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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: You're publicising something Uploading to a server is NOT publicising. it is when the server is public, but more importantly, it's a copy, whether it's uploaded or a das. Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged with theft. backing up is exempt in specific cases, such as for software. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: You're publicising something Uploading to a server is NOT publicising. it is when the server is public, but more importantly, it's a copy, whether it's uploaded or a das. Just because it's a copy does not make it illegal. If that were true then backups and archives(machine readable) would be illegal. software backups are exempt. Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged with theft. backing up is exempt in specific cases, such as for software. Why is it ?, if you don;t understand that is why you are getting it worng. Basically theft requires that the perosn that owns the item stole no longer has the use of it. This is easy to work out when it;s a camera, but when it;'s an image how does someone else copying it stop the owner from having or using it. theft of intellectual property. That is why you can't appy thesft to software or music either. the riaa and mpaa will disagree with that. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
On 2018-05-24 12:23:45 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Thursday, 24 May 2018 10:34:01 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-05-24 09:16:59 +0000, Whisky-dave said: On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 17:01:34 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-05-23 12:51:19 +0000, Whisky-dave said: Uploading isn't stealing . In extenso then It sure is. what is extenso ? In extenso... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20extenso Unless you have secured the rights to the material. Not true Believe me, it is... I woundn;t believe that any mmore than yuor infra red image or the 'faulty' T2 adaptor. You're publicising something Uploading to a server is NOT publicising. It sure is if you're making it available to the public... Not all servers are open to the public. If yuo;re uploading to a public server with the aim to share a file or image without teh ownsers consent then that is illegal it;s still not actual theft, but that is why copyright came into being because theft wasnlt a sutable charge. That's why those that do get charged with copyright infringment and NOT theft. Just because you donlt understand the differnce the law does. Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged with theft. Depending what it sthat they are backing up... exactly, so here we see it's the intention rarher than just the act. that you don't own for your own purposes. Quotations are different You are allowed to backup what ever is on you computer or tablet. As long as you have the right to have it on it... That is meaningless. When peolpe take backups those backups backup evertything from the applications or programs you use to images you've seen on-line even if yuo don't own them they will get backup up. I don;t own the BBC website or the images on it but when backing up those files are backed up and I don't won them that doesn't make me guilty of theft. Whoshh, or something... -- teleportation kills |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
On May 24, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it on a server for others to download that is exempt ? NO. If you read, and understand the EULA for the software, and understand the copyright for the music, you will discover that you do not have the right, or license to freely distribute anything you have stored on any server. If you do, you are stealing from the copyright holders. You would be potentially subject litigation by the developers of the software, copyright holders, and/or the owners of the distribution rights of the music. There is a big difference between a personal backup copy for fair use, and distributing copies, even if you give them away. If you do that you are denying the copyright holders income they are intitled to. The result is effectively theft. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: You're publicising something Uploading to a server is NOT publicising. it is when the server is public, but more importantly, it's a copy, whether it's uploaded or a das. Just because it's a copy does not make it illegal. If that were true then backups and archives(machine readable) would be illegal. software backups are exempt. So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it on a server for others to download that is exempt ? It's not you know. Backups are copying. exactly why there's an exemption for backups. Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged with theft. backing up is exempt in specific cases, such as for software. Why is it ?, if you don;t understand that is why you are getting it worng. Basically theft requires that the perosn that owns the item stole no longer has the use of it. This is easy to work out when it;s a camera, but when it;'s an image how does someone else copying it stop the owner from having or using it. theft of intellectual property. No copyright infringement. yes copyright infringement. if you copy something for which you do not have the copyright and do not have permission from the person or entity who does, you are guilty of copyright infringement. fair use is a *defense* against infringement and is not a given. That is why you can't appy thesft to software or music either. the riaa and mpaa will disagree with that. They aren't the law. they follow it, although some might disagree with their overly aggressive tactics. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
On 25-May-18 10:49 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
davidB took SD's image that SD voluntarily shared knowing full well that is could be copied under the standard T&Cs that are creative commons license which DOES allow copying. Morning Dave! :-) I need a reminder! Are you referring to the image of Savageduck's Cheetah? If so, I did not 'take' the image, I simple shared a link provided by Savageduck which enabled folk to view the image in Savageduck's Dropbox folder. He's since chosen to withdraw that privilege, as is his right. -- David B. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
On May 25, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:48:23 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On May 24, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it on a server for others to download that is exempt ? NO. If you read, and understand the EULA for the software, and understand the copyright for the music, you will discover that you do not have the right, or license to freely distribute anything you have stored on any server. True but that is irrespective of whether or not it is on a server. Duplicating a CD or vinyl record, a perfume, a handbag, a pair of trainers or any object and selling it on or even giving it away is illegal. If you do, you are stealing from the copyright holders. You would be potentially subject litigation by the developers of the software, copyright holders, and/or the owners of the distribution rights of the music. Yes I know, but it doesn't rely on 'servers' servers have nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. There is a big difference between a personal backup copy for fair use, See you said fair use which is why I said, backing up is a fair use so not illegal if I then hand my backup to those that want to give me money for my backup or I just share that backup with other whether I allow them to copy my backup or I put it on the a server then it becomes illegal. It is what I do not what I have. distributing copies, yes so you do agree with me it's what you do or the intention sucg as sharing on a p2p system. even if you give them away. If you do that you are denying the copyright holders income they are intitled to. The result is effectively theft. Yes effectively theft but not theft otherwise we wouldn't need copyright. I believe you use an old version of Photoshop, read the EULA, and try to understand what is being said. In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the lawful owner of it. For theft you have to deprive someone, if yuo still someone data which is what were talking about you are NOT depriving them of it. If you sell or give away copies of software you are licensed to use, or music you have bought, you are copyright holders, or music license holders of the income that intellectual property would, or should have generated for them. You are only licensed for personal use, not to redistribute, if you do, you are violating the EULA, and depriving the copyright owners of a sale. That is no different from shoplifting, ergo theft. They are then entitled to legal recourse. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
On May 25, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Friday, 25 May 2018 11:06:23 UTC+1, David B. wrote: On 25-May-18 10:49 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: davidB took SD's image that SD voluntarily shared knowing full well that is could be copied under the standard T&Cs that are creative commons license which DOES allow copying. Morning Dave! :-) Afternoon :-) I need a reminder! Are you referring to the image of Savageduck's Cheetah? Yes, as I assume that is an appropriate description of the image. If so, I did not 'take' the image, I simple shared a link provided by Savageduck which enabled folk to view the image in Savageduck's Dropbox folder. Yes, so I don't know how that is classed as a theft by some on here. Perhaps they could explain, but don't hold your breathe. If you viewed it then it would be in some cache file and if you backed up your computer theres a chance that image would be backed up too and perhaps stored on a server, owned by a company. That isnlt theft either. He's since chosen to withdraw that privilege, as is his right. Yes and I understand why, it's not you he doesn't trust as such but he doesn't know what someone outside this NG might use this image for, especaily when placed on facebook or similar site(s) which neither you or SD has any control over. We would all like to be in control of our image(s). Aah! You seem to get it. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Duplicating a CD or vinyl record, copying a cd or vinyl record to another type of media, such as a cassette to be used in a vehicle by the same person, is generally *not* illegal (although it can be). a perfume, a handbag, a pair of trainers or any object and selling it on or even giving it away is illegal. those aren't data. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Rear Window 500/8 Mirror
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Just because it's a copy does not make it illegal. If that were true then backups and archives(machine readable) would be illegal. software backups are exempt. So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it on a server for others to download that is exempt ? It's not you know. Backups are copying. exactly why there's an exemption for backups. Depending how yuo define backups. normal definition. A sI know someone that has in the past before netflix, that used to backup all his films on to HD, then erase that HD, and then sell them on ebay for 4-5 the price of a brand new HD. They were adversied as HD that had films on them mostly recent films and delete. Are you claiming that this was OK because they were backups ? that is very clearly not a backup. Now what if yuo store that same data on a server as this happened here and vivaldi contacted the college telling us that a someone they gave us the IP had been sharing a new film via bittorrent. Thestudent ssaid he was not sharing it but just keeping it here as a bacup, of course what this studetn didnlt understand was that while downloading it was also sharing/uploading and that is how it was detected. also very clearly not a backup. fair use is a *defense* against infringement and is not a given. And fair use allows copying. you don't understand fair use, among many other things. if you copy something and the owner claims you have infringed on his copyright, you can cite fair use as a defense and hope the judge agrees. if not, you're liable for the infringement as well as the legal fees. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rear cover foam in an old SLR | Chris Loffredo | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | February 17th 06 07:58 PM |
Rear cover foam in an old SLR | Mike | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 17th 06 03:47 PM |
Rear tilt focus? | [email protected] | Large Format Photography Equipment | 28 | April 20th 05 12:41 AM |
WTB: 2d rear extension & other discussion | Collin Brendemuehl | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 2 | September 30th 04 06:02 PM |
will frequent use of mirror lockup shorten lifespan of mirror mechanism? | Mxsmanic | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | August 16th 04 06:13 PM |