Aqua-Soft Forums"always i repeat always find vultures.. direct linking to a persons site"
Well, you can always turn off direct linking.
[editorial] All Members, Please Read This.
Originally posted by Duckie@Jan 14 2003, 04:32 PMExample: Someone sets up an Aqua related site and links to files on my site and Iceman's, effectively killing BOTH our sites. I'm not talking 2 or 3, I'm talking 20 to 25 sites, all linking to ours and killing our monthly bandwidth. Both Iceman and I have had to switch to new hosts and now we have to mirror our downloads. Hell, I havent even found a reliable host yet.
you can easily add a few lines into a .htaccess file and prevent that. You really should of done that right away when ppl started leeching. Now u have the right to brag about it 
Too many issues are mentioned but in brief:
1. If bandwidth is a problem make downloads available only once a week. Real interested people will get their stuff. Distribute to other people that can serve as backup sites to decrease bandwidth. Don't carry the whole kit-and caboodle when most files are commonly found at other sites.
2. No, it is not true that the origininal creator has "total rights to his/her creation", that is an indication of little understanding of copyright laws. Most artists and web-hosters believe this which is not 100% true. I have presented why this is so in many posts but people want to wield an ax to anybody that does not ask for permission and many cases permission is not needed, even from the original creator. Because each case is individual in the circumstances the best way is to ask a lawyer rather than rely on the request of the author. It is just as wrong and illegal for a host to ban work based on the opinion or word of the author of the work without direct legal input. In most cases were a decision needs to be made the host is to err on the most liberetarian or free access interpretation than to rely on suppressive means. This is call risk analysis, and legality favors the person (host) that does nothing until a clear proof is sent of copyright protection through a lawyer. The artist or a host cannot take the laws into their hands or enforce the law without a clear legal interpretation, and when he does he must balance the rights of others. Work done by artists should be protected but artists should not be allowed to practice law or law enforcement neither should hosts without legal counsel. Not honoring a request from an artist is not a violation of the law even when such work is protected. If the decision not to honor a request is taken because of lack of proof of copyright ownership or because distribution is under review then no violation occurs. The law recognizes that disputes take time and that quick decisions made in favor of either side usually invites bigger lawsuits because quick decisions usually violates someone's rights. I wonder why eBay allows so much nonesense sales of buy a family, or buy a liver, or buy an alien artifact and allow such bidding to go on for weeks or so? It is because they need legal counsel to figure out if they are partners to fraud or an illegality and you guys worry about some crazy artists who thinks their work (icons/themes) should be in a National Museum or auctioned at Sotheby's according to their passion for enforcing copyright laws which they may have forfeited.
3. It is a little narrow thinking to not accept that communities and members evolve, change, and begin to take other interests. You can start a website on hoola-hoops but if next year the craze is roller skates and the year after skateboards then there is probably little need for a site on hoola-hoops and the host must consider to evolve with the interest and needs of the forum community. There are situations called win-win, loose-win, or loose-loose. If a person in charge does not adapt in many cases he/she ends up in a loose-loose situation long-term. It is an illusion that we can shape or control totally something that we create and then put it up in the public. I'm sure when McDonalds started his company he never thought of selling Mexican food items, or burgers made for vegetarians. McDonalds did it because it had to change with the community as many companies do.
Videomann
Point 1. Noone had told me I could add an htaccess file to solve the issue. I didn't ask, either, so whoop-dee-doo. It's not an issue anymore.
Point 2. Your wrong, plain and simple. In your diluted sense of reality, you believe someone can copy a Renoir and noone can claim rights to the image.
Point 3. Where is everyone getting this idea that noone wants change? The exact point of this thread IS change. We need progress.
I know you don't share my opinion on copyright issues but that does not make me wrong unless you are wearing a Judges robe/gown and you have allowed me to argue a case and even then you may not be right if I get an appeal. So the only thing wrong here is calling other people wrong in such definitive manner.
"Point 2. Your wrong, plain and simple. In your diluted sense of reality, you believe someone can copy a Renoir and noone can claim rights to the image. "
Claiming rights is one thing, having rights is another. They are not the same and do not hold the same legal power. Yes you can copy a Renoir provided you have done it yourself and do not claim it is a Renoir, so that itself demontrates the lack of understanding of copyright issue in terms of artistic work. I have been to court on several legal issues as expert witness so I think my sense of reality is more strongly founded than yours. I have also participated in turning legal cases around on appeal, so I know about from first experience how the legal system works. You are entitled to your opinion but that does not mean you own the truth.
VideoMann, your comment that unless someone wears a Judges Robe indicates your lack of appreciation for authority except when it directly impacts on your life. In otherwords, unless someone is there telling you explicitly that you can't do something, you will interpret the law as "no one told me that I could not explicitly do this so therefore I have with the understanding that it was not prohibited."
2. No, it is not true that the origininal creator has "total rights to his/her creation", that is an indication of little understanding of copyright laws. Most artists and web-hosters believe this which is not 100% true.
This is in direct conflict with United States and Canadian Copyright Law which clearly states that any work, written, graphical or otherwise which is unique in nature is awarded copyright protection. The only area where this would not lay claim is so called "works of art" where an artist has rendered an object or likeness of something else. For example, many of the PNG files representing variations of programs such as Macromedia & Microsoft & Apple Inc. Where these works of art are concerned, the legal decisions rest with these companies, as it is within thier Legal power to halt production of so called artowrks if they deem it is a violation of trademark and copyrights they have invested in. But in the case where these companies accept wholesome artwork, the idea of "stealing" an artwork becomes a more ethical matter where you realize a person has gone through a very hard time to create a work of art and taking it, modifying it and then releasing it as your own etc., is wrong on many levels. The law does not dictate all of humanity's actions. If it did, this world would be very different.
I have presented why this is so in many posts but people want to wield an ax to anybody that does not ask for permission and many cases permission is not needed, even from the original creator.
This is redundant. The reason is that people are defending the time they spent on hard work and preserving the dignity and reputation they have as artists within the community. It's not a matter of laws or of rules. It's a matter of ethics. Common sense. If I sold a story you wrote to the local paper, even though you had not "technically" copyrighted it, you would have the same reaction, just as if someone had stolen something of yours. Lack of law does not make it right to behave unruly.
Because each case is individual in the circumstances the best way is to ask a lawyer rather than rely on the request of the author.
This is an uneccesary action. No-one is going to sue or go to court over these small matters unless an actual company decides that an artist has crossed the boundry of artworthy representation. Besides, a lawyer will think of it as a waste of time.
It is just as wrong and illegal for a host to ban work based on the opinion or word of the author of the work without direct legal input.
No it isn't. A Web Host can do as they please as long as they keep civil about it. You wouldn't consider a host banning child porn or regular porn as being illegal would you? You are saying words but they are not making logical sense.
In most cases were a decision needs to be made the host is to err on the most liberetarian or free access interpretation than to rely on suppressive means. This is call risk analysis, and legality favors the person (host) that does nothing until a clear proof is sent of copyright protection through a lawyer.
Then why do so many hosts have clear regulations on file types, content etc.? Would this not be gainst the "liberetarian or free access interpretation" you so mention?
The artist or a host cannot take the laws into their hands or enforce the law without a clear legal interpretation, and when he does he must balance the rights of others.
They can. Many sites have a "policy" which is not a law but a generalization of what they consider appropriate. And many policies also cover basic legal law, so it is well within thier rights to make sure they are keeping in line with the law and thier own policy. No host wants courts costs when they can click a button and end it right then.
Work done by artists should be protected but artists should not be allowed to practice law or law enforcement neither should hosts without legal counsel. Not honoring a request from an artist is not a violation of the law even when such work is protected.
As the creator of the artwork, the author has the legal right to request action by an offending party. If this were the case, many sites that have been shut down by hosts and providers would not have been done, because it was a "request" with the promise of legal action if nothing happened. A request is something provided to offer a way out of a situation without extra hassle.
If the decision not to honor a request is taken because of lack of proof of copyright ownership or because distribution is under review then no violation occurs. The law recognizes that disputes take time and that quick decisions made in favor of either side usually invites bigger lawsuits because quick decisions usually violates someone's rights.
These cases are rare. In most cases a company policy will dicatet certian actions in the even tof legal actions, often suspending a service or access untill a decision has been made. For example, during the XVid dispute, development stopped during the surrounding legal and PR debates.
I wonder why eBay allows so much nonesense sales of buy a family, or buy a liver, or buy an alien artifact and allow such bidding to go on for weeks or so? It is because they need legal counsel to figure out if they are partners to fraud or an illegality and you guys worry about some crazy artists who thinks their work (icons/themes) should be in a National Museum or auctioned at Sotheby's according to their passion for enforcing copyright laws which they may have forfeited.
Each company has thier own policies, and don't forget that eBay has allot of sales going on, so it's not always easy to identify sales that are "wrong" right away, it would drain them of thier money. To add to this, not many these days actually report such things. Many things go unreported. It is no difficult thing to know that selling a liver or buying a family is wrong. There are clear legal laws that are present, and company policy again dictates thier actions without the need of legal intervention in most cases. In the case of Icons/Themes, again, an artist works hard at what they do and earns a reputation for thier skills. And here you are so eagerly willing to destroy what humans have worked so hard all this time to achieve. You seem to think that everything is a free for all, and that unless someone tells you you can't do something with explicit and direct warning, then if it is "unmentioned" it is therefore allowable untill a legal jury decides otherwise.
So to sum all this up, you idea of reality and how the real world works, is very flawed, and I suggest that you actually take a look at recent events, how companies deal with matters, even e-mail eBay and ask them about what you mentioned, why it took them so long to remove the auction. You will then see why the world goes as it does.
Whew!!
Like I said everyone is entitled to their opinion but they are not necessarily right.
VideoMann, your comment that unless someone wears a Judges Robe indicates your lack of appreciation for authority except when it directly impacts on your life. In otherwords, unless someone is there telling you explicitly that you can't do something, you will interpret the law as "no one told me that I could not explicitly do this so therefore I have with the understanding that it was not prohibited."
No that is not what I said. That is what you said based on your own spin-off. The law is not what I said , nor what Duckie said, nor what you said, but what a Judge says the Law is at the final legal process . The fact that many of you want to interpret the law as to your own state of mind or self interest rather than to look at past legal cases how judges have interpreted is an indication that it is you who lack respect for the law. The law is not a piece of paper telling you what you can and cannot do, but rather a point of legal argument that has to be interpreted by a legal process. This means that rulings and interpretations from different cases by different judges is what tells you and I and everybody what the law is.
[/This is in direct conflict with United States and Canadian Copyright Law which clearly states that any work, written, graphical or otherwise which is unique in nature is awarded copyright protection. The only area where this would not lay claim is so called "works of art" where an artist has rendered an object or likeness of something else.QUOTE]
Again that is your opinion that it is in direct conflict. It is not in my opinion because you have to determine what constitutes a "work of art". If I do an exact copy of a legaly protected work and change certain colors and incorporate it in a different context is that a "MY WORK of ART" or is that the original creators "Work of Art". That is a point that must be debated in court not in a public forum if you want to take legal sanctions. The 60's, 70's and 80's is replete with work of arts that have been re-interpreted and have not been prosecuted for copyright violations, here in the U.S., Canada, and many parts of the world.
For example, many of the PNG files representing variations of programs such as Macromedia & Microsoft & Apple Inc. Where these works of art are concerned, the legal decisions rest with these companies, as it is within thier Legal power to halt production of so called artowrks if they deem it is a violation of trademark and copyrights they have invested in.No that is not entirely true at all. The legal decision does not rest with the companies having copyright protection. Companies and individuals who have legitimate copyright protection and have the means to prove it have an obligation to themselves (not to the court) to show action that they have made attempts to stop copyright infringement. Once they have taken those actions which is mainly "legal ntification" then they may go to court and file a lawsuit. The legal decision if copyright infringement ocurrs is with the court not the company. Companies have no legal power of their own. They have to show to the court several things before the court will enforce copyright protection. The only thing a company can do is "request" cessation of the use of what they feel they have exclusive rights. The determination of any copyright issues is made by the court.
But in the case where these companies accept wholesome artwork, the idea of "stealing" an artwork becomes a more ethical matter where you realize a person has gone through a very hard time to create a work of art and taking it, modifying it and then releasing it as your own etc., is wrong on many levels.No, that is the first pitfall of forfeiting copyright protection. A company cannot ignore client X using it's logo to raise funds for starving people in Africa, but chase client Y who is using the company's logo to promote drug use. You cannot choose who may or may not violate copyright protection based on ethics or how it reflects on your company. You may grant usage to one person and not another in a legal contract but you may not choose who you will allow and not allow to use your work without entering into a contract. So this idea that a company may accept "wholesome work" has no legal bearing unless a formal contract of rights is issued. This is why Microsoft goes after everyone that uses any part of it's logo, jinggles, or whatever their lawyers deem as copyright material. Not all companies bother with copyright issues nor do they feel that every usage of their logos or company material is worth enforcing. Have you never seen tee-shirts that look exactly like the Coca-Cola logo but it says Cocaine on them? Do you think the motive, the font, the color combination of the Coca-Cola logo are not copyrighted? They are. Everybody that sees such a "work of art" are reminded of CocaCola and therefore it demeans the company's image, and it is injurious to CocaCola. Eventhough a real case can be made no Coca-Cola legal team has bother with this, because copyright protection in many cases is worth the paper it is written on and no more. In other cases if substancial financial loss is much it may be worth millions of dollars. Copyright protection is what the legal process determines not what a company says or what a piece of paper says.
This is redundant. The reason is that people are defending the time they spent on hard work and preserving the dignity and reputation they have as artists within the community. It's not a matter of laws or of rules. It's a matter of ethics.This comment implies that 1) only the original artist can be creative and 2) only the original artist has done hard work 3) that the work of others in re-interpreting another work has no artistic value, nor work, nor ethics, nor dignity and 4) any other re-interpretation is unethical. My God! talk about inflated artistic ego. There is no legal grounds for any of these comments you made.
the idea of "stealing" an artwork becomes a more ethical matter where you realize a person has gone through a very hard time to create a work of art and taking it, modifying it and then releasing it as your own etc.,1) You cannot steal something that a) has no financial value
you have not shown that financial value is a character of the work, and c) you have made attempts to guard its value
2) The law rarely makes decisions on ethics, but rather on the interpretation of financial interest which is what copyright law was designed to do. Copyright law is not based on what is or is not ethical but on who has a financial interest and who owns the right to a work of financial value.
This is an uneccesary action. No-one is going to sue or go to court over these small matters unless an actual company decides that an artist has crossed the boundry of artworthy representation. Besides, a lawyer will think of it as a waste of time.No, it is not only necessary but mandatory if you want "legal protection for copyright material". If a lawyer won't take the case it is because the work of art has no value, or the client has no interest in protection. You don't necessarily need to hire a lawyer to go to court everytime you want protection. All you need is a lawyer to represent you and speak for you and interpret to others that a copyright infringement has ocurred. That is mandatory if you have real interest in protecting your work.
If I sold a story you wrote to the local paper, even though you had not "technically" copyrighted it, you would have the same reaction, just as if someone had stolen something of yours. Lack of law does not make it right to behave unruly.You are mixing apples and oranges and jumping to assumptions that have legal bearing. If you sold a story I wrote that was not copyrighted I may be angry but it is not stealing, not unethical, and the law offers little if any protection. Stories are sold all the time in newspaper media, magazines, radio. It is called journalism. Simply because I wrote something does not mean it is legally protected or that I have all rights to financial compensation.
Many sites have a "policy" which is not a law but a generalization of what they consider appropriate. And many policies also cover basic legal law, so it is well within thier rights to make sure they are keeping in line with the law and thier own policy. No host wants courts costs when they can click a button and end it right then.Policy of a company is not a law. They may be considered in a legal challenge and in certain cases such policies may be illegal. Policy may work for or against a company or individual depending what it says and how it is carried out.
"No host wants court costs when they can click a button and end it right there". That is really shallow, what a host does or does not do can send him directly to court if somebody feels strongly enough to sue. Taking you to court is not in your control but in the control of the people you are offending. Anybody can at anytime file for a lawsuit and drag you to court with expenses. This is why it is prudent not to act on your own without legal counsel, and allow Joe/Jane Blow interpret policy and law for you. The best policy in these types of arguments is to ask for an artist's lawyer to explain if copyright infringement is what they see and the host will take that recommendation in formulating an action for compliance.
I can go on and on showing how many holes are present in your statements but I'm going to leave it at that and take that your long post is your opinion that too me it is not correct in many aspects. It lacks much legal understanding.
Wow...those are some lengthy posts there...