worthwhile and that's the > >best way to motivate people > >to contribute something to society. > > >Money has lost most of it's relevance and significance now that > >culture can be digitized for the most part, since there is no sensible > >way to associate money with information in digital form in a > >meaningful way (given that the monetary value of an item is a measure > >for its relative scarcity). > >Money itself is just as much of a relic of the past as copyright. > > Eric Stevens- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
From: Ray Fischer on 21 Oct 2009 01:43 Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >>>On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>> >>>>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? >>> >>>Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing. >> >>It must make it very easy for simple people like you to simply assume >>that other people are guilty. > >In this case, Getty proved his claims in front of a judge. Which is wholly irrelevant since the judge didn't determine guilt or innocence and wasn't even concerned with such things, only that the defendant had used a photo that belonged to Getty and so should pay Getty what Getty demanded. If you're lucky you'll learn the difference between law and justice the easy way and it won't cost you your freedom or money. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Eric Stevens on 21 Oct 2009 04:55 On 21 Oct 2009 05:43:56 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >>>>On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>>Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing. >>> >>>It must make it very easy for simple people like you to simply assume >>>that other people are guilty. >> >>In this case, Getty proved his claims in front of a judge. > >Which is wholly irrelevant since the judge didn't determine guilt or >innocence and wasn't even concerned with such things, only that the >defendant had used a photo that belonged to Getty ... i.e. he found that the defendant was guilty of infringing Getty's copyright. > .... and so should pay >Getty what Getty demanded. > >If you're lucky you'll learn the difference between law and justice >the easy way and it won't cost you your freedom or money. Eric Stevens
From: Ray Fischer on 21 Oct 2009 05:05
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >On 21 Oct 2009 05:43:56 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >>> rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>On 17 Oct 2009 23:17:03 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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? >>>>> >>>>>Not when the guy tried to steal it for nothing. >>>> >>>>It must make it very easy for simple people like you to simply assume >>>>that other people are guilty. >>> >>>In this case, Getty proved his claims in front of a judge. >> >>Which is wholly irrelevant since the judge didn't determine guilt or >>innocence and wasn't even concerned with such things, only that the >>defendant had used a photo that belonged to Getty ... > >i.e. he found that the defendant was guilty Wrong yet again. Civil cases do not determine guilt. >> .... and so should pay >>Getty what Getty demanded. >> >>If you're lucky you'll learn the difference between law and justice >>the easy way and it won't cost you your freedom or money. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |