If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:54:49 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an image from the Internet. the internet wouldn't work if they couldn't. keeping what they download is entirely another story. One of those "no help" comments again. What is the other story? one of those attacks again. There is nothing wrong with retaining a downloaded image. there can be, which is why many web sites and services go to great lengths to prevent people from doing that. Typical of your "no help", no useful content, responses. You allude to a problem, but don't explain what it is. there's no need to explain the obvious. It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a downloaded image? ask the owner. they get to decide, not you or anyone else. If I upload an image it is because I want it to be viewed. I have no idea of how it is going to be viewed without being downloaded. I do not believe that people will post images to the Internet without the intention and expectation that others will download them for viewing. viewing isn't the issue. The what the **** is the issue? I've already asked you twice in another post which you have ignored. .... and please don't try telling me you have already answered the question further up the thread. what's wrong with keeping a copy of a song you downloaded. the riaa has sued people who did that. You are confused. it ain't me who is confused. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an image from the Internet. the internet wouldn't work if they couldn't. keeping what they download is entirely another story. One of those "no help" comments again. What is the other story? one of those attacks again. There is nothing wrong with retaining a downloaded image. there can be, which is why many web sites and services go to great lengths to prevent people from doing that. Typical of your "no help", no useful content, responses. You allude to a problem, but don't explain what it is. there's no need to explain the obvious. It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a downloaded image? ask the owner. they get to decide, not you or anyone else. If I upload an image it is because I want it to be viewed. I have no idea of how it is going to be viewed without being downloaded. I do not believe that people will post images to the Internet without the intention and expectation that others will download them for viewing. viewing isn't the issue. The what the **** is the issue? keeping copies, and you can say **** on the internet. I've already asked you twice in another post which you have ignored. i didn't ignore anything. ... and please don't try telling me you have already answered the question further up the thread. i will when i did, which i did. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:52:10 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a downloaded image? ask the owner. they get to decide, not you or anyone else. I'm not sure how the owner gets to decide, it's the law that can get to decide. The problems really start if you share or pass on that image or make the image availble to others that's when the law kicks in, when you get found out. The owner of the photograph (the photographer) has absolutely no input on whether or not a person who downloads the photograph can retain (or keep) the downloaded image. Nor is there any law that pertains to this. nonsense. tell that to the riaa when you pirate music. see how well that works out for you. You must get tired from moving those goalposts. i haven't moved a thing. My comments have nothing to do with music in any way. yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video, software, books and more. I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills. But we were discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of photographs. You've introduced a bogus element to the discussion that has nothing to do with photographs. nothing bogus about it. Perhaps you don't know the difference between music and a photograph. perhaps you don't know what you're talking about, or more accurately, you definitely don't. You introduced music downloading into the discussion to cover up your inability to defend or explain your ridiculous position that retaining, keeping, a downloaded image is a problem. there's nothing ridiculous about it and the law agrees with me, not you. nospam's premise is completely erroneous. Once the image is downloaded, the length of time it remains on the downloader's computer is the computer owner's decision to make. There is no deadline for removal. also wrong. And you can't provide a reason that it's wrong. i can and have. I knew you would do that and explicitly asked you not to! You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a link to the appropriate article. it's clear that not only do you not understand the legal issues, but you don't understand the technology either. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:54:51 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a downloaded image? ask the owner. they get to decide, not you or anyone else. I'm not sure how the owner gets to decide, it's the law that can get to decide. the law is there to enforce what the owner decides. The problems really start if you share or pass on that image or make the image availble to others that's when the law kicks in, when you get found out. what's wrong with keeping a copy of a song you downloaded. the riaa has sued people who did that. I don;t think they can do that unless you've obtained it illegally. If you obtain it legally then share it against the owners/publishers constent then that's when the problems start. keeping something for which you aren't authorized to keep can result in possible legal action. Please explain why it is that a person who downloads a legal copy of an image is not allowed to keep it on their computer. the reality is that it's nearly impossible to enforce, but that doesn't make it legal. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: My comments have nothing to do with music in any way. yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video, software, books and more. I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills. then you should understand the issues, but it appears that you do not. But we were discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of photographs. photos are copyrighted. if you make an illicit copy, you've broken the law. very simple. nospam's premise is completely erroneous. Once the image is downloaded, the length of time it remains on the downloader's computer is the computer owner's decision to make. There is no deadline for removal. also wrong. And you can't provide a reason that it's wrong. i can and have. I knew you would do that and explicitly asked you not to! You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a link to the appropriate article. start he https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: what's wrong with keeping a copy of a song you downloaded. the riaa has sued people who did that. I don;t think they can do that unless you've obtained it illegally. If you obtain it legally then share it against the owners/publishers constent then that's when the problems start. keeping something for which you aren't authorized to keep can result in possible legal action. Please explain why it is that a person who downloads a legal copy of an image is not allowed to keep it on their computer. i just did. read it again. what part of not authorized to keep isn't clear? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: You introduced music downloading into the discussion to cover up your inability to defend or explain your ridiculous position that retaining, keeping, a downloaded image is a problem. there's nothing ridiculous about it and the law agrees with me, not you. There is no law that determines the length of time a copyrighted item can be retained by a person in possession of that item. The laws pertain only to acquisition of the item and what can be done with it after acquisition. The length of time it is retained is not covered by law. Terms of use may determine the time, though. time isn't and never was the issue. what were you saying about deviating? the *moment* you keep a copy, you've broken the law, unless the owner of the content permits you to do so. You've changed your argument, but your new argument is as bogus as the last one. It is not a violation of copyright to download someone else's photograph. The fact that you "keep" or retain that downloaded image is not a violation of the copyright. it can be. again, as i said long ago, the owner gets to decide, not you. Violations of copyright can only occur when you do something with that photograph. nope. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. If you upload that image, or otherwise use it, you *may* be in violation of the copyright, uploading is not required. but there are many exemptions under the Fair Use doctrine that allow you to use it without the owner's permission. fair use is a defense. My discussion has been solely about photographs, but the Fair Use doctrine includes other copyrighted material. See Lenz v Universal Music Company for a court ruling on this. when i brought up music, you had a fit, but regardless, that case is not relevant to making and keeping illicit copies. The statement that "the *moment* your keep a copy, you've broken the law" is flat-out factually wrong. try again. You are either abysmally ignorant about copyright law or a blustering fool, but your posts indicate that you fit in both categories. ad hominems are all you have. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
On 03/30/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: My comments have nothing to do with music in any way. yes they do. photos are copyrighted material, as is music, video, software, books and more. I've been involved in a number of copyright cases, involving entities ranging from rotary clothes lines to portable saw mills. then you should understand the issues, but it appears that you do not. But we were discussing photographs. Please explain your point in terms of photographs. photos are copyrighted. if you make an illicit copy, you've broken the law. very simple. nospam's premise is completely erroneous. Once the image is downloaded, the length of time it remains on the downloader's computer is the computer owner's decision to make. There is no deadline for removal. also wrong. And you can't provide a reason that it's wrong. i can and have. I knew you would do that and explicitly asked you not to! You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a link to the appropriate article. start he https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. That cite only provides for sharing a copyrighted work: reproduced, distributed, etc. It says nothing about simply keeping and storing a copyrighted work that was made available to you in a public forum. If you put a photograph online and post a link to it in this (public) forum, anyone can go to your link and download your photograph. The legal problem starts if they make copies to distribute or display. Based on your argument that it is illegal to retain the image, many people could be arrested for the contents of their cache directory! -- Ken Hart |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: You can't and you haven't. If you want to prove me wrong please post a link to the appropriate article. start he https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. That cite only provides for sharing a copyrighted work: reproduced, distributed, etc. It says nothing about simply keeping and storing a copyrighted work that was made available to you in a public forum. read it again, especially this part: copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced reproduced = keeping a copy. If you put a photograph online and post a link to it in this (public) forum, anyone can go to your link and download your photograph. the issue is not downloading, but keeping a copy without permission. The legal problem starts if they make copies to distribute or display. nope. the legal problem starts when someone keeps a copy without having permission to do so. if they have permission, then there's no issue. when a site or an app takes steps to block saving a copy (disabling contextual menus, adding shadow images, etc.), then it's clear that you *don't* have permission to keep a copy. Based on your argument that it is illegal to retain the image, many people could be arrested for the contents of their cache directory! that's a good example of how the law hasn't caught up with technology. what's in the cache is technically a copy and violates the letter of the law. however, that's how browsers work and it's just a temporary copy, one which the user more than likely doesn't even know is there, so it doesn't violate the intent of the law. and if there's something incriminating in the cache or browser history, even if you never made a separate copy, your day will suddenly become quite a bit worse than it otherwise would have been. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
What comes after Dropbox?
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:51:52 +0200 (CEST), android wrote: Eric Stevens Wrote in message: On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:51:03 +0200, android wrote: --- vast snip --- This is not a color space problem (all my posts for the Internet use sRGB). It's a problem of smooth surfaces showing as having a texture of a gravel road. Also the appreance of color-banding appearing in what were smoothly graduated skys. Everything points to Dropbox using less than satisfactory techniques to compress images for viewing. Have you draged the file directly from the browser to the desktop and opened it a viewer app, like Preview on the Mac? What I get is the image for viewing in the Dropbox supplied viewer app (which runs in my Internet viewer of choice - in this case Firefox). I'm not sure that I can just download an image file. Sure you can! On the Mac you just drag it to the Desktop ... What is the 'it' you drag to the desk top? It seems that the file that I, as the poster, drags to the desktop is the file that I have downloaded to Dropbox. That file is perfect simply because it has not been processed by Dropbox in any way. ... but that's not possible in W!*. I started up the Acer and tested that just for your benefit! What you can do is to right click the image ... What image? Displayed by what software? And how did it get there? Whatever you posted in Dropbox and have accessed through your browser... Put up an image and I will try it. Take one of yours. You're the one that have a "Dropbox problem"... ... and download the file that's rendered in your browser. I did this with Firefox and can't be bothered to try this out with IE or Edge! :-P Then open the file in Paint or something to see what you've got... Paint? Paint??? If I can download it I have better options than that. Paint comes with W10 and is shows that that Windows shows unaided to average Joe. ???? Would you like to try again? I think that I was clear enough... -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dropbox Traffic Limits | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 25th 15 10:05 PM |
Dropbox issue | PeterN[_4_] | Digital Photography | 3 | July 23rd 13 03:10 AM |
Curious - who uses Dropbox? | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 42 | February 27th 12 09:31 AM |
Curious - who uses Dropbox? | Dennis Boone | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | February 25th 12 07:18 PM |