Roy Schestowitz - Pirate
Erik Funkenbusch
copied from the authors without permission.
I noticed this on this article:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
sites.
In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
Bummer for you Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
"About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
are imposed.
On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.
If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
weasel.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "On the eighth day, God created UNIX"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:25pm up 41 days 0:58, 11 users, load average: 2.13, 2.51, 2.40
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
flatfish+++
I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
Linux.
He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
of this *stuff* and still complete his studies is beyond me, unless there
is an incentive in it for him.
It just doesn't add up.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Roy Schestowitz
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
>> copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
>> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>
>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
>> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
>> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
>> sites.
>>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
>> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
>
> I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
> articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
> Linux.
You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as corrupted as
Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum participants in the past.
> He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
> of this *stuff* and still complete his studies is beyond me, unless there
> is an incentive in it for him.
> It just doesn't add up.
Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that will accompany my
thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to compile without warnings and I shall
resume tomorrow. What's the matter, Gary?
Roy (last followup)
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:35pm up 41 days 1:08, 11 users, load average: 2.46, 2.36, 2.37
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
flatfish+++
> You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as corrupted as
> Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum participants in the past.
Note the technique used to turn the discussion toward Microsoft.
Also note that he does not deny the accusation but instead implies it.
> Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that will accompany my
> thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to compile without warnings and I shall
> resume tomorrow. What's the matter, Gary?
Am I supposed to be impressed?
I'm not and I doubt your University would either if they were aware of you
using their systems 24x7 to post to a USENET group.
> Roy (last followup)
Yep. Run and hide.
I'm only pointing out my observations and BTW nowhere did I say that there
is anything wrong with being paid, like you are.
Allow me one question: Do you get paid by the post or by the line?
Erik Funkenbusch
> I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
> articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
> Linux.
One might think so, but if you explore his site, you'll find a quantity of
self-flaggelating content that puts Rex to shame. He appears to have saved
every message he's ever written in any forum, for example. I think he just
likes to read his own messages.
Erik Funkenbusch
> The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
> "About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
> Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
> are imposed.
Acknowledging the author does not give you the right to use the work
without permission. His site explicitly says:
"All images on this web site are copyright John S. Pritchett.
For details on usage, purchasing original artwork or commissions, Email
Pritchett"
Something you didn't do. The author explicitly told me that you did not
have permission to use the image.
> On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
> Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
> the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
> strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.
John Pritchett, the author of the work on your page explicitly says you are
infringing copyright. Further, you aren't hot linking. The image is
stored on your server.
> If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
> you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
> weasel.
Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
chrisv
>__/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:25 \__
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
>> copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
>> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>
>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
>> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
>> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
>> sites.
>>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
>> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
you, Erik.
You never did answer me why it's okay for you to, without asking,
publicize other people's personal information, but if a person chooses
to publicize personal information about himself, it is
"inappropriate".
Hypocrite.
>The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
>"About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
>Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
>are imposed.
>
>On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
>Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
>the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
>strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.
Bummer for you, Erik.
>If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
>you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
>weasel.
That's an insult to weasels everywhere.
Erik Funkenbusch
> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
> you, Erik.
Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior, Chris.
flatfish+++
I haven't delved deep into his site because I wonder about what kind of
crap he has hiding in there to track people.
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, he sounds like
a nutsack to me.
flatfish+++
Why not just *plonk* him like you do to every other person who posts about
Linux's or it's advocates faults?
Seems simple to me.
Chirag Shukla
flatfish+++ wrote:
> He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
> of this *stuff* and still complete his studies
I wonder about that. He could be a very bright student. Yes, it is not
very common for PhD candidates to find this much time to read articles,
quote news, read and post messages - and detailed ones in some cases.
My guess is that he could be a really good student with a lot of
passion for Unix/Linux. Well, about his university begin bothered about
the use of their computers? Hmm, thats a question only Roy or his
university can answer.
But to me, he seems to bright student until proven otherwise.
flatfish+++
It goes beyond being bright.
The physical time needed to look up, research and post that many articles
and replies, literally 24x7 is a red flag IMHO.
> But to me, he seems to bright student until proven otherwise.
Nothing will ever be proved and personally I don't care one way or the
other because I believe in free speech and also because he makes it easy
to filter the noise.
It's his life.
I'm only bringing up what I consider to be an oddity.
Chirag Shukla
flatfish+++ wrote:
> I'm only bringing up what I consider to be an oddity.
Yes indeed, it is odd.
William Poaster
> __/ [ flatfish+++ ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 20:38 \__
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has
>>> wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>>
>>> I noticed this on this article:
>>>
>>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>>
>>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find
>>> out. He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>>
>>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more
>>> acceptable, since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However,
>>> that would beg the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on
>>> other peoples sites.
>>>
>>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>>
>>> Bummer for you Roy.
>>
>> I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
>> articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity
>> for Linux.
>
>
> You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as corrupted as
> Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum participants in the past.
The name of the group: comp.os.linux.advocacy So *if* anyone was being
paid to post items about *linux* in a *linux* newsgroup, so what? It's a
damn sight more on topic than the wintrolls are with their FUD &
half-baked lies.
>> He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
>> of this *stuff* and still complete his studies is beyond me, unless
>> there is an incentive in it for him.
>> It just doesn't add up.
>
>
> Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that will accompany my
> thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to compile without warnings and I shall
> resume tomorrow. What's the matter, Gary?
Flatfish frothing again, nothing to say.
--
www.jlaforums.com steals usenet newsgroup posts, & misleads the public
into thinking the posts come from their own forums. THEY DON'T!
This post was originally posted in a USENET newsgroup.
USENET is free to anyone with a newsreader.
Brad
What's that sound?
Ya know the one. The one your newsreader makes when you kill filter
someone.
Goodbye Erik. For too long have your posts polluted my newsreader.
PLONK!
Brad
Roy Culley
<pan.2006.06.07....@linux4life.net>,
Brad <br...@linux4life.net> writes:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> What's that sound?
> Ya know the one. The one your newsreader makes when you kill filter
> someone.
Must be the Funkenbusch fart. Erik's the kind of guy who farts in a
lift and then says who dropped one? If posts could have smell then
Erik's a humdinger.
> Goodbye Erik. For too long have your posts polluted my newsreader.
> PLONK!
He's been polluting COLA with his lies and FUD for years. Those are
his nicer traits of course.
Geico Caveman
You can hardly complain when you set such a fine example of doing that, day
in and day out, year after year.
Roy Culley
<K9ydnVuABsNz9xrZ...@comcast.com>,
Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many years
ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)
Tim Smith
wrote:
> It goes beyond being bright. The physical time needed to look up,
> research and post that many articles and replies, literally 24x7 is a red
> flag IMHO.
Well, I hope he's got it mostly automated. Grab the article via an RSS
feed, summarize the first paragraph (probably could be automated), just
leaving it to manually write a headline and maybe a one line or so comment.
--
--Tim Smith
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
> unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
> MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many years
> ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
> credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)
I think I recall the rex incident.
Dragging his private live into the argument as if it was something to be
ashamed of, iirc. (wasn't it?)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Culley
<bc7kl3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>,
spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> did eloquently scribble:
>
>> Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
>> unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
>> MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many
>> years ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
>> credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)
>
> I think I recall the rex incident.
> Dragging his private live into the argument as if it was something
> to be ashamed of, iirc. (wasn't it?)
Correct. Erik may be quite bright but he is totally lacking in ethical
values. Fortunately his target was more than his match and Erik's
attempt to discredit him utterly backfired. I do not know how Erik has
the gall to continue posting to COLA. If it were me I'd need to paid a
handsome sum to do so.
Roland Garros
Sad but true. Most linux users are thiefs. It don't surprise me that
they steal photos from the internet. After all, its these looneys that
think everything should be free.
Roland Garros
Erik,
I hope you will not let the weasel Culley drive you away from
posting to COLA Erik. I for one enjoy your posts. I reckon you
have done more for disproving COLA lyes than anyone.
Keep at it laddie. Roy Culley is just an FAT ethically lacking,
lying, FUD spreading linux apologist. The fact he attacks you
personally just shows what a great job you are doing. He will
stoop to any depth to try and discredit those who use anything
but Linux and show lintards for the liars that they are.
Lang may yer lum reek laddie.
Roland Garros
Roland Garros
Idiot Poaster frothing again, nothing to say.
GreyCloud
Are you sure you didn't go out of your way to silence Roy?
It sure looks like it.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
High Plains Thumper
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
>> copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
<SNIP>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
>
> Sad but true. Most linux users are thiefs. It don't surprise me that
> they steal photos from the internet. After all, its these looneys that
> think everything should be free.
Another nymphal shift, Mr. linu...@lycos.com? Another generalisations:
"Most linux users are thiefs".
--
HPT
Sinister Midget
> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.
Poor Ewik. He didn't get his wittow way twying to shame Rex. Now he
wants to twy it again with Roy.
How does the world spell "SHIT"?
E-R-I-K F-U-N-K-E-N-B-U-S-C-H
--
If classical music is the state of the art then the arts are in
a sad state.
-- Frank Zappa
Sinister Midget
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
>
> Are you sure you didn't go out of your way to silence Roy?
> It sure looks like it.
When he can't win any other way, Erik burrows under the shit to jump up
and scare.
It didn't work with Rex. It shouldn't work with Roy.
If someone has a dispute with Roy, they'll have to take it up with Roy.
There's nothing Ewik can do outside tattling. That won't prevent him
from trying to play Mr. Moral, weasel that he is.
--
I like to reminisce with people I don't know.
-- Steven Wright
High Plains Thumper
news:f7j6cvos...@funkenbusch.com:
> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he
> has wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-giv
> en-up/
<SNIP>
> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his
> site have been similarly misappropriated. Many of them
> have no credits at all.
Which images?
--
HPT
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Erik,
> I hope you will not let the weasel Culley drive you away from
> posting to COLA Erik. I for one enjoy your posts. I reckon you
> have done more for disproving COLA lyes than anyone.
What lies would they be. (showing real credibility there btw, complete
inability to spell even the most simple words. It's only 4 letters ffs)
> Keep at it laddie. Roy Culley is just an FAT ethically lacking,
> lying, FUD spreading linux apologist.
No no, replace linux there with windows and it's the perfect description of
erik.
> The fact he attacks you
> personally just shows what a great job you are doing.
LOL! You are completely cluesless when it comes to personal attacks.
Erik's the grand master.
> He will
> stoop to any depth to try and discredit
That's erik too, sorry.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Plains Thumper
> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he
> has wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-giv
> en-up/
>
> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that
> one), but he neglected to actually get the authors
> permission to copy it. I was supsicious that this might be
> the case and emailed the author to find out. He confirmed
> that it was copyright infringement.
>
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been
> more acceptable, since he wouldn't have actually copied the
> image. However, that would beg the bandwidth stealing
> argument of linking to images on other peoples sites.
>
> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his
> site have been similarly misappropriated. Many of them
> have no credits at all.
>
> Bummer for you Roy.
I am not so sure it is crackers for Roy. After going to his
root webpage and clicking on "Gallery" on
http://www.schestowitz.com/Gallery/
shows this:
: Home Visit in Spring
: Photos are low in resolution (Web cam)
: Last changed on 05/18/05. This album contains 17 items
: This album has been viewed 929 times since 05/16/05.
:
: KDE Screenshots
: Dual-head, SuSE Linux, 2003-2005
: Last changed on 11/03/05. This album contains 10 items
: This album has been viewed 1278 times since 04/04/05.
:
: Room view on December 16th, 2004
: View from the room -- Photos by Lital Schestowitz
: Last changed on 05/30/05. This album contains 16 items
: This album has been viewed 1000 times since 01/01/05.
:
: The Sunnegga on December 16th, 2004
: Assorted photos from the astounding hills -- Photos by Lital
: Schestowitz
: Last changed on 08/19/05. This album contains 16 items
: This album has been viewed 866 times since 01/01/05.
:
: Around the village on December 16th, 2004
: Pictures from the streets of Zermatt -- Photos by Lital
: Schestowitz
: Last changed on 05/30/05. This album contains 12 items
: This album has been viewed 990 times since 01/01/05.
A casual browse of his website shows mostly text with very
little graphics. What limited graphics exist appear generic and
iconish.
He used WordPress, an open source publishing software:
http://codex.wordpress.org/WordPress
/quote/
We are proud to offer you a freely distributed, standards-
compliant, fast, light and free personal publishing platform,
with sensible default settings and features, and an extremely
customizable core.
License and Platform
* License : WordPress is licensed under the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html).
/-quote/
I do not think use of WordPress images with the application are
considered illegal.
Furthermore, alternate webpage with images at
http://schestowitz.com/Art/Schestowitz/images.html
has 12 images limited to textual reference to his website name.
IMHO, Fare Use clause in British copyright law allows the use of
an image downloaded from the internet for personal use and
research, provided credit is given to the owner/author. Being a
graduate student, Mr. Schestowitz is a researcher.
Did Mr. Schestowitz defame the author? I think not.
Did he stretch the Fare Use clause in British copyright law by
posting this only image on the net? Perhaps.
However, would the American author consider it worthwhile to go
after a college student, seeking compensation on British soil
for a personal non-profit blog site with limited content and low
volume hits? That would be ridiculous.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as
>> corrupted as Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum
>> participants in the past.
>
> Microsoft. Also note that he does not deny the accusation
> but instead implies it.
>> Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that
>> will accompany my thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to
>> compile without warnings and I shall resume tomorrow.
>> What's the matter, Gary?
>
> I'm not and I doubt your University would either if they
> were aware of you using their systems 24x7 to post to a
> USENET group.
/quote/
From: Roy Schestowitz
Date: Sat, Apr 1 2006 4:01 am
Subject: Roy Schestowitz, Paid Linux Shill ????
[ mustaph...@yahoo.com ] on Friday 31 March 2006 19:56
<SNIP>
The University equips its students and staff with a newsserver
as means of communicating with the world and sharing ideas.
Why is this bothering you? I just do this as a hobby. If you
don't like my posts, kill me. That's what the kill file is
for.
Best wishes,
Roy
/-quote/
>> Roy (last followup)
>
> Yep. Run and hide.
> I'm only pointing out my observations and BTW nowhere did I
> say that there is anything wrong with being paid, like you
> are.
I'm only pointing this out, too. Do you think Roy really
cares (or as Americans say, "Gives a rip?")
> Allow me one question: Do you get paid by the post or by
> the line?
--
HPT
mlw
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>> you, Erik.
>
> Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior,
> Chris.
I'm not sure I would consider it illegal. There are probably good arguments
on both sides as to whether or not the use falls under fair use, but this
is between the author and the alleged violator.
What is clear, is that *you* have no standing in this case. You are not
party to any dispute and can't even claim to be a stake holder. So, in
fact, it is you that are being libelous. (1) You are making public claims
that you know you can not prove. (2) You are doing it for the express
intent of harming someone's reputation or malice.
So, if he wanted to sue you, it probably would be his right.
William Poaster
> Roland Garros <linu...@lycos.com> did eloquently scribble:
<snip>
A tennis stadium outside of Paris, "Home of the French Open", posting on
Usenet?
Smells "fishy" to me..
William Poaster
From another idiot wintroll, & it smells "fishy" that he's using the name
of a tennis stadium outside of Paris. These bozos just can't think up
their own nyms.
Linonut
> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.
>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>
> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
> sites.
>
> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>
> Bummer for you Roy.
You're a sneaky little shit, Erik. A rotten little turd.
--
/\ STOP! This post has not passed Microsoft Logo testing to verify its
/ \ compatibility with Microsoft FUD. Microsoft strongly recommends
/ !! \ you stop reading this post, and consult a poster with FUD
/______\ certification. [ Continue Anyway ] [ STOP Reading ]
mlw
> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.
Which is a matter to be decided by Ray and the author, of which, unless you
are Roy or the author of the cartoon, is none of your business.
>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>
> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it.
Depending on the use and origin of the work, may not be a violation of
copyright or defensible as "fair use." In cases like this, it really isn't
a crime until the owner informs the alleged violator of the problem. The
violator has a reasonable amount of time to remove the offending content or
dispute it.
> I was
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
The "author" may suspect it is copyright infringement, but that does not
mean it is. That has to be settled between Roy and the author.
>
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image.
That has *nothing* to do with it. If you merely deep link to an image on a
web site, there is no legal difference from copying. Granted, this is one
of the more controversial decisions, but it makes sense.
> However, that would beg
> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
> sites.
Have you even looked at the laws and statutes you think you are talking
about?
>
> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
"Misappropriated?"
>
> Bummer for you Roy.
Like I said in another post, you have no standing in any of this dispute.
There may, in fact, not even be a legitmate dispute. The only purpose in
even writing about it is to malign another person. Since you have accused
him of a crime that you can't prove for a malicious purpose, it is likely
that you have libeled him.
Put it this way, the remedy for inadvertent copyright infringement is the
removal of content. The remedy for libel is damages, and damages to
reputation are costly.
chrisv
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>> you, Erik.
>
>Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior, Chris.
I see that you're logically-challenged as well, Erik.
Not that I didn't already know that.
chrisv
>Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
LOL You are a piece of work, weasel.
William Poaster
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has
>> wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find
>> out. He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>
>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more
>> acceptable, since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However,
>> that would beg the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on
>> other peoples sites.
>>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
>
> You're a sneaky little shit, Erik. A rotten little turd.
Yes, but we knew that before, hence the "Ewik The Weasel" label.
--
Microsoft - The ultimate spyware.
Beowulf Trollshammer
> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
You actually bothered to email this guy just to have something to bitch about
here and attack Roy. Un-fucking-believable. Dude, you really need to get a
life.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Anyone else notice that funkenbusch.com went offline? Was that the
> moment the post was made or earlier? All you get now is the default
> Apache page. I wonder if it's hosted on a linux box?
A cynical mind might assume it is because he knows he has a few
copyright infringing images on it and needs to hide it while he
scrubs it of any hypocrisy. A vindictive mind might even go into
google cache and dig up the evidence. Personally, I don't plan
to sink to that level and think it a waste of time anyway.
As for Roy's alleged transgression, we need to consider scale
and intent before passing any moral judgment. It is not as if he
is claiming the work as his own; he clearly credits the original
author. The original author might even benefit from some additional
exposer. It might be copyright infringement in the strictest sense
(though sometimes you can make a fair use argument if it is part of
a larger body of work), and if the author tells him to remove it,
he probably should; but this is hardly a hanging offense. In short,
cut Roy some slack, let him and the original author sort this out
on their own. If you want to criticize his posts in COLA, then
do so, but keep the personal attacks out of it. It only makes you
look bad.
Thad
DFS
Good for him (Erik). The disturbing, holier-than-thou attitude of cola
"advocates" (and Linux and open source users in general) needs to be
revealed for the self-serving hypocrisy it is.
mlw
> Roy Culley :
> Anyone else notice that funkenbusch.com went offline? Was that the
> moment the post was made or earlier? All you get now is the default
> Apache page. I wonder if it's hosted on a linux box?
>
mlw@localhost:~$ telnet www.funkenbusch.com 80
Trying 64.122.157.131...
Connected to funkenbusch.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:28:45 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.54 (Linux/SUSE)
Content-Length: 297
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>400 Bad Request</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Bad Request</h1>
<p>Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<br />
</p>
<hr>
<address>Apache/2.0.54 (Linux/SUSE) Server at * Port 80</address>
</body></html>
Connection closed by foreign host.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> did eloquently scribble:
>> Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
>> unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
>> MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many years
>> ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
>> credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)
>
> I think I recall the rex incident.
> Dragging his private live into the argument as if it was something to be
> ashamed of, iirc. (wasn't it?)
I have never done any such thing. The only thing i'm guilty of posting a
reference to a message which included his description (which was under
discussion at the time) he posted publicly which others blew out of
proportion. I passed no judgement or called anything into question about
it.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Anyone else notice that funkenbusch.com went offline? Was that the
> moment the post was made or earlier? All you get now is the default
> Apache page. I wonder if it's hosted on a linux box?
My site has been offline for more than a year when I changed servers. It
never had anything other than some test pages I was working on anyways.
chrisv
>The only thing i'm guilty of posting a
>reference to a message which included his description (which was under
>discussion at the time) he posted publicly which others blew out of
>proportion. I passed no judgement or called anything into question about
>it.
You never did answer me why it's okay for you to, without asking,
publicize other people's personal information, but if a person chooses
to publicize personal information about himself, it is
"inappropriate".
Hypocrite.
chrisv
>As for Roy's alleged transgression, we need to consider scale
>and intent before passing any moral judgment. It is not as if he
>is claiming the work as his own; he clearly credits the original
>author.
Yes. This "crime" is about as serious as jay-walking.
Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> A cynical mind might assume it is because he knows he has a few
> copyright infringing images on it and needs to hide it while he
> scrubs it of any hypocrisy. A vindictive mind might even go into
> google cache and dig up the evidence. Personally, I don't plan
> to sink to that level and think it a waste of time anyway.
Be my guest. It's *NEVER* had any images of any kind on any public pages,
and the private pages were test pages for clients i was working on. So
please, spare me the conjecture.
> As for Roy's alleged transgression, we need to consider scale
> and intent before passing any moral judgment.
No, we do not. He deliiberately copied the image to his local server, and
is hosting it on a site (which he gains revenue from, by the way, via
advertising). Yes, he credited the original author, and linked to his web
site which explicitly outlines the rules for using his works. He must
contact the author.
> It is not as if he is claiming the work as his own; he clearly credits
> the original author.
Irrelevant. Plenty of people have violated the GPL and not claimed the
work as their own, that doesn't stop the GPL community from condemming
them.
> The original author might even benefit from some additional
> exposer.
The classic pirate justification.
> It might be copyright infringement in the strictest sense
> (though sometimes you can make a fair use argument if it is part of
> a larger body of work)
You can't use fair use. Fair use would be if, for example, he was
critiquing the artwork (even then, it would be difficult to justify
including the whole work).
> and if the author tells him to remove it, he probably should;
The author shouldn't have to.
> but this is hardly a hanging offense. In short,
> cut Roy some slack, let him and the original author sort this out
> on their own. If you want to criticize his posts in COLA, then
> do so, but keep the personal attacks out of it. It only makes you
> look bad.
Roy has no problem making personal attacks against anyone else, including
the very article in which the artwork is present on.
High Plains Thumper
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:04:24 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Roland Garros wrote:
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has
>>>> wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed this on this article:
>>>>
>>>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>>>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>>>
>>>> Bummer for you Roy.
>>>
>>> Sad but true. Most linux users are thiefs. It don't surprise me that
>>> they steal photos from the internet. After all, its these looneys that
>>> think everything should be free.
>>
>> Another nymphal shift, Mr. linu...@lycos.com? Another generalisations:
>> "Most linux users are thiefs".
>
> From another idiot wintroll, & it smells "fishy" that he's using the name
> of a tennis stadium outside of Paris. These bozos just can't think up
> their own nyms.
Roland Garros was a WW-I French fighter pilot ace. AFAIK, he pioneered the
idea of firing through the propellor arc by adding metal wedge shields to
the back of the propellor at contact point. He was captured by the Germans
when his Morane Solneir monoplane developed mechanical problems and landed
behind enemy lines.
Anthony Fokker had a firsthand look at his crude but effective scheme. He
deveoped the interrupter gear, which would interrupt firing if propellor
was in the path of the bullets.
It was a deadly success. A pilot with a bead on the enemy could fire more
accurately "looking down the barrel" than other arrangements, which placed
the machine guns a distance outside the propellor arc.
Mr. Nymphal Shift used this Ace's name, but has done little to improve
things like Mr. Fokker did.
--
HPT
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>>> you, Erik.
>>
>> Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior,
>> Chris.
>
> I'm not sure I would consider it illegal. There are probably good arguments
> on both sides as to whether or not the use falls under fair use, but this
> is between the author and the alleged violator.
There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
complete work. 2) He does not own a copy of the work in any form. 3) The
work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it. 4) He is
collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
> What is clear, is that *you* have no standing in this case.
Irrelevant. That doesn't stop people like Harald Welte from filing GPL
lawsuits against companies violating the GPL, especially considering he's
not the author of the works in any way.
> You are not
> party to any dispute and can't even claim to be a stake holder. So, in
> fact, it is you that are being libelous. (1) You are making public claims
> that you know you can not prove. (2) You are doing it for the express
> intent of harming someone's reputation or malice.
Iam not making claims I cannot prove. I have email from the author of the
work stating that Roy iis violating his copyrights.
> So, if he wanted to sue you, it probably would be his right.
Let him.
Erik Funkenbusch
For example:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/06/06/666-devils-day/
What's the source of that image?
tab
GreyCloud wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
> >>"About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
> >>Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
> >>are imposed.
> >
> >
> > Acknowledging the author does not give you the right to use the work
> > without permission. His site explicitly says:
> >
> > "All images on this web site are copyright John S. Pritchett.
> > For details on usage, purchasing original artwork or commissions, Email
> > Pritchett"
> >
> > Something you didn't do. The author explicitly told me that you did not
> > have permission to use the image.
> >
> >
> >>On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
> >>Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
> >>the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
> >>strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.
> >
> >
> > John Pritchett, the author of the work on your page explicitly says you are
> > infringing copyright. Further, you aren't hot linking. The image is
> > stored on your server.
> >
> >
> >>If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
> >>you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
> >>weasel.
> >
> >
> > Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
>
> It sure looks like it.
>
You mean, like COLA freaks do, to others? This is just Erik against
COLA.
Tim Smith
> I'm not sure I would consider it illegal. There are probably good arguments
> on both sides as to whether or not the use falls under fair use, but this
> is between the author and the alleged violator.
I don't see any good argument for this falling under fair use. He's taken the
entire work, and he's not using it for any of the normal fair use kind of
purposes.
> What is clear, is that *you* have no standing in this case. You are not
> party to any dispute and can't even claim to be a stake holder. So, in
> fact, it is you that are being libelous. (1) You are making public claims
> that you know you can not prove. (2) You are doing it for the express
> intent of harming someone's reputation or malice.
What makes you think he knows he can't prove them? He said he checked with the
artist and was told that this use was not licensed.
--
--Tim Smith
Edwards
> Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
"For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or
distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient
to establish willful infringement."
I take it you have independent evidence of _both_ the willfulness of
Roy's alleged infringement, _and_ that Roy obtained commercial
advantage or private financial gain from the alleged infringement or
that the cartoon in question has a retail value of more than $1000.
Otherwise, of course, the alleged conduct wouldn't be "criminal" at
all. And in that case, of course, you wouldn't want to engage in the
"criminal conduct" of libel, now would you?
--
Darrin
mlw
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:27:10 -0400, mlw wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>>>> you, Erik.
>>>
>>> Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior,
>>> Chris.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would consider it illegal. There are probably good
>> arguments on both sides as to whether or not the use falls under fair
>> use, but this is between the author and the alleged violator.
>
> There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
> complete work.
The "portion" of the work used is subject to interpretation. If the work is
small, say a cartoon, "whole" may be the only portion reasonably usable as
fair use.
> 2) He does not own a copy of the work in any form.
The only people who "own" the work are the people who "own" the work.
Everyone else has access rights as assigned by copyright law. If the work
is published publically, he has certain rights to it.
> 3) The
> work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it.
Assuming you can prove the site you claim is the origin and that the noticed
was posted at or before the time of acquisition.
> 4) He is collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
Fair use does not prohibit making a secondary profit. Works, such as an
article which makes use of content via "fair use," can and do make money.
Not from the sale of "fair use" work, but because of the work of the
article's author. It does get sticky if it can be proved that the body of
the work is primarily fair use, but that's a matter for the courts.
>
>> What is clear, is that *you* have no standing in this case.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not at all.
> That doesn't stop people like Harald Welte from filing GPL
> lawsuits against companies violating the GPL, especially considering he's
> not the author of the works in any way.
Harald had to create a theory for his supposed standing, and while absurd,
was legally defensible. Had he not had standing he could not have brought
action. Suffice to say, his point was absurd but he had the right to bring
the case.
>
>> You are not
>> party to any dispute and can't even claim to be a stake holder. So, in
>> fact, it is you that are being libelous. (1) You are making public claims
>> that you know you can not prove. (2) You are doing it for the express
>> intent of harming someone's reputation or malice.
>
> Iam not making claims I cannot prove.
To make those claims you must be privy to facts and circumstances that you
are not. There are plenty ways that this not copyright violation or at a
minimum not even a crime. Even if it was a copyright violation, the author
merely has to say "please remove that" and as long as Roy does as
requested, there is no crime.
> I have email from the author of the
> work stating that Roy iis violating his copyrights.
Well, is he a lawyer? District Attorney? He may think anything he likes,
that does not make it so. Has he contacted Roy and asked him to remove the
content? Until that happens, it is not likely Roy has broken any laws.
>> So, if he wanted to sue you, it probably would be his right.
>
> Let him.
He should.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> For example:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/06/06/666-devils-day/
>
> What's the source of that image?
I honestly can't see if that's a drawing or a picture (possibly
digitally enhanced) of a real stone-carving somewhere. If it's a
picture, then it would be pretty hard to assert copyright on it. Even
then, you can't honestly expect every single image on every single page
of every single website in the world to carry a source, can you? And if
he got it from one of the many royalty-free sources, which he has
indicated that he uses, there would indeed be no reason to cite a
source. You, as the accuser, had better come up with some proof that it
was misappropriated, or retract your libelous implication.
Your attempt at character assassination is lame at best. Just as I
think that my opinion of you can't get much lower, you go ahead and pull
a stunt like this. BTW, your website seems to be down. Could it be
that you are busy sanitizing it to remove all material of questionable
origin? (Yes, I know, that was as lame as your attack on Roy, but what
the hell)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEiEtnd1ZThqotgfgRAqFFAKCTc287mEfFLfjM45iioAwkuGxsQwCfTVr8
Ajqw7qb0NgtTVJg1Im+EN6o=
=2dtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
But alas, all you have is invective, and the logical equivalent of monkeys
flinging crap. -- Jim Richardson responding to DFS in COLA
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2006-06-07, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
>
> "For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or
> distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient
> to establish willful infringement."
>
> I take it you have independent evidence of _both_ the willfulness of
> Roy's alleged infringement, _and_ that Roy obtained commercial
> advantage or private financial gain from the alleged infringement or
> that the cartoon in question has a retail value of more than $1000.
Roy did willfully infringe because he linked to the authors web page which
clearly spells out that he is required to contact the author for permission
to use the works. He can't claim to have not known, because he he
explicitly links there.
Roy has obtained commercial advantage, because he collects revenue from
advertising on the page.
The Ghost In The Machine
<m...@nospamnoway.zz>
wrote
on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:30:08 -0400
<59WdndGwA-f2qRXZ...@comcast.com>:
Pedant Point:
Bad request; you forgot the Host:. See RFC2616:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
although for some reason the actual requirement is
buried way down in section 14.23, "Host", and section
19.6.1.1, "Changes to Simplify Multi-homed Web Servers and
Conserve IP Addresses", and the verbiage in section 5.2,
"The Resource Identified by a Request" can be slightly
confusing.
Apache does not do well with the request
GET http://localhost/ HTTP/1.1
Connection: close
<blank line>
which is a technical violation of 5.2, list element #1
(fourth paragraph). (There might be a setting somewhere
in Apache's voluminous configuration files to fix this.
I've not bothered to tweak Apache all that much beyond
fiddling with mod_jk, which is an interesting environment
discussable elsewhere.)
If all you were interested in were the headers,
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.funkenbusch.com
Connection: close
<blank line>
will do well enough. The 400 response will not have the
same headers (the Content-Length: of the 400 response
is the length of the error page), especially if the
server is multilingual. (Of course one should specify
Accept-Language: and possibly Accept-Charset: in that
case.) This might be an issue if one has a complicated
website where errors are handled locally but valid requests
are passed into another website which handles the heavy
lifting (e.g., database fetches and format conversions).
I doubt, however, that funkenbusch.com is that complicated.
Certainly Erik isn't. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Larry Qualig
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:38:30 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
> > articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
> > Linux.
>
> One might think so, but if you explore his site, you'll find a quantity of
> self-flaggelating content that puts Rex to shame. He appears to have saved
> every message he's ever written in any forum, for example. I think he just
> likes to read his own messages.
I did explore his site and there is certainly some questionable stuff
on Roy's site. For example, here is basically an entire archive of
COLA:
http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/
A very large percentage of the content there is from COLA posters other
than himself.
This is certainly a copyright violation. He has the right to post his
*OWN* usenet postings but according to copyright law, he has no right
to put other peoples USENET posts on his site.
http://www.tufts.edu/tccs/p-overview.html
<quote>
Copyright Law
Moreover, their works are protected by copyright law from the very
moment that they are created, -regardless of whether they are
registered with the Copyright Office and regardless of whether they are
marked with a copyright notice or symbol ©. That means that virtually
every e-mail message, Usenet posting, web page, or other computer work
you have ever created - or seen - is copyrighted. That also means that,
if you are not the copyright owner of a particular Usenet posting, web
page, or other computer work, you may not copy, distribute, modify, or
display it unless one or more of the following is true:
* Its copyright owner has given you permission to do so
* It is in the public domain
* Doing so would constitute fair use
* You have an implied license to do so
If none of these exceptions apply, your use of the material constitutes
copyright infringement, and you could be liable under federal law for
as much as $100,000 in damages for each use.
</quote>
The issue of Usenet posts is further articulated here:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
<quote>
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore
unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I
grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much
like them.
</quote>
Anyone claiming that this is justified because of "fair use" is
clueless about fair use. Fair use most certainly does *NOT* apply here.
William Poaster
I *doubt* he even emailed the guy in the first place, as for FurkinFUDbush
whining & bitching, what else is new....
--
www.jlaforums.com steals usenet newsgroup posts, & misleads the public
into thinking the posts come from their own forums. THEY DON'T!
This post was originally posted in a USENET newsgroup.
USENET is free to anyone with a newsreader.
William Poaster
Interesting, thank you! :-)
> Mr. Nymphal Shift used this Ace's name, but has done little to improve
> things like Mr. Fokker did.
--
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> The "portion" of the work used is subject to interpretation. If the work is
> small, say a cartoon, "whole" may be the only portion reasonably usable as
> fair use.
would fail the fair use test. If it was a reprint of a frame or three
from a larger comic work, it might fly... but I am not a copyright
attorney (though I shovel enough money to one) and haven't even visited
the offending site, so take my opinion with a major grain of salt.
The point is, Roy's behavior is at best a misinterpretation of
copyright law and is easily fixed. Fair use is often a muddled issue
even in the courts, so I am willing to cut him some slack. I am more
concerned with the propensity to 'dig up dirt' on someone outside of
COLA because you dislike their statements within the forum. Perhaps
I'm being a stogy old Internet fart for wishing people would stick
to proper netiquette, but then I don't like personal mud-slinging in
political campaigns either. Its just a distraction from why we are
(ostensibly) really here.
Cheers,
Thad
William Poaster
You expect an answer from FUDdingbush?
He has a few other questions to answer, but hasn't yet.
Questions such as:
1] Where does NTFS store its journal?
2] How did the Morris worm spread by email?
3] What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
4]Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
standards?
And your's:
5] Why is ok for him (without asking permission) to publicize other
people's personal information, but if a person chooses to
publicize personal information about *himself*, it is "inappropriate".
The list of unanswered questions is growing, but Ewik The Weasel will
probably ignore it.
--
Erik "Mr Microsoft" Weasel.
Larry Qualig
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
> mlw <m...@nospamnoway.zz> wrote:
> >
> > The "portion" of the work used is subject to interpretation. If the work is
> > small, say a cartoon, "whole" may be the only portion reasonably usable as
> > fair use.
>
> Actually, if the cartoon stands alone as a creative work, I suspect it
> would fail the fair use test. If it was a reprint of a frame or three
> from a larger comic work, it might fly... but I am not a copyright
> attorney (though I shovel enough money to one) and haven't even visited
> the offending site, so take my opinion with a major grain of salt.
Under what possible scenario is this considered fair use? Just because
he's a student doesn't give him blanket authority to invoke "fair use"
whenever it happens to be convenient to do so.
Fact is that Roy accepts money for advertising on his site. The images
and USENET postings are being used for commercial profit. I don't see
any credible argument that this somehow constitutes fair use.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he
>>> has wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>>
>>> I noticed this on this article:
>>>
>>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-giv
>>> en-up/
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his
>>> site have been similarly misappropriated. Many of them
>>> have no credits at all.
>>
>> Which images?
>
> For example:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/06/06/666-devils-day/
>
> What's the source of that image?
It doesn't say and I don't have a clue. However if mouse pointer is hovered
over it states, "Picture without copying restrictions".
--
HPT
Bobbie
Qualig exclaimed:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:38:30 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>> > I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
>> > articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
>> > Linux.
>>
>
>
>> One might think so, but if you explore his site, you'll find a quantity of
>> self-flaggelating content that puts Rex to shame. He appears to have saved
>> every message he's ever written in any forum, for example. I think he just
>> likes to read his own messages.
>
>
> I did explore his site and there is certainly some questionable stuff
> on Roy's site. For example, here is basically an entire archive of
> COLA:
>
> http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/
>
>
> A very large percentage of the content there is from COLA posters other
> than himself.
>
> This is certainly a copyright violation. He has the right to post his
> *OWN* usenet postings but according to copyright law, he has no right
> to put other peoples USENET posts on his site.
>
>
> http://www.tufts.edu/tccs/p-overview.html
>
>
Hmmmm.. Interesting.
So how come you're not going after Google?
Or for that matter Deja News and the thousand of other ISP's that archive
their own copies of Usenet for commercial purposes?
Bobbie the Triple Killer is at http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Today's posting comes via the numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
http://www.opensuse.org/Download
Tim Smith
> Roland Garros was a WW-I French fighter pilot ace. AFAIK, he pioneered
> the idea of firing through the propellor arc by adding metal wedge shields
> to the back of the propellor at contact point. He was captured by the
> Germans when his Morane Solneir monoplane developed mechanical problems
> and landed behind enemy lines.
>
> Anthony Fokker had a firsthand look at his crude but effective scheme. He
> deveoped the interrupter gear, which would interrupt firing if propellor
> was in the path of the bullets.
I'm not sure "effective" is really the right word here. It was effective in
the sense that it fixed the problem of shooting off your own propellor, but
didn't this solution lead to a secondary problem of sometimes causing
serious damage if the deflected bullet deflected back into some vital part
of the plane? So, I'd say there was no effective solution before Fokker.
--
--Tim Smith
flatfish+++
>
> Fact is that Roy accepts money for advertising on his site. The images
> and USENET postings are being used for commercial profit. I don't see
> any credible argument that this somehow constitutes fair use.
Yep.
That really seems to be the nail in the coffin now doesn't it?
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Larry Qualig
For starters... I am not "going after" anybody. I'm simply stating that
the hundreds of USENET posts on his web-site are also protected by
copyright law and technically he can't put those posts up there without
consent of the authors.
It's different for Google, Deja News (now Google) or any of the ISP's
because they are a member of the USENET system/network and have an
"implied license" to use and display the information.
To put it differently, when somebody posts to USENET they have the
expectation that it will appear and become available to USENET. There
is an implied license that gives all USENET systems the right to carry
this post.
But there is *NO* expectation that a post that someone makes will
appear in People magazine, a Pepsi commercial, the New York Times or
Roy's web-site. There is no "implied license" for use in these venues.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Be my guest. It's *NEVER* had any images of any kind on any public pages,
> and the private pages were test pages for clients i was working on. So
> please, spare me the conjecture.
I was actually trying to make a point (poorly perhaps) about how petty
that sort of activity would be.
>> As for Roy's alleged transgression, we need to consider scale
>> and intent before passing any moral judgment.
>
> No, we do not. He deliiberately copied the image to his local server, and
> is hosting it on a site (which he gains revenue from, by the way, via
> advertising). Yes, he credited the original author, and linked to his web
> site which explicitly outlines the rules for using his works. He must
> contact the author.
Yes, and it is exactly because he linked back to the original authors
site and did not try and claim the work as his own that I am willing
to cut him some slack when passing moral (not legal) judgment. This
looks like an honest mistake. Many people do it. Not everyone is an
expert in copyright law.
> Irrelevant. Plenty of people have violated the GPL and not claimed the
> work as their own, that doesn't stop the GPL community from condemming
> them.
Yup, sometimes people get in a tizzy over unintentional abuse of the
GPL and will go on a witch hunt. That doesn't make it right, and it
doesn't mean you need to grab your own pitchfork.
>> The original author might even benefit from some additional
>> exposer.
>
> The classic pirate justification.
Perhaps, but there is actually some evidence to suggest that piracy is
less of a problem than the labels and studios would have you believe,
and is in fact counterbalanced by the increased brand exposer. For
example, a recent study suggests that people who download music via
file sharing also legally purchase more music. I mention this not to
defend copyright infringement, just to suggest that a less draconian
approach to combating it would be more productive. DRM is more likely
to kill the traditional content industry than help it... but I digress.
>> It might be copyright infringement in the strictest sense
>> (though sometimes you can make a fair use argument if it is part of
>> a larger body of work)
>
> You can't use fair use. Fair use would be if, for example, he was
> critiquing the artwork (even then, it would be difficult to justify
> including the whole work).
I'll concede this point, having not viewed the image in question or
the context it was displayed in.
>> and if the author tells him to remove it, he probably should;
>
> The author shouldn't have to.
In a perfect world, yes, but humans make mistakes. That is why copyright
law is written with some flexibility allowing for the self policing of
this sort of thing before ever progressing to the courts. [1]
>> but this is hardly a hanging offense. In short,
>> cut Roy some slack, let him and the original author sort this out
>> on their own. If you want to criticize his posts in COLA, then
>> do so, but keep the personal attacks out of it. It only makes you
>> look bad.
>
> Roy has no problem making personal attacks against anyone else, including
> the very article in which the artwork is present on.
Perhaps that is so, I haven't looked at the article in questions. You
have no control over the person Roy chooses to be, only the person
you choose to be. I personally have no problem with most of what you
post on COLA, in fact I welcome your opinions even when I disagree with
them. Hell, I've even stepped up and defended you when I thought you
were being ripped on unfairly. I only ask that we try to keep the
discussion at least slightly relevant to linux advocacy. When you
resort to attacking the messenger instead of the message, you really
just end up damaging yourself.
Peace,
Thad
[1] I've never been involved in a copyright dispute, but I've had some
similar experiences defending a trademark. I tend not to take it
personal as long as it can be resolved with a few friendly letters
back and forth.
flatfish+++
>
> Hmmmm.. Interesting.
> So how come you're not going after Google?
> Or for that matter Deja News and the thousand of other ISP's that archive
> their own copies of Usenet for commercial purposes?
>
>
> Bobbie the Triple Killer is at http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
> Today's posting comes via the numbers 0 & 1, Suse 10.0 and Pan Newsreader.
> http://www.opensuse.org/Download
Good point!
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> every e-mail message, Usenet posting, web page, or other computer work
> you have ever created - or seen - is copyrighted. That also means that,
> if you are not the copyright owner of a particular Usenet posting, web
> page, or other computer work, you may not copy, distribute, modify, or
> display it unless one or more of the following is true:
>
> * Its copyright owner has given you permission to do so
> * It is in the public domain
> * Doing so would constitute fair use
> * You have an implied license to do so
The argument around usenet archiving, as I understand it, falls under
the 'implied license' category. The very nature of the medium you
are posting to implies it will be copied and stored on a gazillion
servers. As long as the posts are faithfully reproduced and not
edited or distorted in any way, I doubt any charge of copyright
infringement would stick.
Standard 'I Am Not A Lawyer' disclaimers apply.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> It's different for Google, Deja News (now Google) or any of the ISP's
> because they are a member of the USENET system/network and have an
> "implied license" to use and display the information.
makes it part of the 'USENET system/network'. It is a completely ad-hoc,
decentralized, anarchistic system. Anyone can create a downstream feed
and archive it however they like, forward it anywhere over any protocol
they like, whatever. Numerous web archives abound of both usenet and
many public mailing lists. This is tradition.
> To put it differently, when somebody posts to USENET they have the
> expectation that it will appear and become available to USENET. There
> is an implied license that gives all USENET systems the right to carry
> this post.
Again, the thing that makes you part of Usenet is the decision to
transmit or archive Usenet posts. Nothing else.
> But there is *NO* expectation that a post that someone makes will
> appear in People magazine, a Pepsi commercial, the New York Times or
> Roy's web-site. There is no "implied license" for use in these venues.
Well, you might get some coin going after Pepsi, but a reprint in
the guise of journalism might be protected by the courts if properly
attributed, and a web archive is well in keeping with the history of
the medium. Before the web, thread archives were often made available
via FTP. Of course you can never know for certain until someone takes
it to court... though I don't know why anyone would bother.
Thad
GreyCloud
I just want to know what motivated him to email the author is all.
Erik may very well be right in this instance.
If it were my work, I would be a bit ticked off as well.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Larry Qualig
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > It's different for Google, Deja News (now Google) or any of the ISP's
> > because they are a member of the USENET system/network and have an
> > "implied license" to use and display the information.
>
> There is no special status conferred on one server versus another that
> makes it part of the 'USENET system/network'. It is a completely ad-hoc,
> decentralized, anarchistic system. Anyone can create a downstream feed
> and archive it however they like, forward it anywhere over any protocol
> they like, whatever. Numerous web archives abound of both usenet and
> many public mailing lists. This is tradition.
And if the messages are used in the context of providing USENET content
or delivering content to the USENET system then it would be okay. But
this clearly is *not* how these messages are being used. He is
*selectively* taking the messages he wants, discarding the ones that
don't suit his agenda and putting them up on his for profit website.
> > To put it differently, when somebody posts to USENET they have the
> > expectation that it will appear and become available to USENET. There
> > is an implied license that gives all USENET systems the right to carry
> > this post.
>
> Again, the thing that makes you part of Usenet is the decision to
> transmit or archive Usenet posts. Nothing else.
If he were running a USENET server and the posts appeared on the USENET
server there would be no problem. But these posts are *not* being
served as USENET content. He is taking *selective* posts and displaying
them on his for-profit website.
> > But there is *NO* expectation that a post that someone makes will
> > appear in People magazine, a Pepsi commercial, the New York Times or
> > Roy's web-site. There is no "implied license" for use in these venues.
>
> Well, you might get some coin going after Pepsi, but a reprint in
> the guise of journalism might be protected by the courts if properly
> attributed, and a web archive is well in keeping with the history of
> the medium. Before the web, thread archives were often made available
> via FTP. Of course you can never know for certain until someone takes
> it to court... though I don't know why anyone would bother.
Notice the whining that some posters are making about some other site
(jlaforums?) and how they are putting USENET postings up on their
for-profit website. There is no practical difference between what
jlaforums does and what Roy is doing.
> Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>>
>> Actually, if the cartoon stands alone as a creative work, I suspect it
>> would fail the fair use test. If it was a reprint of a frame or three
>> from a larger comic work, it might fly... but I am not a copyright
>> attorney (though I shovel enough money to one) and haven't even visited
>> the offending site, so take my opinion with a major grain of salt.
>
> Under what possible scenario is this considered fair use? Just because
> he's a student doesn't give him blanket authority to invoke "fair use"
> whenever it happens to be convenient to do so.
question. Again, if it is only one small part of a larger work, he
could potentially use those images as part of some social commentary
or critique or some such. I'm not saying it actually applies in this
case, only that those are the situations in which the argument might
apply.
> Fact is that Roy accepts money for advertising on his site. The images
> and USENET postings are being used for commercial profit. I don't see
> any credible argument that this somehow constitutes fair use.
The archived usenet posts are unlikely to present any case for copyright
abuse... its sort of the nature of the medium. I'm sure that wont stop
us from hashing it about on this thread though. :)
Thad
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
> work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it. 4) He is
> collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
And you know he doesn't own a copy in any form how?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
>> complete work. 2) He does not own a copy of the work in any form. 3) The
>> work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it. 4) He is
>> collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
>
> And you know he doesn't own a copy in any form how?
The author of the work told me he doesn't.
flatfish+++
>
> I just want to know what motivated him to email the author is all.
> Erik may very well be right in this instance.
> If it were my work, I would be a bit ticked off as well.
The fact that Roy still has the images on his site says a lot about what
kind of person Roy is.
A reasonable person would have taken them down by now until the matter
could be resolved.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:03:18 GMT, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
>>> complete work. 2) He does not own a copy of the work in any form. 3) The
>>> work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it. 4) He is
>>> collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
>>
>> And you know he doesn't own a copy in any form how?
> The author of the work told me he doesn't.
How does the AUTHOR know he doesn't?
Does terry pratchett know that someone doesn't own a copy of Guards!
Guards!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:55:28 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> I just want to know what motivated him to email the author is all.
>> Erik may very well be right in this instance.
>> If it were my work, I would be a bit ticked off as well.
> The fact that Roy still has the images on his site says a lot about what
> kind of person Roy is.
Why? Has he been asked to remove it yet?
Is there any way you can even KNOW if he's been asked to remove it?
No? didn't think so.
mlw
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:55:28 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>> I just want to know what motivated him to email the author is all.
>> Erik may very well be right in this instance.
>> If it were my work, I would be a bit ticked off as well.
>
> The fact that Roy still has the images on his site says a lot about what
> kind of person Roy is.
>
> A reasonable person would have taken them down by now until the matter
> could be resolved.
Despite our disagreement, I agree with this statement. He should at least
contact the author. There has been sufficient debate that the "unknowingly
infringed" defense has been clearly destroyed, anyone would be convinced at
this point that he knew or should have known there could be a problem.
Kier
Is he claiming they are his own work? Is he directly making money from
them? If not, I don't think there is any terrible crime being committed
here?
>
>
>
>> > But there is *NO* expectation that a post that someone makes will
>> > appear in People magazine, a Pepsi commercial, the New York Times or
>> > Roy's web-site. There is no "implied license" for use in these venues.
>>
>> Well, you might get some coin going after Pepsi, but a reprint in
>> the guise of journalism might be protected by the courts if properly
>> attributed, and a web archive is well in keeping with the history of
>> the medium. Before the web, thread archives were often made available
>> via FTP. Of course you can never know for certain until someone takes
>> it to court... though I don't know why anyone would bother.
>
> Notice the whining that some posters are making about some other site
> (jlaforums?) and how they are putting USENET postings up on their
> for-profit website. There is no practical difference between what
> jlaforums does and what Roy is doing.
A couple of posters have moaned about it, and mainly been ignored. But
what that forum site is doing isn't what Roy is doing, as far as I can
tell.
Calling copyright infringement 'piracy' is pretty stupid, IMO. Real piracy
is a violent and often murderous crime.
--
Kier
The Ghost In The Machine
<spi...@freenet.co.uk>
wrote
on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:35:16 GMT
<iddml3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>:
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:03:18 GMT, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
>>>> complete work. 2) He does not own a copy of the work in any form. 3) The
>>>> work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it. 4) He is
>>>> collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
>>>
>>> And you know he doesn't own a copy in any form how?
>
>> The author of the work told me he doesn't.
>
> How does the AUTHOR know he doesn't?
> Does terry pratchett know that someone doesn't own a copy of Guards!
> Guards!
Isn't that the whole idea of DRM, to ensure that someone
who doesn't own a license to read the copy doesn't have
the ability to read it? :-)
(Substitute for 'read' as appropriate.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
High Plains Thumper
During the early part of the war in essentially an ultralight
aircraft (the Morane Saulnier "N", empty weight 635 lbs.),
Roland Garros during several patrols downed 5 aircraft with
it, thus becoming the first WWI ace. He created as much
concern with the Germans as Afghans equipped with Stinger
missles created with the Russians.
Roland figured that only 7% of the bullets would strike the
propellor, leaving 93% to travel to their target. (You must
remember that the 80 or 110 HP Le Rhone rotary engine used in
this plane rotated with the propellor. It's RPM was
relatively low.)
Thus I would say it was very effective.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Bobbie wrote:
>> Larry Qualig exclaimed:
Seriously, how much water would that argument hold in court
for something that is already publicly available?
At this point, I do not see how keeping a publicly available
archive of a publicly available forum from a multitude of
world-wide servers could be construed as malfeasance.
It seems odd that some treat Mr. Schestowitz as though
he violated a colonial EULA.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> 4) He is collecting revenue via advertising through the use
> of the image.
At the top of
it states when mouse is hovered over "Non-Profit Site" text at
the top, "Non-Profit Site: Revenue donated to charity".
http://www.schestowitz.com/Gallery/
: KDE Screenshots
: Dual-head, SuSE Linux, 2003-2005
: Last changed on 11/03/05. This album contains 10 items
: This album has been viewed 1278 times since 04/04/05.
That calculates to 3 hits per day. If he were making a profit,
at that rate he better not quit his other sources of revenue.
--
HPT
Tim Smith
Qualig wrote:
> A very large percentage of the content there is from COLA posters other
> than himself.
>
> This is certainly a copyright violation. He has the right to post his
> *OWN* usenet postings but according to copyright law, he has no right to
> put other peoples USENET posts on his site.
I disagree. Given the way usenet works--essentially a P2P message
distribution system, where it is well-known that there are web-based
archives of various groups, I'd say that when an author knowingly posts to
usenet, either
1. he is giving an implied license to all sites that are part of normal
usenet distribution. That includes web-based archives and forums nowadays,
or
2. the author is the one doing the copying. At least to sites where this is
no editorial control exercised over choosing what usenet content to carry
beyond the whole group level, the mechanism is in place, and the author is
the person who "pushed the button", so to speak.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
wrote:
>> advertising). Yes, he credited the original author, and linked to his
>> web site which explicitly outlines the rules for using his works. He
>> must contact the author.
>
> Yes, and it is exactly because he linked back to the original authors site
> and did not try and claim the work as his own that I am willing to cut him
> some slack when passing moral (not legal) judgment. This looks like an
> honest mistake. Many people do it. Not everyone is an expert in
> copyright law.
That would be a good argument for images taken from some random site that
had nothing to do with selling those images. E.g., if someone wanted a
picture of corn on their site, and found a nice picture of corn on the Del
Monte web site, and took it, crediting it back to Del Monte, I'd see nothing
really wrong with that. It would be best if they dropped a note to Del
Monte saying they were using the image, and offering to stop if Del Monte
had a problem with that.
However, this image is one of the things the original site sells. When you
go there, it very clearly says to contact the artist if you want to use the
image elsewhere.
...
> I'll concede this point, having not viewed the image in question or the
> context it was displayed in.
Uhm...but it is the details that make the difference. When you go to the
site it came from, here's what you see:
"Editorial cartoons, caricatures and illustrations by John S. Pritchett.
Award-winning cartoonist, illustrator and caricaturist offers political
cartoons, business cartoons, logo design, drawings and artwork for
publication."
and at the bottom of the page:
"All images on this web site are copyright John S. Pritchett. For
details on usage, purchasing original artwork or commissions, Email
Pritchett Or telephone: 808-521-9702"
If you go to the caricatures section, where this image came from, you see:
"Caricatures of politicians, celebrities and villains by caricature
artist John Pritchett. For details on reprint usage, commissions or to
purchase original artwork, e-mail Pritchett"
Going to the page for the particular image:
"For details on usage, Email Pritchett"
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>> The fact that Roy still has the images on his site says a lot about what
>> kind of person Roy is.
>
> Why? Has he been asked to remove it yet? Is there any way you can even KNOW
> if he's been asked to remove it? No? didn't think so.
Ethical people do the right thing without having to be asked.
--
--Tim Smith
Sinister Midget
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 06:29:04 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in
>> news:f7j6cvos...@funkenbusch.com:
>>
>>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he
>>> has wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>>
>>> I noticed this on this article:
>>>
>>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-giv
>>> en-up/
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his
>>> site have been similarly misappropriated. Many of them
>>> have no credits at all.
>>
>> Which images?
>
> For example:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/06/06/666-devils-day/
>
> What's the source of that image?
Have you looked at the image? You know, comments, strings, signature,
any of that? I'm looking at it now.
How do you know he didn't come by it from another soure, perhaps one
that had it listed as free to use?
What I find interesting is this.
Flatface admits taking Mandrake home, copying and distributing it and
taking it back for a refund. What did Erik F. have to say about that at
the time?
Flatso admitted claiming an entitlement to XP Corp because of doing
some contract work for someone that had a license for it. This is
clearly not within the license. Did Erik F. make a peep when that was
mentioned?
How about Aquila Whatsisface (was D2001/2/3/4x something or other)
always admitting theft, looking for cracks, etc? Has Erik F. so much as
made a whimper?
Good show, Erik. People admit stealing and that's OK. But someone you
decide to have heartburn over does something you can't even prove is
theft and you bust a blood vessel.
About what I've come to expect, though.
--
We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has
powerful muscles, but no personality.
--Einstein
Sinister Midget
> Your attempt at character assassination is lame at best. Just as I
> think that my opinion of you can't get much lower, you go ahead and pull
> a stunt like this. BTW, your website seems to be down. Could it be
> that you are busy sanitizing it to remove all material of questionable
> origin? (Yes, I know, that was as lame as your attack on Roy, but what
> the hell)
That's the only logical conclusion. He wouldn't have any other reason
to have it down right at the time he's trying to screw Roy's
reputation.
Go after Rex: backfire.
Go after Roy: backfire.
That's not even mentioning the countless others he didn't think he had
enough ammo to take out. But all of them had the same result: backfire.
--
Make your wife angry during sex. Phone her.
tab
William Poaster wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:04:15 +0000, Beowulf Trollshammer wrote:
>
> > Ewik FUDkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> >> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
> >> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find
> >> out. He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
> >
> > You actually bothered to email this guy just to have something to bitch
> > about here and attack Roy. Un-fucking-believable. Dude, you really need to
> > get a life.
>
> I *doubt* he even emailed the guy in the first place, as for FurkinFUDbush
> whining & bitching, what else is new....
>
> --
> www.jlaforums.com steals usenet newsgroup posts, & misleads the public
> into thinking the posts come from their own forums. THEY DON'T!
> This post was originally posted in a USENET newsgroup.
> USENET is free to anyone with a newsreader.
William is a FLAPPER. Instead of going to an finding out, he FLAPS
LIPS.
I can't say I have seen any good posts from William. Just Flapping.
Sinister Midget
> While performing an interpretive dance to Enya's Carribean Blue, Larry
> Qualig exclaimed:
>> I did explore his site and there is certainly some questionable stuff
>> on Roy's site. For example, here is basically an entire archive of
>> COLA:
>>
>> http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/
>>
>>
>> A very large percentage of the content there is from COLA posters other
>> than himself.
>>
>> This is certainly a copyright violation. He has the right to post his
>> *OWN* usenet postings but according to copyright law, he has no right
>> to put other peoples USENET posts on his site.
>>
>>
>> http://www.tufts.edu/tccs/p-overview.html
>>
>>
>
> Hmmmm.. Interesting.
> So how come you're not going after Google?
> Or for that matter Deja News and the thousand of other ISP's that archive
> their own copies of Usenet for commercial purposes?
Because that would undermine all support for Ewik's tirade.
--
There's more than one way to skin a cat:
Way number 15 -- Krazy Glue and a toothbrush.
Sinister Midget
> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> did eloquently scribble:
>> The fact that Roy still has the images on his site says a lot about what
>> kind of person Roy is.
Says the admitted software thief.
> Why? Has he been asked to remove it yet?
> Is there any way you can even KNOW if he's been asked to remove it?
> No? didn't think so.
Flathead wants to jump in where s/h/it thinks s/h/it can score
something. No more, no less.
--
Don't tempt me. I can resist anything but temptation.
-- Bob Hope
Sinister Midget
> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> It's different for Google, Deja News (now Google) or any of the ISP's
>> because they are a member of the USENET system/network and have an
>> "implied license" to use and display the information.
>
> There is no special status conferred on one server versus another that
> makes it part of the 'USENET system/network'. It is a completely ad-hoc,
> decentralized, anarchistic system. Anyone can create a downstream feed
> and archive it however they like, forward it anywhere over any protocol
> they like, whatever. Numerous web archives abound of both usenet and
> many public mailing lists. This is tradition.
I have my own local spool. I store everything from a few groups, some
from a few others, and nearly nothing of several more.
That stupid claim would infer that I'm violating somebody's IP because
I'm not "a member of the USENET system/network" (whatever the hell
that's supposed to mean) on my machine downstairs that is clearly
acting as a server.
What a buffoon is Larry!
--
There are only two things a child will share willingly: communicable
diseases and its mother's age.
-- Benjamin Spock
Paul Cooke
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:56:27 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>>
[,,,] big snip... :)
>>>
>>> Bummer for you Roy.
>>
>> You're a sneaky little shit, Erik. A rotten little turd.
>
> Yes, but we knew that before, hence the "Ewik The Weasel" label.
>
well Roy must be doing something right with his [News] posts for Eric to
have attacked so viciously...
the sheer volume of "good news" items appearing that feature OSS and/or
Linux must be extremely galling for the wintroll shills and their
puppet-masters.
They can't deny the truth, so they attack the messenger...
--
XP, unsafe on the information highway at any speed