Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Roy Schestowitz - Pirate

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 2:25:19 PM6/7/06
to
So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
copied from the authors without permission.

I noticed this on this article:

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/

Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.

If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
sites.

In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.

Bummer for you Roy.

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 2:35:57 PM6/7/06
to
__/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:25 \__

The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
"About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
are imposed.

On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.

If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
weasel.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "On the eighth day, God created UNIX"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:25pm up 41 days 0:58, 11 users, load average: 2.13, 2.51, 2.40
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

flatfish+++

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 3:38:30 PM6/7/06
to

I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
Linux.

He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
of this *stuff* and still complete his studies is beyond me, unless there
is an incentive in it for him.
It just doesn't add up.

--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 2:40:27 PM6/7/06
to
__/ [ flatfish+++ ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 20:38 \__

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
>> copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
>> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>
>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
>> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
>> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
>> sites.
>>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
>> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
>
> I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
> articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
> Linux.


You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as corrupted as
Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum participants in the past.


> He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
> of this *stuff* and still complete his studies is beyond me, unless there
> is an incentive in it for him.
> It just doesn't add up.


Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that will accompany my
thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to compile without warnings and I shall
resume tomorrow. What's the matter, Gary?

Roy (last followup)

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:35pm up 41 days 1:08, 11 users, load average: 2.46, 2.36, 2.37
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

flatfish+++

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 3:52:05 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:40:27 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:


> You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as corrupted as
> Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum participants in the past.

Note the technique used to turn the discussion toward Microsoft.
Also note that he does not deny the accusation but instead implies it.

> Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that will accompany my
> thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to compile without warnings and I shall
> resume tomorrow. What's the matter, Gary?

Am I supposed to be impressed?
I'm not and I doubt your University would either if they were aware of you
using their systems 24x7 to post to a USENET group.


> Roy (last followup)

Yep. Run and hide.
I'm only pointing out my observations and BTW nowhere did I say that there
is anything wrong with being paid, like you are.

Allow me one question: Do you get paid by the post or by the line?

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 3:57:45 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:38:30 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:

> I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
> articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity for
> Linux.

One might think so, but if you explore his site, you'll find a quantity of
self-flaggelating content that puts Rex to shame. He appears to have saved
every message he's ever written in any forum, for example. I think he just
likes to read his own messages.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 4:02:08 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:35:57 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
> "About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
> Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
> are imposed.

Acknowledging the author does not give you the right to use the work
without permission. His site explicitly says:

"All images on this web site are copyright John S. Pritchett.
For details on usage, purchasing original artwork or commissions, Email
Pritchett"

Something you didn't do. The author explicitly told me that you did not
have permission to use the image.

> On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
> Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
> the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
> strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.

John Pritchett, the author of the work on your page explicitly says you are
infringing copyright. Further, you aren't hot linking. The image is
stored on your server.

> If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
> you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
> weasel.

Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.

chrisv

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 4:02:20 PM6/7/06
to
Roy Schestowitz wrote:

>__/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:25 \__
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
>> copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
>> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>
>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
>> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
>> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
>> sites.
>>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
>> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.

That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
you, Erik.

You never did answer me why it's okay for you to, without asking,
publicize other people's personal information, but if a person chooses
to publicize personal information about himself, it is
"inappropriate".

Hypocrite.

>The cartoon has the creator acknowledged, with an explicit link. As the
>"About Site" page states, all graphics were created by myself or taken from
>Stock Exchange, which is a royalty-free image stock where no restrictions
>are imposed.
>
>On HotLinking: for your information, I have had E-mail exchanges with John
>Dvorak, who HotLinks all the time. He keeps defending his stance. Among all
>the sites on the Web, my sites make no copyright infringements and I am very
>strict about this, even when my contributers insist otherwise.

Bummer for you, Erik.

>If you need to put my full name in the subject line to get my attention, then
>you are utterly miserable. And as your nickname suggests, you are also a
>weasel.

That's an insult to weasels everywhere.

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 4:11:55 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
> you, Erik.

Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior, Chris.

flatfish+++

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 5:21:24 PM6/7/06
to

I haven't delved deep into his site because I wonder about what kind of
crap he has hiding in there to track people.

If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, he sounds like
a nutsack to me.

flatfish+++

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 5:24:42 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:

Why not just *plonk* him like you do to every other person who posts about
Linux's or it's advocates faults?

Seems simple to me.

Chirag Shukla

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 4:26:27 PM6/7/06
to

flatfish+++ wrote:
> He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
> of this *stuff* and still complete his studies

I wonder about that. He could be a very bright student. Yes, it is not
very common for PhD candidates to find this much time to read articles,
quote news, read and post messages - and detailed ones in some cases.
My guess is that he could be a really good student with a lot of
passion for Unix/Linux. Well, about his university begin bothered about
the use of their computers? Hmm, thats a question only Roy or his
university can answer.

But to me, he seems to bright student until proven otherwise.

flatfish+++

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 5:35:14 PM6/7/06
to

It goes beyond being bright.
The physical time needed to look up, research and post that many articles
and replies, literally 24x7 is a red flag IMHO.


> But to me, he seems to bright student until proven otherwise.

Nothing will ever be proved and personally I don't care one way or the
other because I believe in free speech and also because he makes it easy
to filter the noise.
It's his life.
I'm only bringing up what I consider to be an oddity.

Chirag Shukla

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 5:17:16 PM6/7/06
to

flatfish+++ wrote:
> I'm only bringing up what I consider to be an oddity.

Yes indeed, it is odd.

William Poaster

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 6:13:29 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:40:27 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> __/ [ flatfish+++ ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 20:38 \__
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has
>>> wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>>
>>> I noticed this on this article:
>>>
>>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>>
>>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find
>>> out. He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>>
>>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more
>>> acceptable, since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However,
>>> that would beg the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on
>>> other peoples sites.
>>>
>>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>>
>>> Bummer for you Roy.
>>
>> I'm pretty much convinced that Roy is being paid to post all these
>> articles in COLA by someone that has an interest in positive publicity
>> for Linux.
>
>
> You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as corrupted as
> Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum participants in the past.

The name of the group: comp.os.linux.advocacy So *if* anyone was being
paid to post items about *linux* in a *linux* newsgroup, so what? It's a
damn sight more on topic than the wintrolls are with their FUD &
half-baked lies.

>> He is evidently a PHD student and where he can find the time to post all
>> of this *stuff* and still complete his studies is beyond me, unless
>> there is an incentive in it for him.
>> It just doesn't add up.
>
>
> Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that will accompany my
> thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to compile without warnings and I shall
> resume tomorrow. What's the matter, Gary?

Flatfish frothing again, nothing to say.

--
www.jlaforums.com steals usenet newsgroup posts, & misleads the public
into thinking the posts come from their own forums. THEY DON'T!
This post was originally posted in a USENET newsgroup.
USENET is free to anyone with a newsreader.

Brad

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 7:55:43 PM6/7/06
to
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

What's that sound?
Ya know the one. The one your newsreader makes when you kill filter
someone.
Goodbye Erik. For too long have your posts polluted my newsreader.
PLONK!

Brad

Roy Culley

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 8:07:27 PM6/7/06
to
begin risky.vbs
<pan.2006.06.07....@linux4life.net>,

Brad <br...@linux4life.net> writes:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:25:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> What's that sound?
> Ya know the one. The one your newsreader makes when you kill filter
> someone.

Must be the Funkenbusch fart. Erik's the kind of guy who farts in a
lift and then says who dropped one? If posts could have smell then
Erik's a humdinger.

> Goodbye Erik. For too long have your posts polluted my newsreader.
> PLONK!

He's been polluting COLA with his lies and FUD for years. Those are
his nicer traits of course.

Geico Caveman

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 8:11:00 PM6/7/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

You can hardly complain when you set such a fine example of doing that, day
in and day out, year after year.

Roy Culley

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 8:22:08 PM6/7/06
to
begin risky.vbs
<K9ydnVuABsNz9xrZ...@comcast.com>,

Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many years
ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)

Tim Smith

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 8:24:21 PM6/7/06
to
In article <pan.2006.06.07....@linuxmail.org>, flatfish+++
wrote:

> It goes beyond being bright. The physical time needed to look up,
> research and post that many articles and replies, literally 24x7 is a red
> flag IMHO.

Well, I hope he's got it mostly automated. Grab the article via an RSS
feed, summarize the first paragraph (probably could be automated), just
leaving it to manually write a headline and maybe a one line or so comment.

--
--Tim Smith

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 8:23:07 PM6/7/06
to
Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> did eloquently scribble:

> Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
> unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
> MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many years
> ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
> credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)

I think I recall the rex incident.
Dragging his private live into the argument as if it was something to be
ashamed of, iirc. (wasn't it?)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roy Culley

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 8:38:34 PM6/7/06
to
begin risky.vbs
<bc7kl3-...@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk>,

spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
> Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> did eloquently scribble:
>
>> Couldn't agree more. Erik will spread FUD and lies, stoop to using
>> unethical attacks against those he sees as a threat to his beloeved
>> MS. I believe I was the first to expose Erik for what he is many
>> years ago now. Other than wintrolls, I doubt anyone gives Erik any
>> credibility these days. Time for an Erik nym shift me thinks. :-)
>
> I think I recall the rex incident.
> Dragging his private live into the argument as if it was something
> to be ashamed of, iirc. (wasn't it?)

Correct. Erik may be quite bright but he is totally lacking in ethical
values. Fortunately his target was more than his match and Erik's
attempt to discredit him utterly backfired. I do not know how Erik has
the gall to continue posting to COLA. If it were me I'd need to paid a
handsome sum to do so.

Roland Garros

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 9:02:23 PM6/7/06
to

Sad but true. Most linux users are thiefs. It don't surprise me that
they steal photos from the internet. After all, its these looneys that
think everything should be free.

Roland Garros

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 9:03:00 PM6/7/06
to


Erik,

I hope you will not let the weasel Culley drive you away from
posting to COLA Erik. I for one enjoy your posts. I reckon you
have done more for disproving COLA lyes than anyone.

Keep at it laddie. Roy Culley is just an FAT ethically lacking,
lying, FUD spreading linux apologist. The fact he attacks you
personally just shows what a great job you are doing. He will
stoop to any depth to try and discredit those who use anything
but Linux and show lintards for the liars that they are.


Lang may yer lum reek laddie.

Roland Garros

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 9:03:41 PM6/7/06
to

Roland Garros

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 9:04:27 PM6/7/06
to


Idiot Poaster frothing again, nothing to say.

GreyCloud

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 9:58:23 PM6/7/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

Are you sure you didn't go out of your way to silence Roy?
It sure looks like it.


--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jun 7, 2006, 10:04:24 PM6/7/06
to
Roland Garros wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
>> copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/

<SNIP>

>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
>
> Sad but true. Most linux users are thiefs. It don't surprise me that
> they steal photos from the internet. After all, its these looneys that
> think everything should be free.

Another nymphal shift, Mr. linu...@lycos.com? Another generalisations:
"Most linux users are thiefs".

--
HPT

Sinister Midget

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 12:21:25 AM6/8/06
to
On 2006-06-07, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:

> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.

Poor Ewik. He didn't get his wittow way twying to shame Rex. Now he
wants to twy it again with Roy.

How does the world spell "SHIT"?

E-R-I-K F-U-N-K-E-N-B-U-S-C-H

--
If classical music is the state of the art then the arts are in
a sad state.
-- Frank Zappa

Sinister Midget

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 12:27:28 AM6/8/06
to
On 2006-06-08, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> posted something concerning:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>> Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.
>
> Are you sure you didn't go out of your way to silence Roy?
> It sure looks like it.

When he can't win any other way, Erik burrows under the shit to jump up
and scare.

It didn't work with Rex. It shouldn't work with Roy.

If someone has a dispute with Roy, they'll have to take it up with Roy.
There's nothing Ewik can do outside tattling. That won't prevent him
from trying to play Mr. Moral, weasel that he is.

--
I like to reminisce with people I don't know.
-- Steven Wright

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 2:29:04 AM6/8/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in
news:f7j6cvos...@funkenbusch.com:

> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he
> has wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>

> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-giv
> en-up/

<SNIP>

> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his
> site have been similarly misappropriated. Many of them
> have no credits at all.

Which images?

--
HPT

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 3:51:34 AM6/8/06
to
Roland Garros <linu...@lycos.com> did eloquently scribble:
> Erik,

> I hope you will not let the weasel Culley drive you away from
> posting to COLA Erik. I for one enjoy your posts. I reckon you
> have done more for disproving COLA lyes than anyone.

What lies would they be. (showing real credibility there btw, complete
inability to spell even the most simple words. It's only 4 letters ffs)

> Keep at it laddie. Roy Culley is just an FAT ethically lacking,
> lying, FUD spreading linux apologist.

No no, replace linux there with windows and it's the perfect description of
erik.

> The fact he attacks you
> personally just shows what a great job you are doing.

LOL! You are completely cluesless when it comes to personal attacks.
Erik's the grand master.

> He will
> stoop to any depth to try and discredit

That's erik too, sorry.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 5:58:35 AM6/8/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he
> has wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-giv
> en-up/
>

> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that
> one), but he neglected to actually get the authors
> permission to copy it. I was supsicious that this might be
> the case and emailed the author to find out. He confirmed
> that it was copyright infringement.
>
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been
> more acceptable, since he wouldn't have actually copied the
> image. However, that would beg the bandwidth stealing
> argument of linking to images on other peoples sites.
>

> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his
> site have been similarly misappropriated. Many of them
> have no credits at all.
>

> Bummer for you Roy.

I am not so sure it is crackers for Roy. After going to his
root webpage and clicking on "Gallery" on

http://www.schestowitz.com/Gallery/

shows this:

: Home Visit in Spring
: Photos are low in resolution (Web cam)
: Last changed on 05/18/05. This album contains 17 items
: This album has been viewed 929 times since 05/16/05.
:
: KDE Screenshots
: Dual-head, SuSE Linux, 2003-2005
: Last changed on 11/03/05. This album contains 10 items
: This album has been viewed 1278 times since 04/04/05.
:
: Room view on December 16th, 2004
: View from the room -- Photos by Lital Schestowitz
: Last changed on 05/30/05. This album contains 16 items
: This album has been viewed 1000 times since 01/01/05.
:
: The Sunnegga on December 16th, 2004
: Assorted photos from the astounding hills -- Photos by Lital
: Schestowitz
: Last changed on 08/19/05. This album contains 16 items
: This album has been viewed 866 times since 01/01/05.
:
: Around the village on December 16th, 2004
: Pictures from the streets of Zermatt -- Photos by Lital
: Schestowitz
: Last changed on 05/30/05. This album contains 12 items
: This album has been viewed 990 times since 01/01/05.

A casual browse of his website shows mostly text with very
little graphics. What limited graphics exist appear generic and
iconish.

He used WordPress, an open source publishing software:

http://codex.wordpress.org/WordPress

/quote/
We are proud to offer you a freely distributed, standards-
compliant, fast, light and free personal publishing platform,
with sensible default settings and features, and an extremely
customizable core.

License and Platform

* License : WordPress is licensed under the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html).
/-quote/

I do not think use of WordPress images with the application are
considered illegal.

Furthermore, alternate webpage with images at

http://schestowitz.com/Art/Schestowitz/images.html

has 12 images limited to textual reference to his website name.

IMHO, Fare Use clause in British copyright law allows the use of
an image downloaded from the internet for personal use and
research, provided credit is given to the owner/author. Being a
graduate student, Mr. Schestowitz is a researcher.

Did Mr. Schestowitz defame the author? I think not.

Did he stretch the Fare Use clause in British copyright law by
posting this only image on the net? Perhaps.

However, would the American author consider it worthwhile to go
after a college student, seeking compensation on British soil
for a personal non-profit blog site with limited content and low
volume hits? That would be ridiculous.

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 6:47:11 AM6/8/06
to
flatfish+++ wrote:

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> You would hope it's true, wouldn't you? Not everyone is as
>> corrupted as Microsoft, who admittedly paid forum
>> participants in the past.
>
> Note the technique used to turn the discussion toward
> Microsoft. Also note that he does not deny the accusation
> but instead implies it.
>
>> Actually, today I assembled videos for the CD-ROM that
>> will accompany my thesis. I also got my 240-page TeX to
>> compile without warnings and I shall resume tomorrow.
>> What's the matter, Gary?
>
> Am I supposed to be impressed?
> I'm not and I doubt your University would either if they
> were aware of you using their systems 24x7 to post to a
> USENET group.

/quote/
From: Roy Schestowitz
Date: Sat, Apr 1 2006 4:01 am
Subject: Roy Schestowitz, Paid Linux Shill ????

[ mustaph...@yahoo.com ] on Friday 31 March 2006 19:56

<SNIP>

The University equips its students and staff with a newsserver
as means of communicating with the world and sharing ideas.
Why is this bothering you? I just do this as a hobby. If you
don't like my posts, kill me. That's what the kill file is
for.

Best wishes,
Roy
/-quote/

>> Roy (last followup)
>
> Yep. Run and hide.
> I'm only pointing out my observations and BTW nowhere did I
> say that there is anything wrong with being paid, like you
> are.

I'm only pointing this out, too. Do you think Roy really
cares (or as Americans say, "Gives a rip?")

> Allow me one question: Do you get paid by the post or by
> the line?

--
HPT

mlw

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 7:27:10 AM6/8/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>> you, Erik.
>
> Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior,
> Chris.

I'm not sure I would consider it illegal. There are probably good arguments
on both sides as to whether or not the use falls under fair use, but this
is between the author and the alleged violator.

What is clear, is that *you* have no standing in this case. You are not
party to any dispute and can't even claim to be a stake holder. So, in
fact, it is you that are being libelous. (1) You are making public claims
that you know you can not prove. (2) You are doing it for the express
intent of harming someone's reputation or malice.

So, if he wanted to sue you, it probably would be his right.

William Poaster

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 7:33:15 AM6/8/06
to
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:51:34 +0000, spike1 wrote:

> Roland Garros <linu...@lycos.com> did eloquently scribble:

<snip>

A tennis stadium outside of Paris, "Home of the French Open", posting on
Usenet?

Smells "fishy" to me..

William Poaster

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 7:39:09 AM6/8/06
to

From another idiot wintroll, & it smells "fishy" that he's using the name
of a tennis stadium outside of Paris. These bozos just can't think up
their own nyms.

Linonut

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 7:56:27 AM6/8/06
to
After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.
>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>

> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However, that would beg
> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
> sites.
>

> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>
> Bummer for you Roy.

You're a sneaky little shit, Erik. A rotten little turd.

--
/\ STOP! This post has not passed Microsoft Logo testing to verify its
/ \ compatibility with Microsoft FUD. Microsoft strongly recommends
/ !! \ you stop reading this post, and consult a poster with FUD
/______\ certification. [ Continue Anyway ] [ STOP Reading ]

mlw

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 8:41:14 AM6/8/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.

Which is a matter to be decided by Ray and the author, of which, unless you
are Roy or the author of the cartoon, is none of your business.

>
> I noticed this on this article:
>
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>
> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it.

Depending on the use and origin of the work, may not be a violation of
copyright or defensible as "fair use." In cases like this, it really isn't
a crime until the owner informs the alleged violator of the problem. The
violator has a reasonable amount of time to remove the offending content or
dispute it.

> I was
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.

The "author" may suspect it is copyright infringement, but that does not
mean it is. That has to be settled between Roy and the author.

>
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image.

That has *nothing* to do with it. If you merely deep link to an image on a
web site, there is no legal difference from copying. Granted, this is one
of the more controversial decisions, but it makes sense.

> However, that would beg
> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
> sites.

Have you even looked at the laws and statutes you think you are talking
about?

>
> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
> similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.

"Misappropriated?"


>
> Bummer for you Roy.

Like I said in another post, you have no standing in any of this dispute.
There may, in fact, not even be a legitmate dispute. The only purpose in
even writing about it is to malign another person. Since you have accused
him of a crime that you can't prove for a malicious purpose, it is likely
that you have libeled him.

Put it this way, the remedy for inadvertent copyright infringement is the
removal of content. The remedy for libel is damages, and damages to
reputation are costly.


chrisv

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 8:48:10 AM6/8/06
to
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>> you, Erik.
>
>Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior, Chris.

I see that you're logically-challenged as well, Erik.

Not that I didn't already know that.

chrisv

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 8:51:58 AM6/8/06
to
Erik "the weasel" Funkenbusch wrote:

>Now, now, Roy. Don't get mad at me for your own criminal conduct.

LOL You are a piece of work, weasel.

William Poaster

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 8:55:19 AM6/8/06
to
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:56:27 -0500, Linonut wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has
>> wholesale copied from the authors without permission.
>>
>> I noticed this on this article:
>>
>> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
>>
>> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
>> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
>> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find
>> out. He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.
>>
>> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more
>> acceptable, since he wouldn't have actually copied the image. However,
>> that would beg the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on
>> other peoples sites.
>>
>> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have
>> been similarly misappropriated. Many of them have no credits at all.
>>
>> Bummer for you Roy.
>
> You're a sneaky little shit, Erik. A rotten little turd.

Yes, but we knew that before, hence the "Ewik The Weasel" label.

--
Microsoft - The ultimate spyware.

Beowulf Trollshammer

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 9:04:15 AM6/8/06
to
Ewik FUDkenbusch wrote:

> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it. I was
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.

You actually bothered to email this guy just to have something to bitch about
here and attack Roy. Un-fucking-believable. Dude, you really need to get a
life.

tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 9:47:46 AM6/8/06
to
Handover Phist <ja...@jason.websterscafe.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone else notice that funkenbusch.com went offline? Was that the
> moment the post was made or earlier? All you get now is the default
> Apache page. I wonder if it's hosted on a linux box?

A cynical mind might assume it is because he knows he has a few
copyright infringing images on it and needs to hide it while he
scrubs it of any hypocrisy. A vindictive mind might even go into
google cache and dig up the evidence. Personally, I don't plan
to sink to that level and think it a waste of time anyway.

As for Roy's alleged transgression, we need to consider scale
and intent before passing any moral judgment. It is not as if he
is claiming the work as his own; he clearly credits the original
author. The original author might even benefit from some additional
exposer. It might be copyright infringement in the strictest sense
(though sometimes you can make a fair use argument if it is part of
a larger body of work), and if the author tells him to remove it,
he probably should; but this is hardly a hanging offense. In short,
cut Roy some slack, let him and the original author sort this out
on their own. If you want to criticize his posts in COLA, then
do so, but keep the personal attacks out of it. It only makes you
look bad.

Thad


DFS

unread,
Jun 8, 2006, 10:08:17 AM6/8/06
to

Good for him (Erik). The disturbing, holier-than-thou attitude of cola
"advocates" (and Linux and open source users in general) needs to be
revealed for the self-serving hypocrisy it is.

mlw

unread,
Jun 8, 2006,