What comes after Dropbox?

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:22:07 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues
that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly
displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement.

I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that
means that any one of those things alone counts.

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

it ain't me who has a reading comprehension problem.

The full sentence continues
that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly
displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement.

read it again.

You
cannot truncate the sentence without changing the meaning in a manner
not intended. The full sentence is there for a reason.

too bad you didn't understand it.

the key phrase is without the permission of the copyright owner.

reproducing a copyrighted work without permission is a copyright
infringement, whether or not it's distributed, performed, etc.

What you are doing is like taking a law that says "It is illegal to
park, stop in, or block a marked area for ambulance use in a hospital
parking lot." and claiming that it means that it is illegal to park.
Anywhere.

that's not what i'm doing at all.

You must consider the entire sentence, and not a phrase in
the sentence.

you should try that sometime. you might even learn something.

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.

That issue exists only in your misguided thinking.

nope.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Violations of copyright can only occur when you do something with that
photograph.

nope.

Of course it is. Your paragraph below deals only with "use", not
possession.

it deals with both.

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.


Nowhere in that paragraph does it deal with possession, or retaining
("keeping") a file. Something must done in violation of the copyright
law with that photograph by someone other than the owner, without
permission by the owner, for there to be any type of copyright
infringement.

and that something includes making a copy.

Your statement that "the *moment* you keep a copy, you've broken the
law" is flat-out wrong.

nope. it's exactly correct.

If you upload that image, or otherwise use it, you *may*
be in violation of the copyright,

uploading is not required.

Of course not. That's why I wrote "or otherwise use it". Can't you
read?

my god you are stupid.

keeping a copy qualifies for 'otherwise use it' (why else would you
keep it?), but since all you can do is argue semantics, change it to:
uploading or otherwise use it is not required.
happy now? either way, it doesn't change a thing.

simply making a copy without permission is sufficient to be infringing.
there is *no* requirement that a copy be uploaded, distributed,
performed, etc.

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.

I addressed what you added to the discussion.

You can copy - by downloading or other means - an unlimited number of
photographs that someone else owns the copyright on, and there is no
copyright violation unless you do something with those
copies...publish them or otherwise present them. As long as they
remain solely on your computer or otherwise in your own possession
(including printing them), they are not illicit.

absolutely false, unless the owner has given you permission.

Even if published,
under the Fair Use doctrine, it may not be illicit use.

that's for a judge to decide, not you. fair use is a defense, not
authorization.

The statement that "the *moment* your keep a copy, you've broken the
law" is flat-out factually wrong.

try again.

You have not cited anything that rebuts my statement.

actually, i have, but i don't need to, since your statements are so
utterly ludicrous.

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.

My question is whether your are truly uninformed and ignorant about
the copyright laws, or whether you know you are wrong and just too
stubborn to admit error and here just to argue.

that would be you.

In article , Bill W
wrote:


You have a reading comprehension problem. The full sentence continues
that the reproduction must be distributed, performed, publicly
displayed or made into a derivative work to be an infringement.

I have to disagree on this one. When a list is followed by "or", that
means that any one of those things alone counts.

correct. at least someone understands english.

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 03:21:34 +0200, android wrote:

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"...

The only way I can do this is by clicking on an image in the dropbox
folder *in my computer*. What pops up then is the image contained in
the dropbox folder *in my computer*. This will not have been processed
by Dropbox.

What I want for a test is an image sent to me via Dropbox with there
being no possibility of that image already being in my computer.



... 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...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-03-31 03:57:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Le Snip

The only way I can do this is by clicking on an image in the dropbox
folder *in my computer*. What pops up then is the image contained in
the dropbox folder *in my computer*. This will not have been processed
by Dropbox.

What I want for a test is an image sent to me via Dropbox with there
being no possibility of that image already being in my computer.

Try this for size:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o8u359ez3501094/_DSF4239.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:23:28 -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?

keeping copies, and you can say **** on the internet.

What is wrong with keeping copies?

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:42:27 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

The ultimate decision lies in the hands of a judge.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:42:26 -0400, 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.

One of us doesn't.

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.

How have you affected the owner's rights by keeping a copy?




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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 03:21:34 +0200, android wrote:

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"...

The only way I can do this is by clicking on an image in the dropbox
folder *in my computer*. What pops up then is the image contained in
the dropbox folder *in my computer*. This will not have been processed
by Dropbox.

What I want for a test is an image sent to me via Dropbox with there
being no possibility of that image already being in my computer.

Don't be silly. Right click the image accessed via Dropbox in the
browser and save it to the Desktop. That image will have gone through
Dropbox.



... 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