So far almost every agency that has complained about copyright infringements (and are in favour of more stringent copyright laws) have been caught red-handed at violating copyright laws.
The MPAA made multiple unauthorized copies of a movie, AP has infringed on this story. I'm sure there are examples within the RIAA to be found as well (can't remember one of the top of my head)
Hypocrisy is no stranger to these people.
you can set up a rule on your webserver that says hotlinking isn't allowed.
Hotlinking is just someone creating a webpage on their own server, with [img] tags with links to pictures on your server, it's not someone grabbing your images and putting them on their own server. That last part is very clearly an infringement on copyright... and hotlinking is generally frowned upon on the web, so no-one would be surprised if it's set to forbidden on a server.
Well as you can probably guess, I don't think hotlinking is infringing, like you do... so that's why I talked about "real infringement" with the download and reupload thing.
The other two don't infringe on copyright.
BUT THE LAWYER-SPEAK AND THE CONSTANT CAPITALISATION OF THE LETTERS KINDA MAKE IT HARD TO DO.
I understand it's done to prevent the I to be read as an l or something, but it's just not friendly on the eyes, and if you want people to really read and understand the EULA don't make it fifteen pages long. Just keep it simple and set the rules and benefits in clear plain vanilla text.
Ever looked at the shrink-wrap licenses on software? You agree to them before you're even able to read them, as they are inside the box, but you agree to them when you buy the software.
For the sake of argument. You have an interview for a new job, and your new boss tells you "okay, you got the job. Now normally you know that there is a contract that you need to sign etc. But let's just say that there is that contract, and by wanting to work here, you implicitly agreed to that contract. Welcome aboard." *shakes hands*
At what point would you run out of that office screaming?
"Nothing from this publication may be copied or multiplied in any manner whatsoever without prior written permission from [author's name]."
Standard disclaimer on a lot of publications.
However, a webpage where you have a hotlinked image does not constitute a derivative work, as I haven't changed the original picture, it's still the original picture.
The page as a whole is not 'the work'. The webpage is in fact a collection of works. I own the copyright to the text, and the original uploader of the image has (presumably) the copyrights to the picture. (two different works, not 1.)
Hotlinking is considered rude on the internet, and frowned upon, but it's not a worse crime than actually downloading the image and then reuploading it without giving credit or asking for permission. The latter is a true infringement of copyright. The former isn't.
Re: Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement
If I hotlink an image, I don't touch the image. The original uploader of the image has full control over that one image.
There are three ways of displaying images:
1) through a link. [a href=http://www.someurl.to/an/image.jpg]
2) through hotlinking. [img src=http://www.someurl.to/an/image.jpg]
3) through downloading the image, and uploading it to my own server. So I go to www.someurl.to/an/image.jpg, tell my browser to download it, and then upload it to my own server and then link to that: [img src=http://server.of.me/with/the/image.jpg]
number 1: is according to you not infringing, because I redirect traffic to the original image.
number 2: is according to you infringing, but all I do is redirect traffic to the original image, but without an extra step for the user of my site. So it CAN'T be infringing.
number 3: is clearly infringing, because I make an actual copy of the image.
With the first 2, the original owner of the image doesn't have to search out any hotlinks to change it or remove it. He or she only has to change that one copy, to have it changed in every other instance.
With number 3, the original owner has no such control over the image.
You can (hot)link to you responses, if you use the "Link to this comment" link.
Btw, ever used Google image search? Those tiny images they show when you click on the images in the search results are actually hotlinked images. If it's a copyright violation, then Google would be in a pickle. Perfect10 already tried that route against Google, and the judge ruled against Perfect10.
If Google were to make a copy of the image, then you'd have a case for copyright violations, but a hotlink is not a copy. It's a link to the original, not a copy of the original. So it's not a violation of any Copyright law.
Yes I know it states 'display' in it, but that would mean that I have already violated your copyright, because I can see your profile picture next to your name. (my browser is displaying something that doesn't belong to it)
Of course, then you would expect customer support from your hosting company, but some hosting companies have a bad history when it comes to customer support.
So in that case, it might even be better to host your own website on your own server, but then you'd also have to get a business DSL line to have a decent uptime, except that some providers have bad customer support as well. So you might want to start your own DSL provider business to make sure that you have proper customer support.
Who do you call when you encounter problems with your Windows computer? Do you call Microsoft or your nephew/neighbour/friend? (How is the latter any different from "joining a community"?)
Ever even tried installing a Linux-based operating system? It's easier, more user-friendly out of the box than Apple's and Microsoft's offerings.
And it supports more hardware without installing extra drivers.
Installing a Linux distro is on the whole as simple as clicking "Next" a lot of times.
And installing applications is as easy as it is on the Iphone, with the built-in 'apt'-store like in Debian based systems, but almost every distro now has a centralised software installation system. And without the censorship of the Apple.
so? Just license the damn thing then for a dollar. That way you can also set certain rules in which direction the filmmakers can not go (such as make a porn of it) etc.
Win-win-win situation. Free exposure for the Zelda franchise for Nintendo, and they don't lose their trademark and the movie-makers are free of litigation problems.
Now, it's a lose-lose-lose situation. Nintendo has lost potential new revenue, has lost fan-interest (because I'm now far less inclined to buy anything labeled Nintendo, and I used to be a fan), and the movie makers have lost their hard work.
Who here has never made a photocopy of books for school book-reports while in the library? I know I have. For a few quarters I had a copy of the cliff notes for instance, and in some cases even entire sections of books.
In The Netherlands you have to pay a blanket fee for the use of the photocopier, so you could argue "That's not piracy", but I did sometimes make a duplication without prior approval of the author.
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
hypocrites
The MPAA made multiple unauthorized copies of a movie, AP has infringed on this story. I'm sure there are examples within the RIAA to be found as well (can't remember one of the top of my head)
Hypocrisy is no stranger to these people.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: There are situations, yes
Hotlinking is just someone creating a webpage on their own server, with [img] tags with links to pictures on your server, it's not someone grabbing your images and putting them on their own server. That last part is very clearly an infringement on copyright... and hotlinking is generally frowned upon on the web, so no-one would be surprised if it's set to forbidden on a server.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm a criminal!
The other two don't infringe on copyright.
On the post: Another Court Finds 'Browserwrap' Terms Are Enforceable
Re: Re: Re: Shady
I understand it's done to prevent the I to be read as an l or something, but it's just not friendly on the eyes, and if you want people to really read and understand the EULA don't make it fifteen pages long. Just keep it simple and set the rules and benefits in clear plain vanilla text.
On the post: Another Court Finds 'Browserwrap' Terms Are Enforceable
Re: Shady
On the post: Another Court Finds 'Browserwrap' Terms Are Enforceable
Re:
At what point would you run out of that office screaming?
On the post: Another Court Finds 'Browserwrap' Terms Are Enforceable
By reading this comment
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
It's greed pure and simple, and a misguided sense of entitlement.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Book Piracy
Standard disclaimer on a lot of publications.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: I'm a criminal!
The page as a whole is not 'the work'. The webpage is in fact a collection of works. I own the copyright to the text, and the original uploader of the image has (presumably) the copyrights to the picture. (two different works, not 1.)
Hotlinking is considered rude on the internet, and frowned upon, but it's not a worse crime than actually downloading the image and then reuploading it without giving credit or asking for permission. The latter is a true infringement of copyright. The former isn't.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement
There are three ways of displaying images:
1) through a link. [a href=http://www.someurl.to/an/image.jpg]
2) through hotlinking. [img src=http://www.someurl.to/an/image.jpg]
3) through downloading the image, and uploading it to my own server. So I go to www.someurl.to/an/image.jpg, tell my browser to download it, and then upload it to my own server and then link to that: [img src=http://server.of.me/with/the/image.jpg]
number 1: is according to you not infringing, because I redirect traffic to the original image.
number 2: is according to you infringing, but all I do is redirect traffic to the original image, but without an extra step for the user of my site. So it CAN'T be infringing.
number 3: is clearly infringing, because I make an actual copy of the image.
With the first 2, the original owner of the image doesn't have to search out any hotlinks to change it or remove it. He or she only has to change that one copy, to have it changed in every other instance.
With number 3, the original owner has no such control over the image.
On the post: Is Inline Linking To An Image Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission
Btw, ever used Google image search? Those tiny images they show when you click on the images in the search results are actually hotlinked images. If it's a copyright violation, then Google would be in a pickle. Perfect10 already tried that route against Google, and the judge ruled against Perfect10.
If Google were to make a copy of the image, then you'd have a case for copyright violations, but a hotlink is not a copy. It's a link to the original, not a copy of the original. So it's not a violation of any Copyright law.
Yes I know it states 'display' in it, but that would mean that I have already violated your copyright, because I can see your profile picture next to your name. (my browser is displaying something that doesn't belong to it)
On the post: Google's Communication Problems Continue: Blogger Can't Get His Blog Turned Back On After Six Months
Re:
So in that case, it might even be better to host your own website on your own server, but then you'd also have to get a business DSL line to have a decent uptime, except that some providers have bad customer support as well. So you might want to start your own DSL provider business to make sure that you have proper customer support.
Wait, what was this for again? A simple blog?
On the post: Music Publishers Force Another Lyric Site Offline
Re: MentalSlavery
*fires up the BBQ*
Do you want head or tails first?
On the post: Why Does Microsoft Limit Netbooks?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ever even tried installing a Linux-based operating system? It's easier, more user-friendly out of the box than Apple's and Microsoft's offerings.
And it supports more hardware without installing extra drivers.
Installing a Linux distro is on the whole as simple as clicking "Next" a lot of times.
And installing applications is as easy as it is on the Iphone, with the built-in 'apt'-store like in Debian based systems, but almost every distro now has a centralised software installation system. And without the censorship of the Apple.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Fan-Made Zelda Movie
Re: Re: It's because they _must_
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Fan-Made Zelda Movie
Re: It's because they _must_
Win-win-win situation. Free exposure for the Zelda franchise for Nintendo, and they don't lose their trademark and the movie-makers are free of litigation problems.
Now, it's a lose-lose-lose situation. Nintendo has lost potential new revenue, has lost fan-interest (because I'm now far less inclined to buy anything labeled Nintendo, and I used to be a fan), and the movie makers have lost their hard work.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re: Book Piracy
In The Netherlands you have to pay a blanket fee for the use of the photocopier, so you could argue "That's not piracy", but I did sometimes make a duplication without prior approval of the author.
On the post: CNN's Take On 'Book Piracy'
Re: Re:
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Fan-Made Zelda Movie
In what world?
Next >>