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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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