What comes after Dropbox?

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...

... 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.
--
Bats can't tell us apart!


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 30/03/2017 11:07, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:56:45 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 29/03/2017 16:17, Whisky-dave wrote:

Views from other folk are welcome!

I'd had preferred it if the grass at the top left wasn't there.

Here was I thinking that I'd done well to capture the subject without
disturbing her! ;-)

You did, but it could have been cropped in post processing.

You are correct, of course! I'll try to do better next time! ;-)

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/p...aphy_copyright

In the UK, Other countries may vary of course.

Thanks for that. It would be more comforting if it was more recent. Much
has changed with social media since March 2005!

I'm not sure if copyright law has changed recently. Lots of our laws go back decades.
The oldest formally written law still in force in England is therefore the Distress Act of 1267. This made it illegal to seek ‘distress’, or compensation for damage, by any means other than a lawsuit in a court of law – effectively outlawing private feuds.

Your additional comments noted.

Btw, have you been 'away'? I've been trying to find the conversation we
had about comments on a YouTube video but without success. Could you
remind me where we'd got to with that, please?

I couldn't see your comments on that video I could only see 4 comments so I tried another video from the same person about PIs and I could see more than 4 comments on that video but nothing by you posing a question.
Haven't been away but I did defend a copyright issue on yuotube where they said my posting was a copy of another bands work or words to that effect so they added a note saying as much and that I couldnlt monertze it, not that I was playing to, but they have since removed their claim.

Ah! Thanks for the update. Are you a musician? Have a YouTube link for
me to follow?!!

Btw ... Can you see the additional comment I subsequently made, Dave?
Here's the link:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSnaxD2HSdc&t=127s

--
The only people who make a difference are the people who believe they can.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

This made it illegal to seek ‘distress’, or compensation for damage, by any
means other than a lawsuit in a court of law – effectively outlawing private
feuds.

And to just take stolen stuff back... I haven't authorized that one!
:-ppp
--
teleportation kills

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.

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.

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.

the reality is that it's nearly impossible to enforce, but that doesn't
make it legal.

On 30/03/2017 15:48, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 12:13:32 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 30/03/2017 11:07, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:56:45 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 29/03/2017 16:17, Whisky-dave wrote:

Views from other folk are welcome!

I'd had preferred it if the grass at the top left wasn't there.

Here was I thinking that I'd done well to capture the subject without
disturbing her! ;-)

You did, but it could have been cropped in post processing.

You are correct, of course! I'll try to do better next time! ;-)

Sweet.


https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/p...aphy_copyright

In the UK, Other countries may vary of course.

Thanks for that. It would be more comforting if it was more recent. Much
has changed with social media since March 2005!

I'm not sure if copyright law has changed recently. Lots of our laws go back decades.
The oldest formally written law still in force in England is therefore the Distress Act of 1267. This made it illegal to seek ‘distress’, or compensation for damage, by any means other than a lawsuit in a court of law – effectively outlawing private feuds.

Your additional comments noted.

Btw, have you been 'away'? I've been trying to find the conversation we
had about comments on a YouTube video but without success. Could you
remind me where we'd got to with that, please?

I couldn't see your comments on that video I could only see 4 comments so I tried another video from the same person about PIs and I could see more than 4 comments on that video but nothing by you posing a question.
Haven't been away but I did defend a copyright issue on yuotube where they said my posting was a copy of another bands work or words to that effect so they added a note saying as much and that I couldnlt monertze it, not that I was playing to, but they have since removed their claim.

Ah! Thanks for the update. Are you a musician? Have a YouTube link for
me to follow?!!

I'm not a muscian but quite a few of my friends are.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Davewhisky

I've had a quick look! Thanks.

Btw ... Can you see the additional comment I subsequently made, Dave?
Here's the link:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSnaxD2HSdc&t=127s

I can see this.

David B1 week ago
You quote 10x the price he set - the Rasperry Pi is REALLY cheap!

Thanks. I simply cannot understand WHY other folk cannot see my other
comments there. They are STILL visible to *ME*!!!

If I leave you a comment/message under one of YOUR YouTube videos, will
you be able to see it?

Will you be NOTIFIED if I leave a message for you?

--
David B.

nospam wrote:
...

Tony Cooper:
I'm tired of playing with you...

Sheesh! There is a solution to that, you know. I kill-filed him long
ago. Nothing personal, just protecting myself from inanity. Stop
playing, take your marbles and go home.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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.

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.

it's clear that not only do you not understand the legal issues, but
you don't understand the technology either.

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

This has to be the weakest argument you've ever offered.

it's not an argument. it's a statement of fact.

The topic is
not, and never was, the effect of the copyright on how long you are
allowed to retain something.

wrong. it is and always has been about copyright and ownership of
intellectual property, whether it's photos (in this instance), music or
something else.

Your own argument is blown out of the
water by the fact that you can buy or be given a book, a CD, or a
video tape and retain that item as long as you choose to.

nothing is blown out of the water because this isn't about physical
goods.

you're trying to justify piracy. it's as simple as that. at least we
now know your lack of ethics.

You are the one that whines first and loudest when someone deviates
from the topic and introduces a new element to the discussion. But,
you've done this as a smoke screen to cover your inept argument.

wrong on that too. it ain't me who has deviated.


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.

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.

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.

it's clear that not only do you not understand the legal issues, but
you don't understand the technology either.

I've demonstrated to this group that I understand the technology of
capturing a photograph. You have not.

this isn't about capturing a photograph.

what were you saying about deviating from the topic??

The more you post, the more foolish you look.

it ain't me who is looking incredibly foolish.

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.


... 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?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens