[FUR]: Attention Artists, Grey Day Organization
Dragon Magic
and that artists seem to have no rights to them at all, I'm hoping
every single furry and fantasy artist will help out with Grey Day.
Grey Day, October 1, 2001, is the day when people are asked
to turn their website into a dull, bland, gray page, and thus
eliminating their content for others to link, steal or admire.
One day without the art and content will probably give more
people reason to go after these piraters. After all, what if every
day at your favourite artist's site was gray and bland? No new
art, no new commissions, no news at all? All because that
artist got tired of being ripped off by the piraters with no
support?
I'm all for this movement, and hope more artists get involved
with it. It's a simple 24 hour removal or permission change
of nearly all your files, and changing your front page, to
show people what it will be like unless copyright is more
respected.
More information available here:
ilr
Just one day?
One day's just a fart in the wind. That might work for some
organizations, but no one would even notice in this Genre.
I move that we stretch it out to a month, considering
how few artists we really have that, in < 2 days, can crank
out a complete picture that's even worth being ripped off.
In fact Most artists wouldn't even be available to "blackout" their
pages simultaneously on just one day. And then there's the Archives that
would be even more of a hassle to blackout.
-Ilr
"Dragon Magic" <cb...@dragonmagic.net> wrote in message news:GJ747.29508$dd1.5...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
> Since pirates don't seem to think they're doing anything wrong,
> and that artists seem to have no rights to them at all, I'm hoping
> every single furry and fantasy artist will help out with Grey Day.
> Grey Day, October 1, 2001, is the day when people are asked
> to turn their website into a dull, bland, gray page, and thus
> eliminating their content for others to link, steal or admire.
>
<>snip<>
ilr
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:vn4ri9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Dragon Magic <cb...@dragonmagic.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm all for this movement, and hope more artists get involved
> > with it. It's a simple 24 hour removal or permission change
> > of nearly all your files, and changing your front page, to
> > show people what it will be like unless copyright is more
> > respected.
>
> abusing copyrights as well.
>
You mean Record and Software Companies, or are you actually suggesting
the same about artists in this fandom too?
Don Sanders
artist who make a living and can't afford pirates and copyright
abusers ruining their lively hood, or is this also directed towards
low
end artists who don't really have anything to lose yet?
Just want to clear a few things up on this matter before I shut myself
up.
--
Don Sanders.
Gingercat
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:vn4ri9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Dragon Magic <cb...@dragonmagic.net> wrote:
>> I'm all for this movement, and hope more artists get involved
>> with it. It's a simple 24 hour removal or permission change
>> of nearly all your files, and changing your front page, to
>> show people what it will be like unless copyright is more
>> respected.
> The problem with that, though, is people are tired of copyright holders
> abusing copyrights as well.
Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
a copyright would be... ?
Gingercat
hans the hussar
>You mean Record and Software Companies, or are you actually suggesting
>the same about artists in this fandom too?
Vut fandom? :)
I'm wirting in zer dialect ya!
Hans the Hussar
"Behold the bold Hussar! Terror of the battlefield! Never willing to yield!
Behold the bold Hussar!"
Fal Leac
w-r-i-t-i-n-g :)
Robin Fal Leac, Pray for peace in Northern Ireland... God bless.
(Fal Leac is pronounced F-lack in Gaelic)
hans the hussar
got it.
Zer Goot!
Notice, I'm not yelling anymore.
RTCa...@concentric.net
web forever? ;p
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9ir7tr$hqh$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
> No new
> art, no new commissions, no news at all? All because that
> artist got tired of being ripped off by the piraters with no
> support?
Commissions will still exist even in the absence of copyright.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> You mean Record and Software Companies, or are you actually suggesting
> the same about artists in this fandom too?
Record, Software and Movie, compernies have all abused copyright.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
> a copyright would be... ?
Mastercard threatening people who make jokes based on the "somethings
money can't by for everything else there is mastercard". The RIAA
threatening accedemics wishing to publish details of how there
encrytion system was broken. The MIAA threatening people trying to
devlop a DVD system for linux. Book publishes trying to stop the
publication of "Wind be gone". All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
down. People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites. Clauses in
software licences that prevent people from publishing reviews of the
software.
Doug Winger
dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au wrote:
> Commissions will still exist even in the absence of copyright.
However, speculative work, prints, limited editions, licensing, control of
distribution and/or usage, derivitive works, terms of sale and any financial
security those dealing with those things currently protected by copyright have
will evaporate. Also, the number of people that will bother to learn the
skills to be capable of doing up a commission properly will plummet, as living
on art commissions alone is a certain way to starve to death slowly- excepting
the very few. Speaking as one who has to deal with such things on a regular
basis, and having seen what can happen when someone plays fast and loose with
the rules as is, I can state as fact that you're talking out of your hat.
Personally speaking, I refuse to starve to death on the streets simply
because you don't like copyrights. I doubt there's many people that will make
that sacrifice simply for your feel-good- and incredibly unrealistic- approach
to the subject.
- Doug, Gone Again, As I've Visited Here Before
Alan Kennedy
hours or so. I mean, its not like anyone visits my web page anywyas.
And yes, I'm working on my revamp of my old one, just so that anyone who
does visit it knows.
--
--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]
EMAIL : trigem@_REMOVEGIBBERISH_hotmail.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf
MSN : tri...@hotmail.com
ICQ : 8781052
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
JOURNAL : http://www.livejournal.com/users/trigem/
JOURNAL : http://www.deadjournal.com/users/trigem/
"Its humanity's rush hour, and there is some SERIOUS road construction
ahead." - Me
Charles Melville
Dragon Magic wrote:
> Since pirates don't seem to think they're doing anything wrong,
> and that artists seem to have no rights to them at all, I'm hoping
> every single furry and fantasy artist will help out with Grey Day.
> Grey Day, October 1, 2001, is the day when people are asked
> to turn their website into a dull, bland, gray page, and thus
> eliminating their content for others to link, steal or admire.
I'm not opposed to an organized effort to this end... but how does
this necessarily help? I can't really see the benefits, not even in the
short term. Will this -really- make any sort of an impact? Would
anyone really -notice-, and would the offending parties really -care-?
Is this being publicized in order to maximize attention and the effect
it would have? I'm having difficulty understanding that this would make
any difference and would in some way deter offenders. ILR is right...
one day doesn't make much of a difference. A longer period of time like
a month or more would have more impact, but how on earth could you
encourage enough people to willingly participate, especially when
commercial interests would only fill the void (people aren't going to
visit art websites if there's no art to see), and newcomers setting up
new sites would be ignorant of the ongoing boycott.
I just don't see this as either feasible or effective.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Dragon Magic <cb...@dragonmagic.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm all for this movement, and hope more artists get involved
> > with it. It's a simple 24 hour removal or permission change
> > of nearly all your files, and changing your front page, to
> > show people what it will be like unless copyright is more
> > respected.
>
> The problem with that, though, is people are tired of copyright holders
> abusing copyrights as well.
I see that as a non-sequiter; how does a copyright holder abuse a
copyright when a copyright is designed to protect -his- interests from
-outside- abuse!?
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:02:18 GMT, Gingercat <tor...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
> > a copyright would be... ?
>
> Mastercard threatening people who make jokes based on the "somethings
> money can't by for everything else there is mastercard". The RIAA
> threatening accedemics wishing to publish details of how there
> encrytion system was broken. The MIAA threatening people trying to
> devlop a DVD system for linux. Book publishes trying to stop the
> publication of "Wind be gone". All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
> down. People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites. Clauses in
> software licences that prevent people from publishing reviews of the
> software.
Oh, I see... it's this old chestnut again.
Obviously this is your own point-of-view, which we have already argued
ad nauseum not that long ago; it is not the point-of-view of artists who
depend upon copyrights to protect their interests. In spite of your
argument, I don't see any of the above as being an 'abuse' of the copyright
system, nor as an example of copyright holders abusing their authority.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Gingercat <tor...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
> > a copyright would be... ?
>
> The DVDCA not allowing people using Linux boxen play DVDs and trying to
> thwart efforts to create players for non Windows/Macintosh OSs.
So a company is protecting their merchandise. That's an abuse!?
>
>
> MPAA trying to destroy fair use of copying CD's to MP3s for personal
> enjoyment.
I don't see where copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under
-any- definition of Fair Use. Fair Use is a device to allow snippets and
excerpts to be copied for the sake of academic and journalistic review
>
>
> Any closed source software.
>
> I'll stop here.
Good. Because I don't see any of these as being abuses as much as I see
them being examples of frustrated attempts to get around protections in
order to obtain freebies at someone else's expense.
Martin Skunk
>
>
> [...]
>
> > You mean Record and Software Companies, or are you actually suggesting
> > the same about artists in this fandom too?
>
> Record, Software and Movie, compernies have all abused copyright.
Perhaps because many users abused record, movie and sowtware
copyrights? :)
--- Martin Skunk
Charles Melville
> > Book publishes trying to stop the
> > publication of "Wind be gone".
Bad example. It wasn't the publishers, as I recall, but the estate of
Margaret Mitchell, who owns the copyrights. And although the first ruling
was in favor of the estate, the subsequent appeal overturned that ruling
and found in favor of the writer of 'Wind Be Gone', that it did -not-
infringe copyrights. Therefore, her -own- copyright is now recognized as
valid; the system works and the artist prevails. So where's the beef?
ilr
"Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message news:3B5195D5...@zipcon.com...
>
>
I see one feasible way of doing it.. And that's for lots of artists in Archive
and Newsgroups to only submit Grey pages with the same instructions that
are on greyday.org. So if there was like 50 or more images concentrated
in just the "new" ares of Archives and Newsgroups, it would be kinda hard
for anyone else to miss it too. And anyone who does miss it could be
POLITELY emailed and asked to join the movement on a voluntary
basis only. It could easily spread to every corner of the online fandom in
a week or less if done properly.
But like you said, there might be some artists who wouldn't want to participate.
Their choice, though any artists like that which come to mind, well, their work
just plain sucks, to put it flankly, atleast out of the ones I know. And there
might be a few commercial artists who might try and take advantage of the
situation by cornering the market, but that will likely only hurt their own
reputations in the long(as it should).
And as you also said, there's no guarantee it would work at all.
True that, but it would be a lot easier to pinpoint exactly who the
worst violators are since they'd be exposing themselves in a feild
with a lot less variables and background noise...
And it's not just the Theifs either, there's so many little beligerant
15-year-old brats out there, hanging around here just to get free
porn, and openly dissing any artists suggests they even show an inkling
of respect. Artists are getting less and less respect at each passing
day from just about everyone, including themselves, so if nothing else,
this would prove what the backbone of this Genre is and atleast bring
the productive participants of the fandom closer together.
-Ilr
PS,
For any of the writers, don't get huffy, just substitute "Artist" for
"Producing creator in a any category of fictional furry production" :P
LncrAdvncd
>publication of "Wind be gone"
The action was taken by the author's family, not the publisher, and the author
of "The Wind Done Gone", a had her publisher on her side as well. And the
publication was allowed to go forward, even though the copyright issue is still
unsettled.
>Clauses in software licences that prevent people from publishing reviews of
the software.
This in not nesc a copyright issue, as much as it is a contract law one.
Clauses like the one you mention have been struck down on more than one
ocassion. While licencing term are related to copyright, they are not an
aspect of copyright law.
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Dragon Magic
>
> Perhaps because many users abused record, movie and sowtware
> copyrights? :)
Ah, but you're arguing to someone who thinks that IP is a fantasy, and
just something companies made up to milk extra money. (:
So your logic will be lost on him.
Dragon Magic
> Margaret Mitchell, who owns the copyrights. And although the first ruling
> was in favor of the estate, the subsequent appeal overturned that ruling
> and found in favor of the writer of 'Wind Be Gone', that it did -not-
> infringe copyrights. Therefore, her -own- copyright is now recognized as
> valid; the system works and the artist prevails. So where's the beef?
I think he's talking about how publishers want there to be regulation
on how libraries handle digital/e-books. That is, they want the libraries
to lend out only the number of copies they are given or purchased. Just
because they can make as many digital copies as they can, libraries see
that they can lend an unlimited number of these and not enforce a
due date.
I think publishers should still have the right to declare how many copies
a library can make of their works, even if the copying has become
easier. Libraries aren't above copyright law, but they do have more
exceptions.
I hope that they can come to a good conclusion.
Dragon Magic
> money can't by for everything else there is mastercard".
And this is a copyright abuse how?
Mastercard owns a trademark (TRADEMARK, not copyright,
which means its law falls under patent law, not copyright law) on
this.
And trademarks are lost easily if you do not defend them. Therefore,
Mastercard is well within its rights and survival to keep people
from diluting this trademark. If it's truly parody, it'll win in a proper
court. If it's not, Mastercard still keeps its trademark.
> The RIAA
> threatening accedemics wishing to publish details of how there
> encrytion system was broken.
The RIAA is always a bad example. They don't work for the
artists, they could care less. They're out for money and to kill
any possible chance to have competition. RIAA are never
"Copyright Holder" issue, they're more of an agency there to
"benefit" (okay, stop laughing everyone!) artists, which they
never seem to do.
> The MIAA threatening people trying to
> devlop a DVD system for linux.
Funny that the M_P_AA allowed a legal DVD player to be made
for Linux, because the people licensed the encryption method.
The DMCA does kill some copyright issues in that reverse
engineering is illegal, but what the judge allowed for linking
really touched outside the DMCA. Bad judge, not bad abuse.
> Book publishes trying to stop the
> publication of "Wind be gone".
Well, still, it's a derivative work. C'mon.
> All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
> down.
And this is bad why? You create stuff based on other people's hard
work, without compensation or permission, only to benefit yourself?
Yeah, you might be a fan, but you don't own the show/characters/
movie/etc., and they don't owe you the right to "benefit" or "promote"
their show. They have a marketing department for that.
> People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites.
Let's see... I write lyrics for a song, and don't want them published.
Therefore, it's okay for others to do it for me because people want
to know what I'm singing? Or I don't want people covering my song
like it's going out of style, so I don't want tabulatures out there. I own
the song, therefore, I own the ways it is distributed, including in TAB
and lyrical format. Sorry, don't see how this is bad.
> Clauses in
> software licences that prevent people from publishing reviews of the
> software.
Licenses are not copyrights. Again, bad relations. Software licenses
are supposed to be contracts, and they can say anything. What's
upholdable in court, that is, doesn't take away granted rights, is
determined by a court, not by common man.
Brian McGroarty
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> >
> > MPAA trying to destroy fair use of copying CD's to MP3s for personal
> > enjoyment.
>
> I don't see where copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under
> -any- definition of Fair Use. Fair Use is a device to allow snippets and
> excerpts to be copied for the sake of academic and journalistic review
It used to be legal to copy for one's own use, if one owned the
original or a license to the same. That was repealed a while ago, I
believe, or at least contradicted by a newer law.
Mind - the author didn't say a thing about exchanging MP3s, only
creating them.
Brian McGroarty
Grey Day is a celebration of - the hypocrisy and creative
justification of all furry artists with copied MP3s, pirated games and
applications on their hard drives, dubs of others' anime, filk tunes
sung to unlicensed songs, copies of others' art and renditions of
others' trademarked or otherwise protected characters and symbols -
it's a celebration of all that, and of the fact that the one remaining
control-freak artist, who gives a damn about the $40 he lost to others
enjoying his art this year, wishes to take himself too seriously and
spoil the fun for others.
And it's about sheep. It's about people greying web pages to be "in"
with the more notable furry artists, despite not a one has a leg to
stand on, morally speaking.
Just pretend they're all grey genos. They'll get tired of not being
noticed and go back to being their colorful selves.
Pak chooie unf. Follow the path to grey copyright enforcement.
Gingercat
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9l2s6g....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:02:18 GMT, Gingercat <tor...@magma.ca> wrote:
>> Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
>> a copyright would be... ?
> All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
> down. People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites.
How the hell is that abuse?
*I* create something, *I* write something, *I* draw something, what gives
you (generic you) the right to make it available without my consent, and
how am I *abusing* you by saying that you can't? Do you honestly imagine
that just because I create a piece of artwork, it means everyone who sees
it or part of it has rights to it, and that I'm *abusing* those right by
attempting to keep something that I created as mine?
Gingercat
ilr
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:mfbsi9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Martin Skunk <marti...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps because many users abused record, movie and sowtware
> > copyrights? :)
>
>
Are you just ignoring the actual Billions of dollars in lost sales
from Pirating, or do you not even consider that part of the
equation for some bizarre reason?
What is your basis for "Not nearly as much"?
Atara
<87vgkug...@booberry.speakeasy.net>:
>Grey Day is a celebration of - the hypocrisy and creative
>justification of all furry artists with copied MP3s, pirated games and
>applications on their hard drives, dubs of others' anime, filk tunes
>sung to unlicensed songs, copies of others' art and renditions of
>others' trademarked or otherwise protected characters and symbols -
>it's a celebration of all that, and of the fact that the one remaining
>control-freak artist, who gives a damn about the $40 he lost to others
>enjoying his art this year, wishes to take himself too seriously and
>spoil the fun for others.
>
>And it's about sheep. It's about people greying web pages to be "in"
>with the more notable furry artists, despite not a one has a leg to
>stand on, morally speaking.
Actually, it's not about furry at all. One wonders if you actually visited the
page sited. Here it is again in case you need the URL:
http://www.greyday.org
It's about people who create original website graphics such as backgrounds.
It's about people who create fonts. It's about people who create the games that
you enjoy online. It's about the people who draw, paint, write, and sing - and
then post their work online to be enjoyed by others, only to have it stole by
bandwidth theft or outright copying.
Greyday isn't a furry organization. There *is* a world outside the fandom.
--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
***What doesn't fit in my email addy? NADA.***
ilr
"Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:87vgkug...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> writes:
>
> Grey Day is a celebration of - the hypocrisy and creative
> justification of all furry artists with copied MP3s, pirated games and
> applications on their hard drives, dubs of others' anime, filk tunes
> sung to unlicensed songs, copies of others' art and renditions of
> others' trademarked or otherwise protected characters and symbols -
What's this "All" bullshit? I think the actual number of artists
who respect copyright law and don't have any of that junk in their
possession would make your head spin. And it's not like they can't
support other artists that are getting ripped off either.
And furry artists don't even have the power to press legal
force into all these damn violators like the big corporations do.
Not to mention that Grey-day really has nothing to do at all with
the Big Corporations in the first place. It's a demonstration by
everyone who can't afford that huge umbrella of copyright protection.
So whether they're hypocritical or not, they're still on the bottom
of the pile, they get all the disrespect that the Big Corporations get,
plus they have no way of defending themselves.
And you wanna talk about hypocritical, if you're not willing to
support artists, why the fuck are you even here in the first place?
This isn't a salvage yard, it's an online community, and it's whack
attitudes like yours that make it poorer by driving away any remaining
talent. It's time to do something about all these shitheels who get off
on behaving like assholes to the only Creative segments left online.
-Ilr, who only owns CD's and Games that were PURCHASED.
Charles Melville
ilr wrote:
> "Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message news:3B5195D5...@zipcon.com...
> >
> >
>
> I see one feasible way of doing it.. And that's for lots of artists in Archive
> and Newsgroups to only submit Grey pages with the same instructions that
> are on greyday.org. So if there was like 50 or more images concentrated
> in just the "new" ares of Archives and Newsgroups, it would be kinda hard
> for anyone else to miss it too. And anyone who does miss it could be
> POLITELY emailed and asked to join the movement on a voluntary
> basis only. It could easily spread to every corner of the online fandom in
> a week or less if done properly.
Yes, but here's my point: in order for this to be in any way effective, it has to be a
unanimous and universal effort. Everybody, or nobody at all. A few artists here and there
won't make an impact. Fan artists alone won't make an impact. It has to be -all- of the
websites in the Internet (or at least a significant percentage; say in the 80% range).
Otherwise, it's a meaningless and puzzling experience.
Charles Melville
Dragon Magic wrote:
Uh... no, that's a completely different issue, discussed elsewhere. The
"Wind Be Gone" matter was a lawsuit over whether or not the book infringed on
Mitchell's novel "Gone With The Wind".
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
[snip]
>Their choice, though any artists like that which come to mind, well,
>their work
>just plain sucks, to put it flankly, atleast out of the ones I know.
>And there
>might be a few commercial artists who might try and take advantage of the
>situation by cornering the market, but that will likely only hurt their own
>reputations in the long(as it should).
"Everyone who disagrees with me sucks." Right on.
>And as you also said, there's no guarantee it would work at all.
>True that, but it would be a lot easier to pinpoint exactly who the
>worst violators are since they'd be exposing themselves in a feild
>with a lot less variables and background noise...
So it's not possible to disagree with the project's methods? Any creator who
does is suspect? Your advocacy sounds like extortion: "if you don't turn
your page grey, you obviously don't care about copyrights, and we'll make
sure you pay for that."
This assumes that every creator on the planet (any why restrict it in any
way? Why not just turn the whole web grey) has even heard of the project.
--
Brian Dysart | The RNG giveth, and the RNG taketh away.
bdy...@network.boxmail.com | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---
Stormfront T. Dragon
> The problem with that, though, is people are tired of copyright holders
> abusing copyrights as well.
Abuse being defined as standing up to the swarming hordes that think they
have a right to help themselves to everyone else's property.
--
/\ \\ /\ ____________________________________________
/| \ (''-.\ _| Stormfront Thundra Dragon |_
/ | \//""| \/| > | The Over-yiffed Hermaphrodite Storm Dragon | <
/ | / | | // >_\""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""/_<
/ |/"(_)) |// \
"""\|\\(_))\//""" She waits for me at night, she waits for me in silence
/W / ()) She gives me all her tenderness and takes away my pain
/ \ \\ " And so far she hasn't run, though I swear she's had
__/ // // her moments
"---" "WWW She still believes in miracles while others cry in vain
--- Billy Joel, "All About Soul"
Charles Melville
Gingercat wrote:
Yes. David -does- believe that. We've had this argument not long ago
here. His stance is that intellectual property is an illusion and is ultimately
harmful to the greater public interests. Especially in regards to other artists
who might want to create derivitive works from your work. (Or from the work of
any other artist.) He feels that copyrights are far more slanted to the
interests of corporations and publishers (and he's not entirely without basis
there) and are more harmful than helpful to artists and general public alike.
ilr
"Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:87y9pqg...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> writes:
>
> > Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> > >
> > > MPAA trying to destroy fair use of copying CD's to MP3s for personal
> > > enjoyment.
> >
> > I don't see where copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under
> > -any- definition of Fair Use. Fair Use is a device to allow snippets and
> > excerpts to be copied for the sake of academic and journalistic review
>
> It used to be legal to copy for one's own use, if one owned the
> original or a license to the same. That was repealed a while ago, I
> believe, or at least contradicted by a newer law.
>
Anything that could be linked with Republishing was nixed, but anything
having to do with "Backups" or preservation only was upheld. Esp. on
CD's which only have an expected life-span of 3 years. So some companies
who use Copy-protection mechanism on their CD's actually allow customers
to mail them the broken CD's and send back a new one for free or a small
reproduction fee sometimes.
It's just a shame that furry artists can't actually get any protective use
out of these new laws/changes like the companies with deep pockets can.
Stormfront T. Dragon
> Any closed source software.
If I spend tens of thousands of dollars developing some piece of software,
exactly why should I be required to give you the source code so that you can
clone it and make money as my competitor?
Stormfront T. Dragon
> I see one feasible way of doing it.. And that's for lots of artists in Archive
> and Newsgroups to only submit Grey pages with the same instructions that
> are on greyday.org. So if there was like 50 or more images concentrated
> in just the "new" ares of Archives and Newsgroups, it would be kinda hard
> for anyone else to miss it too. And anyone who does miss it could be
> POLITELY emailed and asked to join the movement on a voluntary
> basis only. It could easily spread to every corner of the online fandom in
> a week or less if done properly.
>
> But like you said, there might be some artists who wouldn't want to participate.
> Their choice, though any artists like that which come to mind, well, their work
> just plain sucks, to put it flankly, atleast out of the ones I know. And there
> might be a few commercial artists who might try and take advantage of the
> situation by cornering the market, but that will likely only hurt their own
> reputations in the long(as it should).
Ah yes, the typical liberal tactics. Start harassing anyone who doesn't go along with your
cause, and then if they're still people left who haven't given in to you, call in the
character assassinations.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> >> The DVDCA not allowing people using Linux boxen play DVDs and trying to
> >> thwart efforts to create players for non Windows/Macintosh OSs.
> >
> > So a company is protecting their merchandise. That's an abuse!?
>
> No, they're not protecting thier merchandise, they're abusing thier
> customers and alienating a good segment of thier customer base.
And as pointed out elsewhere, it's not a copyright issue, but a matter of
contract law.
> > I don't see where copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under
> > -any- definition of Fair Use. Fair Use is a device to allow snippets and
> > excerpts to be copied for the sake of academic and journalistic review
>
> I do see how copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under fair
> use. I want all my songs in my entire collection to be put on shuffle
> play without buying an expensive 100 CD changer. I want to enjoy my music
> on the road without lugging around a CD player and CDs in addition to my
> laptop. Maybe the CD is public domain or properly licensed for
> redistribution.
And how does that fall under the Fair Use clause? How is what you're doing a
matter of academic or journalistic review? I repeat, it is not a Fair Use
concern.
> The fact you can't think of anything within fair use for MP3s makes me
> think you either work for RIAA or have absorbed too much of thier
> propaganda.
Never read any of it, so I wouldn't know. As of yet, you haven't proven a
Fair Use claim.
> > Good. Because I don't see any of these as being abuses as much as I see
> > them being examples of frustrated attempts to get around protections in
> > order to obtain freebies at someone else's expense.
>
> Chuck, explain your reasoning. Open Source software is a prime example of
> what happens when people don't like someone else's retardedly abusive
> licensing and band together to make a superiour product.
Yeah... so? What's your point?
All that proves to me is that they don't like the game being played and took
their ball to play in a different field. Doesn't mean that there was anything
essentially wrong or harmful in what the guys with the closed system were doing,
just that the open source guys didn't like it. I still don't see a problem.
Don Sanders
br...@robotattack.com says...
> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> writes:
*** Snipped. ***
>
> Grey Day is a celebration of - the hypocrisy and creative
> justification of all furry artists with copied MP3s, pirated games and
> applications on their hard drives, dubs of others' anime, filk tunes
> sung to unlicensed songs, copies of others' art and renditions of
> others' trademarked or otherwise protected characters and symbols -
> it's a celebration of all that, and of the fact that the one remaining
> control-freak artist, who gives a damn about the $40 he lost to others
> enjoying his art this year, wishes to take himself too seriously and
> spoil the fun for others.
Oh, is that what it is, phew, you had me worried there for a minute.
I hardly think it's all about that and not really the answer I was
looking for.
>
> And it's about sheep. It's about people greying web pages to be "in"
> with the more notable furry artists, despite not a one has a leg to
> stand on, morally speaking.
If you think that way, sure. From the looks of this, the whole thing
is directed towards those artists who make a living from their art and
is losing their shirts so to speak because of pirated art. I guess it
leaves those amateur artists who do art for a hobby off the hook. Now
I can sleep more uneasy at night.
>
> Just pretend they're all grey genos. They'll get tired of not being
> noticed and go back to being their colorful selves.
>
Nah, I would rather think of them as the Grey Consul. :)
--
Don Sanders.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > I see that as a non-sequiter; how does a copyright holder abuse a
> > copyright when a copyright is designed to protect -his- interests from
> > -outside- abuse!?
>
> Part of copyright is also to protect the public from abuse by copyright
> holders, which the United States is forgetting (with help from high budget
> lobbying). What does this mean for you, Mr. Joe Random American? You get
> screwed by the corporations that much more.
While I am not about to preach the worthiness of Corporations, I am still
hearing nothing but generalities. Give specifics. And don't just throw out
names and laws, but specific examples and clauses to back up your points.
Because so far, I just don't see it.
Charles Melville
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I do see how copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under fair
> > use. I want all my songs in my entire collection to be put on shuffle
> > play without buying an expensive 100 CD changer. I want to enjoy my music
> > on the road without lugging around a CD player and CDs in addition to my
> > laptop. Maybe the CD is public domain or properly licensed for
> > redistribution.
>
> And how does that fall under the Fair Use clause? How is what you're doing a
> matter of academic or journalistic review? I repeat, it is not a Fair Use
> concern.
I went and double-checked a couple of the copyright websites. There's actually
nothing wrong or illegal about you making your own copies from CD's or records that
you personally own. It's only when you get to swapping them online or copying from
other people's CD's that you begin violating copyrights. So not only is it not a
matter of Fair Use, but it's a non-issue to begin with.
Brian McGroarty
> "Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:87vgkug...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
> > Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> writes:
> >
> > Grey Day is a celebration of - the hypocrisy and creative
> > justification of all furry artists with copied MP3s, pirated games and
> > applications on their hard drives, dubs of others' anime, filk tunes
> > sung to unlicensed songs, copies of others' art and renditions of
> > others' trademarked or otherwise protected characters and symbols -
> > it's a celebration of all that, <snip>
>
> What's this "All" bullshit? I think the actual number of artists
> who respect copyright law and don't have any of that junk in their
> possession would make your head spin. And it's not like they can't
> support other artists that are getting ripped off either.
Hacks aside, let's see a show of hands from the furry artists who
claim to be 100% copyright compliant.
> And furry artists don't even have the power to press legal
> force into all these damn violators like the big corporations do.
How many corporations do you see going after individuals, as opposed
to people making commercial use of their products/material?
Name any?
And "artists" asking Napster to remove accounts doesn't count.
> And you wanna talk about hypocritical, if you're not willing to
> support artists, why the fuck are you even here in the first place?
I've spent thousands on art via commissions, purchases at CF, DC and
AAC and via mail order. I've probably had tens of thousands worth of
furry art which was worth a glance, but certanily not a buck. If I
like something enough, the artist gets paid. If I wants something
special created, the artist gets paid. But in either case, it's
because I want to, not becaused I've been pushed or shamed into some
moral obligation.
> This isn't a salvage yard, it's an online community,
If it ain't a salvage yard, it ain't a culture or a community.
> and it's whack
> attitudes like yours that make it poorer by driving away any remaining
> talent. It's time to do something about all these shitheels who get off
> on behaving like assholes to the only Creative segments left online.
Boo hoo hoo. It's hyper-reactive trolls like you who make the furry
"community" look like PeTA on a bad fur day. Quit pissing in our pool.
> -Ilr, who only owns CD's and Games that were PURCHASED.
- Brian, who singlehandedly starved a thousand furry artists by
copying a Jay Naylor illustration.
Brian McGroarty
> "Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:87vgkug...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
> > Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> writes:
> >
> > Grey Day is a celebration of - the hypocrisy and creative
> > justification of all furry artists with copied MP3s, pirated games and
> > applications on their hard drives, dubs of others' anime, filk tunes
> > sung to unlicensed songs, copies of others' art and renditions of
> > others' trademarked or otherwise protected characters and symbols -
> > it's a celebration of all that, <snip>
>
> What's this "All" bullshit? I think the actual number of artists
> who respect copyright law and don't have any of that junk in their
> possession would make your head spin. And it's not like they can't
> support other artists that are getting ripped off either.
>
[...]
>
> -Ilr, who only owns CD's and Games that were PURCHASED.
I'm assuming, then, that you have copyright ownership or a license to
publish this digitally?
- http://www.rof.net/wp/ilr/files/ALLEY_BAGGETT2.JPG -
I'm assuming yes - you claim to be so honest and upstanding.
Magnwa
SuSE and VA have other investment / companies that do sell closed source
software. VA puts together machines and charges five times the value for
it. Suse has a huge publishing house behind them doing other things than
just the linux distribution (which they have a commercial version of with
closed source stuff in it, like Accellerated X, and OSS Cost by ForeFront
tech)..
The point is, linux companies are not succeeding. They're doing between
losing everything to decent. None of them are really running away with
cash.
Magnwa
> Do support on it. Red Hat is a profitable company doing just that.
> Software in the Public Interest is a nonprofit corporation doing just
> that. VA Linux Systems is a profitable company doing just that. SuSE is
> a profitable German company doing just that.
>
> Why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars fucking the customer and
> binding them into draconian licence agreements?
>
> --
> Baloo
Brian McGroarty
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > other people's CD's that you begin violating copyrights. So not only is it not a
> > matter of Fair Use, but it's a non-issue to begin with.
>
> It's fair use under the copyright. Somehow this same fair use doesn't
> seem to apply to closed source software, which is the software industry's
> abuse on copyrights.
Please clarify?
Dragon Magic
> here. His stance is that intellectual property is an illusion and is
ultimately
> harmful to the greater public interests. Especially in regards to other
artists
> who might want to create derivitive works from your work. (Or from the
work of
> any other artist.) He feels that copyrights are far more slanted to the
> interests of corporations and publishers (and he's not entirely without
basis
> there) and are more harmful than helpful to artists and general public
alike.
Yes, David's view is that artists and writers should be allowed to make
derivative works on others' creativity. What he fails to see, is if they
truly
are artists and writers, they wouldn't need to rely on others' works
already.
What he and many others who enjoy fan works argue isn't that it's their
rights to rip off these works, deep down, but that they want extra stuff
starring their favourite characters, sometimes so off-character that the
owners of the original rights would never put them that way.
I.E. The SSS, among many other things.
If writers and artists are truly so, let them come up with their own stuff,
or at least have the decency to ask and get permission first.
Brian McGroarty
> Stormfront T. Dragon <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > If I spend tens of thousands of dollars developing some piece of software,
> > exactly why should I be required to give you the source code so that you can
> > clone it and make money as my competitor?
>
> Do support on it. Red Hat is a profitable company doing just that.
> Software in the Public Interest is a nonprofit corporation doing just
> that. VA Linux Systems is a profitable company doing just that. SuSE is
> a profitable German company doing just that.
You didn't answer his question.
Brian McGroarty
> Stormfront T. Dragon <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > If I spend tens of thousands of dollars developing some piece of software,
> > exactly why should I be required to give you the source code so that you can
> > clone it and make money as my competitor?
>
> Do support on it. Red Hat is a profitable company doing just that.
> Software in the Public Interest is a nonprofit corporation doing just
> that. VA Linux Systems is a profitable company doing just that. SuSE is
> a profitable German company doing just that.
>
> Why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars fucking the customer and
> binding them into draconian licence agreements?
Why should support be the only way to make money?
If support is the only place a software developer makes cash, then you
can bet that everything's going to be just as user friendly as your
average Linux distribution, i.e. Joe Office User will -need- to call
for support, or hire some jerkoff who's got nothing better to do than
learn the 1,000,001 ways you tweak the app and cop an attitude like
he's some kind of god for figuring things out.
Amateur free software advocates really chafe me.
ilr
"Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:871ynig...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
>
>
> I'm assuming, then, that you have copyright ownership or a license to
> publish this digitally?
>
> - http://www.rof.net/wp/ilr/files/ALLEY_BAGGETT2.JPG -
>
>
> I'm assuming yes - you claim to be so honest and upstanding.
That was a poster I bought a while ago and was showing to a friend
on a different forum. There's a limited timeframe in which I'm
legally allowed to do this, then my friend must delete his picture
too. I forgot about it and it went over the alloted time-frame.
So congratulations Sherlock, you got me on a technicality.
Now what are you gonna do? Go to Disney land...slap some
hoes...and keep putting roadblocks our path just because
we want a little more respect than you'd like to give us?
So here's a question for you. Why? What did furry artists
do to you that was so terible. What do you have to gain from this
other than Cheaper Commissions/Prints from demoralized and
depredated artists?
Magnwa
stuff for 24 hours is only a rumor. Can you please cite some case law or
something that says otherwise, since I haven't seen anything to the contrary
thus far..
Magnwa
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9it89v$qff$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
ilr
"Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:87bsmmg...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
> "ilr" <i...@rof.net> writes:
>
> I've spent thousands on art via commissions, purchases at CF, DC and
> AAC and via mail order. I've probably had tens of thousands worth of
> furry art which was worth a glance, but certanily not a buck. If I
> like something enough, the artist gets paid. If I wants something
> special created, the artist gets paid. But in either case, it's
> because I want to, not becaused I've been pushed or shamed into some
> moral obligation.
OIC, you'll pay 'em, like good little whores, but when someone else
rips off their work and laughs in their face, you'll call 'em hypocrites
for trying to say something about it. If that's you're idea of
"support" than I can't imagine any self-respecting artist that
would want your "support".
You don't have to be "Shamed" into just letting an artist speak
up for themselves when someone's on their ass or swiping their shit.
> > This isn't a salvage yard, it's an online community,
> If it ain't a salvage yard, it ain't a culture or a community.
> Boo hoo hoo. It's hyper-reactive trolls like you who make the furry
> "community" look like PeTA on a bad fur day. Quit pissing in our pool.
Our pool? I can't even see the pool anymore, there's too many floaters
in it from people "like You". I mean talk about a grade A party pooper.
Even Don Sanders got up the nerve to dismiss your pedantic patronizing.
If you can't support the movement, than just ignore it.
It doesn't seem like you'd miss any of us anyway.
-Ilr
ilr
"Magnwa" <mag...@home.com> wrote in message news:Fxp47.50500$B5.11...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> Actually.. from my dealings in IP and what not , that thing about posting
> stuff for 24 hours is only a rumor. Can you please cite some case law or
> something that says otherwise, since I haven't seen anything to the contrary
> thus far..
>
I just know that a few of my old-school warez buddies(of which
I've denounced and am no longer a member of) dodged a court
order with it. I don't remeber the case# and I doubt it's even
documented anywhere since it was dismissed in court. I heard they
later got busted though for failing to comply.
But he was only trying to side-track me anyway, because like I said before,
Corporations aren't victims so long as they have the deep pockets to do something
about it. Freelancers and Amatuers on the web are the ones really getting
screwed here so they just have to do something else besides rely on the rules,
like a formal demonstration. And while Fanart/Trademark issues might be
another accusation of hypocrisy, I don't see it as a permanent monkey-wrench
in getting this movement off the ground. We're bound to make mistakes our
selves, but atleast we're not taunting other artists and such about about gankin'
their hard work. As long as there's that disrespect out there, I think there's
always going to be fuel for an artist's revolution.
ilr
> Right. However, many artists (Foo Fighters, Dave Matthews Band, Public
> Enemy, and a handful of others) have released MP3s of thier songs for open
> distribution before they're released on CD as a form of advertising (it
> works, I did buy a Dave Matthews Band that day, even though it was a
> deliberate attempt to chum the waters...)
>
I've got several of those MP3's by D.M.B. Though my collection
of his CD's is actually greater in number. I don't even need to
hear the music off his latest CDs, I just buy 'em regardless.
And, when some bands release their music to fans despite
their Record companies demands, or even contracts, it's scores
big points with me atleast.
So yeah, I have no problem with keeping or sharing MP3's that
the band itself claims is public domain or whatever even when the
record execs say otherwise. In fact, I support it.
-Ilr
ilr
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9is8vc$o91$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> POLITELY emailed and asked to join the movement on a voluntary
> basis only.
I stick by this suggestion. I mean how the hell else are you going to get
the Word out? Not everyone in the Fandom reads the Newsgroups.
There has to be some level of Word-of-Mouth involved if you plan on
on getting a "unanimous" effort. You ask 'em once, you've asked 'em all
the times you're going to ask 'em.
Are you guys just ignoring the fact that I Said "Politely" and "on a
voluntary basis"??? I might be fervently convincing every now and
then, but one thing I won't stand for is Strong-Arming.
Give unto me some freakin credit.
Stormfront T. Dragon
> Stormfront T. Dragon <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > If I spend tens of thousands of dollars developing some piece of software,
> > exactly why should I be required to give you the source code so that you can
> > clone it and make money as my competitor?
>
> Do support on it. Red Hat is a profitable company doing just that.
> Software in the Public Interest is a nonprofit corporation doing just
> that. VA Linux Systems is a profitable company doing just that. SuSE is
> a profitable German company doing just that.
Linux is a perfect example of what's wrong with the open source model. Torvalds
took advantage of the arrangement to steal Tanenbaum's OS kernel, shut him out of
the development of his own invention, and then modify it into something the
original creator never wanted it to be.
Stormfront T. Dragon
You then go on to declare that anyone who doesn't go along with you is obviously either a
terrible artist or a self-promoting hack. That's hardly "polite."
Dragon Magic
> example? Hell, how many works are direct "ripoffs" of Bible stories and
> Shakespere? Was I the only one who saw the modern remake of Romeo and
> Juliet?
Last I heard, the Bible isn't copyrighted. And last I heard, Shakespeare's
copyrights expired a long, long time ago. People are fully able to do their
renditions of these and new interpretations because the copyright is either
null, or in public domain.
However, this is not true with such things as Babylon 5 or Sabrina Online.
These are still very much alive. Big difference between deriving works
from the Bible and deriving works from The Extinctioners.
And still, some works that are derived from older works give a better,
newer light on an old subject. This is good work. Some of it is crap.
But above all, it's fully legal.
ilr
"Stormfront T. Dragon" <storm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B5243B3...@worldnet.att.net...
> ilr wrote:
>
>
> You then go on to declare that anyone who doesn't go along with you is obviously either a
> terrible artist or a self-promoting hack. That's hardly "polite."
>
Who said "terrible"? I just said they weren't effected because they
weren't really in demmand. And Self-promoting hack? That goes without
saying. They were self promoting hacks even before the issue came up.
That's no accusation on my part only, that's actually more in the realm
of "obvious" so don't jump my ass for pointing the obvious out.
Not like it matters anymore. I've abondoned this fruitless quest and
I'm through with being diplomatic, so Fuck You Stormfront T Dragon
for putting words in my mouth.
-Ilr out
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
[snip]
> While I am not about to preach the worthiness of Corporations, I am still
>hearing nothing but generalities. Give specifics. And don't just throw out
>names and laws, but specific examples and clauses to back up your points.
>Because so far, I just don't see it.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. (One site with info is
http://pineight.8m.com/bono.htm.) Copyright is a deal between creators and
everyone else: everyone else gives creators exclusive control over created
work for a limited period of time, in return the creators give those works
to the public domain when that period of time is over. Corporations don't
want to let any works enter the public domain, because that would cost them
money, so they get laws passed extending copyright when the terms were
about to expire on some works. Most importantly, the extenions are
retroactive.
Why not make copyright permanent? By making it expire, we're just depriving
creators' great-great-great-great grandchildren of their rightful proceeds
from their long-dead ancestor's work. Of course, most of that money will
actually go to corporations, but that's a trifle.
If copyright deserves protection for 75 years after a creator's death (or
95 if the rights have been assigned to a corporation), why don't patents
have the same protection? Is someone who composes a song or paints a picture
more deserving of reward than someone who invents a new machine or process?
--
Brian Dysart | The RNG giveth, and the RNG taketh away.
bdy...@network.boxmail.com | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---
Brian McGroarty
> "Brian McGroarty" <br...@robotattack.com> wrote in message news:871ynig...@booberry.speakeasy.net...
> >
> >
> > I'm assuming, then, that you have copyright ownership or a license to
> > publish this digitally?
> >
> > - http://www.rof.net/wp/ilr/files/ALLEY_BAGGETT2.JPG -
> >
> >
> > I'm assuming yes - you claim to be so honest and upstanding.
>
> That was a poster I bought a while ago and was showing to a friend
(since April, if the file date is correct)
> on a different forum. There's a limited timeframe in which I'm
> legally allowed to do this, then my friend must delete his picture
> too. I forgot about it and it went over the alloted time-frame.
Show me the law.
> So congratulations Sherlock, you got me on a technicality.
> Now what are you gonna do? Go to Disney land...slap some
> hoes...and keep putting roadblocks our path just because
> we want a little more respect than you'd like to give us?
Whose path is "our path?"
> So here's a question for you. Why? What did furry artists
> do to you that was so terible. What do you have to gain from this
> other than Cheaper Commissions/Prints from demoralized and
> depredated artists?
If tossing thousands at furry artists is terrible, then I'm a wretch
and a half. If seeking out new artists for commisions and coaching and
encouraging them when they'll have it means I'm a louse, then there
you go. Wicked me.
Just what is it that you believe I'm arguing for, ILR?
Charles Melville
bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote:
> The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. (One site with info is
> http://pineight.8m.com/bono.htm.) Copyright is a deal between creators and
> everyone else: everyone else gives creators exclusive control over created
> work for a limited period of time, in return the creators give those works
> to the public domain when that period of time is over. Corporations don't
> want to let any works enter the public domain, because that would cost them
> money, so they get laws passed extending copyright when the terms were
> about to expire on some works. Most importantly, the extenions are
> retroactive.
>
I'm not entirely sure this addresses the specific claims Baloo was making, but
I'm glad -somebody- knows how to pull out specific examples for discussion and
debate. As it is, this is one of the few areas that I -am- in agreement with
David about. I don't mind that copyrights extend beyond a lifetime for a certain
period of time, but I can't see the real need for it past a certain point. I
agree that it's devious maneuvering by corporations and it shouldn't be allowed.
Dragon Magic
of an argument just to try to win your side, but really, go back to the
argument.
The argument originally, that fan-art and fan-fiction should be allowed,
and copyright owners are abusive if they take those sites down.
The argument went to, if they were truly writers and artists, they'd be
able to make their own original fiction or art, or _at least ask and
get permission first_.
There's no need to ask and get permission for using the Bible or
for using Shakespeare's works. But you do need to get permission
to reproduce a Sabrina Online collection.
See difference?
Dragon Magic
> copy of software on more than one machine. This is about as retarded as,
> say, only being allowed to play CDs on one CD player and no others
> legally, or being able to play a DVD on a $200 home unit, but not a $2000
> Linux box legally.
Number one, this has *NOTHING* to do with copyright, but with
licensing terms. The copyright actually allows you to install the software
on any and all machines you have, so long as only you are the one using
it, but the license you agree to says that the use of the software holds
you to the terms of the agreement.
Caveman Joe
> For any of the writers, don't get huffy, just substitute "Artist" for
> "Producing creator in a any category of fictional furry production" :P
Thank you.
--
Like the echoes of your childhood laughter, ever after...
Like the first time love urged you to take its guidance, in silence...
Like your heartbeat when you realise you're dying, but you're trying...
Like the way we cry for a happy ending...
I know...
http://www.furnation.com/cmj
http://clik.to/cmj
(remove "naespamtaverymuchmatey" from my address if you want to send me
mail)
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9is8vc$o91$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
>
> "Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:3B5195D5...@zipcon.com...
> >
> >
>
> I see one feasible way of doing it.. And that's for lots of artists in
Archive
> and Newsgroups to only submit Grey pages with the same instructions that
> are on greyday.org. So if there was like 50 or more images concentrated
> in just the "new" ares of Archives and Newsgroups, it would be kinda hard
> for anyone else to miss it too. And anyone who does miss it could be
> POLITELY emailed and asked to join the movement on a voluntary
> basis only. It could easily spread to every corner of the online fandom
in
> a week or less if done properly.
>
> But like you said, there might be some artists who wouldn't want to
participate.
> Their choice, though any artists like that which come to mind, well, their
work
> just plain sucks, to put it flankly, atleast out of the ones I know. And
there
> might be a few commercial artists who might try and take advantage of the
> situation by cornering the market, but that will likely only hurt their
own
> reputations in the long(as it should).
>
> And as you also said, there's no guarantee it would work at all.
> True that, but it would be a lot easier to pinpoint exactly who the
> worst violators are since they'd be exposing themselves in a feild
> with a lot less variables and background noise...
> And it's not just the Theifs either, there's so many little beligerant
> 15-year-old brats out there, hanging around here just to get free
> porn, and openly dissing any artists suggests they even show an inkling
> of respect. Artists are getting less and less respect at each passing
> day from just about everyone, including themselves, so if nothing else,
> this would prove what the backbone of this Genre is and atleast bring
> the productive participants of the fandom closer together.
> -Ilr
>
> PS,
> For any of the writers, don't get huffy, just substitute "Artist" for
> "Producing creator in a any category of fictional furry production" :P
>
>
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > David about. I don't mind that copyrights extend beyond a lifetime for
> > a certain > period of time, but I can't see the real need for it past a
> > certain point. I > agree that it's devious maneuvering by corporations
> > and it shouldn't be allowed.
>
> Thank you for making my point.
Well, it's a good thing -one- of us made your point. Because if -that- was
your whole point, you weren't being very clear about it. And if -that- sums
up your whole argument about copyright abuse by the copyright holders (given
that your other examples concern licenses and contracts), then your argument
isn't really a very big one after all, is it?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> In article <slrn9l2rm2....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au wrote:
>
>
>> Commissions will still exist even in the absence of copyright.
>
> However, speculative work, prints, limited editions,
Limmited signed editions still will work.
> licensing, control of distribution and/or usage,
You relize that in places like Austrlia you can loose control of
distribution if you don't publish within austrlia?
> derivitive works,
As you know derivitive works is one of the parts of copyright I realy
detest.
[...]
> as living
> on art commissions alone is a certain way to starve to death slowly- excepting
> the very few.
I understood that living as an artist of any ilk was a certain way to
starve to death slowly excepting the very few.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>> Gingercat <tor...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
>> > a copyright would be... ?
>>
>> The DVDCA not allowing people using Linux boxen play DVDs and trying to
>> thwart efforts to create players for non Windows/Macintosh OSs.
>
> So a company is protecting their merchandise. That's an abuse!?
How is it protecting their merchandise?
>> MPAA trying to destroy fair use of copying CD's to MP3s for personal
>> enjoyment.
>
> I don't see where copying CD's to MP3 for personal enjoyment falls under
> -any- definition of Fair Use. Fair Use is a device to allow snippets and
> excerpts to be copied for the sake of academic and journalistic
> review
Its legal to copy CDs to MP3s for your own use, for example playing on
a personal mp3 player or using your computer as a juke box or mp3
player. However the RIAA wishes to encrypt CDs so this is no longer
possable.
Magnwa
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:v3tti9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
>
> Sure. So that's why IBM, Red Hat, VA Linux, Sun Microsystems, Rackspace
> and Akamai are hurting for cash.
Actually, Red Hat is hurting for cash*. They go through a round of layoffs
every six months or so. I had a few friends working for them. IBM is a
huge company and always will be.. VA is probably going to end up being
bought out by someone else. Sun makes other stuff and has before Linux and
will continue to.. and Rackspace and Akamai make other products, though are
still hurting a bit for cash right now. Bandwidth is expenisve. If Akamai
didn't have a CNN contract, they'd be dead too.
* Red Hat's books have been kept.. 'weird'. They count downloads and what
not off their website as potential customers and factor that into their
P&L's. They really aren't making as much as they think they are , and will
get bit in the rump for it down the road. This is why you have their
certification courses and everything else they sell for "server
certification" including the closed source products going up in price.
Mags
TygerMoon Foxx
> Hacks aside, let's see a show of hands from the furry artists who
> claim to be 100% copyright compliant.
All of my artwork is original. The characters either belong to me or,
in the case of MUCK and personal story personas, I had permission to do
the work. I use my own style; I do not copy, emulate, or model my
characters off of another's work. All of the games and CDs in my
possession were bought, firsthand, at a music or software store. The
few MP3's I have on my computer system are chants, folk songs, and
traditional ballads that I had permission from the groups who sang them
to record and place in that medium. I do not share them; they are for
personal use only. The graphics utilized on my web pages were
commissioned for that website and the artist is properly credited. The
content of the webpages is original content, not a rip-off of others'
poetry, essays, and stories (this does not include the FurNation site,
which I am neither able to access nor to upload to in order to make
changes; it hasn't been worked on in nearly a year).
It wasn't alays that way, I'll admit it. I had to have a few people
call me on the carpet and explain what the copyright and piracy rules
and regulations were. I had to educate myself about them, both to
protect myself and to ensure that I didn't even accidentally curtail
another artist's rights.
> I've spent thousands on art via commissions, purchases at CF, DC and
> AAC and via mail order. I've probably had tens of thousands worth of
> furry art which was worth a glance, but certanily not a buck. If I
> like something enough, the artist gets paid. If I wants something
> special created, the artist gets paid. But in either case, it's
> because I want to, not becaused I've been pushed or shamed into some
> moral obligation.
Nothing I have is worth anything more than a few dollars or pure
sentimental value. I have, in my time in the fandom, done everything
from offering an SOL artist a place to crash while he got his feet under
him to paying generously for a commission so that the artist could pay
for some of her necessities. Some of my commission money has gone to
places like college funds so that those artists can further their
gifts. Like you, I did so because I liked what the artist was doing and
because I believed they had something I wanted or something worth
fostering. I do so because I want to, not because I feel obliged. An
artist is just like anyone else ---they want my money, they can put
forth the best product possible and compete for it. It isn't a moral or
ethical obligation to support them all. I support those I feel like
supporting.
--
In Light and Shadow,
TygerMoon Foxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am darkness and light, the shadow hunter and king of the sun.
My claws hold the earth, my tongue tastes the sky.
I am steadfast and strong, compassionate and caring.
I am tiger, and my words are pure.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Welcome to the 21st century. Dang, everybody's still stupid."
-----Simtra Kyphrion Firefox
"Ah...springtime and the assholes are in full bloom..." ----- Bo
Brian McGroarty
You, TygerMoon Foxx, are a shining example for others to follow. Your
actions are commendable and by the books, I suppose. But what's
important is that your motives and reasoning are honest and beautiful.
I'd love to meet a few more furs like yourself.
The web page is pretty cool, too ( www.paganportals.com ). I wish
you'd post a note when you finish filling it out.
Cyber-Dillo
>
> I'd love to meet a few more furs like yourself.
>
>
> The web page is pretty cool, too ( www.paganportals.com ). I wish
> you'd post a note when you finish filling it out.
It certainly is a nice beginning! The art is very nice. Text seems a bit
dark on dark background.
If nothing else, put an E-mail link on the main page so we can complement
you and you can get our addresses for future correspondence.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<marti...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> Record, Software and Movie, compernies have all abused copyright.
>
> Perhaps because many users abused record, movie and sowtware
> copyrights? :)
No mostly because these groups have alot of economic power.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn9l2s6g....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
[...]
>> All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
>> down. People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites.
>
> How the hell is that abuse?
Well in the case of tabs most of them are interprtations of the
songs. In other words they have gone and worked out how its played,
indeed there are often a number of slightly diffrent ways of to play
it.
> *I* create something, *I* write something, *I* draw something, what gives
> you (generic you) the right to make it available without my consent,
*I* create something, what gives you (generic you) the right to stop
making it available?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Yes. David -does- believe that. We've had this argument not long ago
> here. His stance is that intellectual property is an illusion and is ultimately
> harmful to the greater public interests. Especially in regards to other artists
> who might want to create derivitive works from your work. (Or from the work of
> any other artist.) He feels that copyrights are far more slanted to the
> interests of corporations and publishers (and he's not entirely without basis
> there) and are more harmful than helpful to artists and general
> public alike.
Not a bad summory.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Yes, David's view is that artists and writers should be allowed to make
> derivative works on others' creativity. What he fails to see, is if they
> truly are artists and writers, they wouldn't need to rely on others' works
> already.
Like Shakesquear, if he was a great artist he wouldn't have lifted
plots, charitors ect from other works. Or that grate bit of biblical
fan fic "Paradise Lost". There is nothing uncreative about building
from a pre-existing context.
Dragon Magic
> plots, charitors ect from other works. Or that grate bit of biblical
> fan fic "Paradise Lost". There is nothing uncreative about building
> from a pre-existing context.
Shakespeare's plays mainly played a role in what the History
Channel does today, in interpreting for the common man what
happened in their history. He also exposed the common man to
dramatic tragedy, the darker side of all of us, and he also created
fantastic plays which were neither historical nor tragic.
And Paradise Lost was barely based on the Bible, that it was based
on theological beliefs on what happened during the war on Man and
the Heavens. True, it takes from the Bible enough, but it's its own
novel.
But then again, those who adapt from the Bible and those who adapt
from Shakespeare have something in common: They're adapting from
public domain.
But to you, David, anything created is automatically public domain
and the artist, writer, whatever, should hold no claims. All that work
to create it, screw it, it should be free and they're just doing it for the
fans.
Well, David, not one decent artist or writer out there would agree.
And if you actually created something, you would realize why.
But alas, there's no correcting you. I'm just waiting for the day that
you do break the law and find yourself in jail, telling the judge that
intellectual property is a fantasy and copyright shouldn't exist.
Charles Melville
Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> Dragon Magic <cb...@dragonmagic.net> wrote:
>
> > But then again, those who adapt from the Bible and those who adapt
> > from Shakespeare have something in common: They're adapting from
> > public domain.
>
> Shakespere released straight to the public domain and still made money on
> the performances, though.
I don't think so. I'd need to double-check on this, but I believe
Shakespeare's works were commissioned by patrons, so they were essentially
work-for-hire. I seem to recall having heard that finances were pretty tight
for him most of his life as well. I need to double-check on these before
saying so for certain, though.
Dragon Magic
> concert bootlegs, also released to public domain, and they still made
> money on the albums. They had a good theory, too: If you want a nice
> copy and liner notes, buy the record. If you just want the music, come
> see us and bring equipment. Donations gladly accepted.
Back when Shakespeare was writing, there was no copyright, to say
the least, plus he wrote for the Court, not for himself.
The Greatful Dead knew they could draw the fans into concerts and
that's where many of the big bands make their money. Why do you think
some tickets today are over $100 each? Not because they're in such a
high demand, but because the artist thinks that's how much the seat
should be worth.
But then, how does your great philosophy work? Artists should
release their art for free to public domain, but if you want to see
how the artist draws in their own bedroom, you'll have to pay $20
a ticket? And the donations gladly accepted doesn't cut it, since
nearly all fans, once they see they get a free piece of art that can
be traded all they want, no money would go toward the artist from
them.
You live in a fantasy world, and it will never become truth. Stop
trying.
Felyne32k
dfor...@zeta.org.au says...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:30:28 GMT, Gingercat <tor...@magma.ca> wrote:
> >
> > "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> > news:slrn9l2s6g....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
> [...]
>
> >> All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
> >> down. People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites.
> >
> > How the hell is that abuse?
>
> Well in the case of tabs most of them are interprtations of the
> songs. In other words they have gone and worked out how its played,
> indeed there are often a number of slightly diffrent ways of to play
> it.
>
> > *I* create something, *I* write something, *I* draw something, what gives
> > you (generic you) the right to make it available without my consent,
>
> *I* create something, what gives you (generic you) the right to stop
> making it available?
>
But you know what? Say someone got a seven hundred fifty page glom
of furotica here. Stuff that'd make /Madame Bovary/ or /Lady Chatterly's
Lover/ look like Little Red Riding Hood. Stuff that'd make you cream your
pants after a quarter page. You want him to make it avaliable for free
distribution? You want him to adhere to one of your pansy little five-
year copyrights?
C'mere and get it, I dare you. If he wants to charge two thousand,
three hundred and forty two dollars for a read, that's his right, isn't
it? It's made of *his* sweat, *his* blood, *his* tears, and *his* talent.
What gave you the right to come in after five years and say "Sorry,
bud... this just isn't yours anymore"?
May as well go dig ditches. May as well go be a clerk or accountant.
No creativity. Just mechanical work. It'll pay better, too. Getting five
years of gain out of a potentially longer period of work just doesn't
make sense. Especially when a lot of people will have the patience to
wait the five years and get all they want for free.
A work of that magnitude isn't trivial. A work of any reasonable
skill isn't, either (you'll have to take my word on this). Hell, a work
of even an order of magnitude less isn't trivial. Two orders of magnitude
down can still be a good week's work, if you forge it for a while. You
can say all you want about 'being flattered' and whatnot, but the fact
stands that it's both detrimental and disrespectful to a creator to give
away their work.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation. Take note of posting
time: anything beyond 11:30 PM, EASTERN Standard Time is
likely to be influenced by this condition.
Felyne32k
says...
> the performances, though. Most of The Greatful Dead's works are on
> concert bootlegs, also released to public domain, and they still made
> money on the albums. They had a good theory, too: If you want a nice
> copy and liner notes, buy the record. If you just want the music, come
> see us and bring equipment. Donations gladly accepted.
>
Here's the trick... You get something extra by paying. You get to
see them live in concert. You get to feel thousands of other Deadheads
moving around. You get lost in the biomass. You get liner notes, cover
art, and cleaner recordings.
What do you lose from reading a stolen copy of text? As long as the
font's still readable, absolutely nothing. What do you lose from looking
to some stolen JPG as opposed to an actual print? Not much. Get a decent
color printer, and you'll lose even less.
Donations? Yeah, right. You'll get them from people who would've paid
anyways. Maybe a few others.
Felyne32k
says...
> Do support on it. Red Hat is a profitable company doing just that.
Uhm.... Profitable? Possibly. From what I can see, not for any sort of
long run, though.
> Software in the Public Interest is a nonprofit corporation doing just
> that. VA Linux Systems is a profitable company doing just that. SuSE is
> a profitable German company doing just that.
>
Yes, but you'll notice that Red Hat and all the other Linux companies had
a perfectly functioning product to start with. They didn't have to do
nine tenths of the R&D to get it into their 'release' states. Most of it,
they *still* don't have to pay for. That was done by total volunteers.
I'll bet that they'd be singing a vastly different tune if they had to
write the whole thing from scratch.
Felyne32k
storm...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Linux is a perfect example of what's wrong with the open source model. Torvalds
> took advantage of the arrangement to steal Tanenbaum's OS kernel, shut him out of
> the development of his own invention, and then modify it into something the
> original creator never wanted it to be.
>
Whazzis? I want to hear about it...
LncrAdvncd
>concert bootlegs, also released to public domain, and they still made money
on the albums. They had a good theory, too: If you want a nice copy and
liner notes, buy the record. If you just want the music, come see us and bring
equipment. Donations gladly accepted.
Just as a point, the Greatfull Dead Concert recordings are NOT public domain..
the Dead come down on people who sell copies, they have granted a very loose
licence to the public, but the works are still copyrighted..
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
LncrAdvncd
pay me to rape them?
hardly an answer... but it is the "World's Oldest Profession"...
As dracoinan as you claim these licences to be, the avg user isn't really
affected by them.. when and if they do cause enough problem to the general
body of customers (Like Microsoft Activation seems to do) the companies will
adapt or die..
Felyne32k
cb...@dragonmagic.net says...
> Since pirates don't seem to think they're doing anything wrong,
> and that artists seem to have no rights to them at all, I'm hoping
> every single furry and fantasy artist will help out with Grey Day.
> Grey Day, October 1, 2001, is the day when people are asked
> to turn their website into a dull, bland, gray page, and thus
> eliminating their content for others to link, steal or admire.
>
> One day without the art and content will probably give more
> people reason to go after these piraters. After all, what if every
> day at your favourite artist's site was gray and bland? No new
> art, no new commissions, no news at all? All because that
> artist got tired of being ripped off by the piraters with no
> support?
>
> I'm all for this movement, and hope more artists get involved
> with it. It's a simple 24 hour removal or permission change
> of nearly all your files, and changing your front page, to
> show people what it will be like unless copyright is more
> respected.
>
I'm a relatively late comer to this discussion, but I'm stepping in for
ilr, so I thought I might as well speak up.
One day, simply put, won't do shit. Seriously, how many of you out there
go out and check any significant number of art pages on a daily basis?
You have even less Life than I do...
At least on a personal level, I check on artist's sites... probably...
once a month, on varying schedules. "Oh... haven't visited Jay Naylor's
page in a while... Maybe I should go check in and see what's up..."
"Huh... wonder if CMJ posted anything new? Let's see..." "Eh. Checked
that page last week. I won't miss anything."
Let's be generous, and assume that I check a site about every two weeks.
That puts the odds of my hitting a page on Grey Day at about seven
percent, *assuming that every artist I look at participates*. If only
half of them do, then you're down to three and a half percent. A quarter?
Not even close to significant.
Real effective, huh?
Should we just make certain and take all art off the web? I certainly
hope not. But a demonstration has to have a lot more staying power than
just one day to work.
PeterCat
> One day, simply put, won't do shit. Seriously, how many of you out
> there go out and check any significant number of art pages on a daily
> basis?
> Let's be generous, and assume that I check a site about every two
> weeks. That puts the odds of my hitting a page on Grey Day at about
> seven percent, *assuming that every artist I look at participates*.
> If only half of them do, then you're down to three and a half
> percent. A quarter? Not even close to significant.
You're overlooking the "news hook" value of the event. True, perhaps not
a lot of people will be inconvenienced. But the very fact that some
appreciable number of web sites are participating will pique the
interest of the media (at least the computer media, if not the general
media -- although a number of well-targeted press releases could bring
it to the attention of a technology reporter for a major outlet, and
result in broader coverage). This will publicize the issues behind the
event, which is, after all, the goal of the whole thing.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (ET) on Food Network!
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
[...]
>> The problem with that, though, is people are tired of copyright holders
>> abusing copyrights as well.
>
> I see that as a non-sequiter; how does a copyright holder abuse a
> copyright when a copyright is designed to protect -his- interests from
> -outside- abuse!?
First copyright isn't designed to protect artists interests. Its
designed to encorage the delelopment of the usefull arts.
Second copyright is a ballence between the rights of the artist and
the rights of the consumer. Its abused when that ballence is upset.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:02:18 GMT, Gingercat <tor...@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Uhm - just for clarification, an example of a copyright holder abusing
>> > a copyright would be... ?
>>
>> money can't by for everything else there is mastercard". The RIAA
>> threatening accedemics wishing to publish details of how there
>> encrytion system was broken. The MIAA threatening people trying to
>> devlop a DVD system for linux. Book publishes trying to stop the
>> publication of "Wind be gone". All thouse fan art/fan fic sits shut
>> down. People who shut down lyrics and Base tabs sites. Clauses in
>> software licences that prevent people from publishing reviews of the
>> software.
>
> Oh, I see... it's this old chestnut again.
>
> Obviously this is your own point-of-view, which we have already argued
> ad nauseum not that long ago; it is not the point-of-view of artists who
> depend upon copyrights to protect their interests. In spite of your
> argument, I don't see any of the above as being an 'abuse' of the copyright
> system, nor as an example of copyright holders abusing their authority.
Not even threatening Accedemics from publishing articals? How are we
going to have any progress in the field of cryptography if no one can
publish?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>> > Book publishes trying to stop the
>> > publication of "Wind be gone".
>
> Margaret Mitchell, who owns the copyrights. And although the first ruling
> was in favor of the estate, the subsequent appeal overturned that ruling
> and found in favor of the writer of 'Wind Be Gone', that it did -not-
> infringe copyrights. Therefore, her -own- copyright is now recognized as
> valid; the system works and the artist prevails. So where's the beef?
Most of these cases the copyright holder sues knowing that they have
so much more money and power then the so called infringer that even if
the use is legitmate they can't fight it because they can't aford the
legal fees.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> I think he's talking about how publishers want there to be regulation
> on how libraries handle digital/e-books. That is, they want the libraries
> to lend out only the number of copies they are given or purchased. Just
> because they can make as many digital copies as they can, libraries see
> that they can lend an unlimited number of these and not enforce a
> due date.
The publishers also wish to have the ability to shut down the ebook if
the library doesn't pay an anual fee. The wish to also prevent the
libraries from makeing archive copies of the ebooks for the preposes
of long term preservation.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> > I see that as a non-sequiter; how does a copyright holder abuse a
> > copyright when a copyright is designed to protect -his- interests from
> > -outside- abuse!?
>
> First copyright isn't designed to protect artists interests. Its
> designed to encorage the delelopment of the usefull arts.
Yes, and it does that -by- protecting the artist's interests.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:13:32 -0700, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I see... it's this old chestnut again.
> >
> > Obviously this is your own point-of-view, which we have already argued
> > ad nauseum not that long ago; it is not the point-of-view of artists who
> > depend upon copyrights to protect their interests. In spite of your
> > argument, I don't see any of the above as being an 'abuse' of the copyright
> > system, nor as an example of copyright holders abusing their authority.
>
> Not even threatening Accedemics from publishing articals? How are we
> going to have any progress in the field of cryptography if no one can
> publish?
So who is doing this? No one that I'm aware of. It certainly isn't in the
interests of those writing the articles to -not- have it published, nor is it to
the interests of the scientific of medical communities. I would guess (since you
give no particulars) that it would depend upon the specific circumstances; if by
publishing you mean through a professional publication and the writer isn't
getting adequately recompensed for it, then the publisher had better get on the
stick, and the academician would be better to find another publisher. At any
rate, I imagine that most academic papers are still being published directly
through their respective universities and are therefore in little danger of going
unpublished.
Charles Melville
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:04:25 -0700, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> >> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> >> > Book publishes trying to stop the
> >> > publication of "Wind be gone".
> >
> > Bad example. It wasn't the publishers, as I recall, but the estate of
> > Margaret Mitchell, who owns the copyrights. And although the first ruling
> > was in favor of the estate, the subsequent appeal overturned that ruling
> > and found in favor of the writer of 'Wind Be Gone', that it did -not-
> > infringe copyrights. Therefore, her -own- copyright is now recognized as
> > valid; the system works and the artist prevails. So where's the beef?
>
> Most of these cases the copyright holder sues knowing that they have
> so much more money and power then the so called infringer that even if
> the use is legitmate they can't fight it because they can't aford the
> legal fees.
Right away two thoughts come to mind: first, that perhaps in most instances
the case is -not- legitimate and deserves to go down in flames, and second, that
those that -are- legitimate and who choose not to pursue are quitters and
-deserve- to let their works go down in flames. If the cause is legitimate then
they need to fight it for as long as they can and to seek what aid they can in
doing so.
And that is precisely what happened in the case of 'Wind Be Gone'; the writer
-was- able to fight the case, presumably she had financial aid, she certainly had
a lot of assistance and support from several professional writers who stood by
her throughout the case. I maintain that your example is a bad one, as it only
goes to support my argument that the system can and does work.
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
LncrAdvncd
>the rights of the consumer. Its abused when that ballence is upset.
I'm glad that we agree that upseting the balance of rights is abuse. Now please
describe how the elimination of copyright does not qualifiy as "Upsetting the
balance".
LncrAdvncd
can publish?
First off... The article was published anyway, the threat of lawsuit (not a
suit, merely a threat) was only regart to the -presentation- of a particular
article at a confernce and did not cover many other presentations at the
confrence on similar issues. In any event the case is in the courts, and from
all apeaances the scintists involved -allowed- their presentation to be halted
so that they would have a cause of action to chalenge the law in question.
There is NOT a broad ban on publication of cryptographic research. The
cryptography used for the encryption of media content is pathetic at best.
Most cryptographic reseach is far above the levels involved in the MPAA/RIAA
suits, and meets far more resistance from the various law enforcement /
intellegence agecies
LncrAdvncd
more money and power then the so called infringer that even if the use is
legitmate they can't fight it because they can't aford the legal fees.
And this problem is specific to copyright litigation how? This also justifies
eliminating the copyright protections of the individual artist how?
LncrAdvncd
>the library doesn't pay an anual fee. The wish to also prevent the
>libraries from makeing archive copies of the ebooks for the preposes
>of long term preservation.
Note the use of the word -wish- in your argument, what they wish for and what
they get are two diffrent things. As of now this hasn't happened yet. That
being the case it's hard to justify citing it as a actuall abuse.
LncrAdvncd
blood boil.
No need, I don't use their product.. In any case it's a licence, and the
enforceibility of licence terms are a matter of contract law, not of copyright
law. Copyright law may allow them to licence the software, but it doesn't
dictate the enforcibility of the terms.
I would point out that the General Public Licence is also a licence that
contains conditions of use. If Microsoft can't enforce their licence why
should the GPL be held enforceable? The only diffrence is in the terms of the
licence, and that is not a copyright issue.