Yes Mike, I got it wrong. There are a signficant number of references to hotlinking and htaccess (not all from me) in this discussion, including someone before the site owner (who isn't clearly identified as the site owner) saying that the images were hotlinked.
As for "full sized image", since I could not see the site because it was already taken down, I refer to the original quote on your story:
"claiming that by showing the stock photos from iStockPhoto.com (and linking back, with watermark in place)"
Notice he didn't say "showing reduced sized thumbnails".
So yes, I was wrong about one thing, and not so wrong about another, as I made an assumption based on your original post, which wasn't very clear. Thumbnails would have made a difference (depending on their size, as always).
I hope this clears things up, and apologies to the site owner. However, I am not comfortable with the idea of taking content off of a site and uploading it to another for your use. The thumbnails are part of the original site's content and design, so it isn't entirely clear that you had rights to them.
Again Mike, I hope this clears it up. I hope that you can admit that the original post wasn't entirely clear on the subject(s) either.
That is the easy answer. I am sure there are other options. If not, perhaps they should have go to a different part of the medical field and innovated. Duplication isn't innovative.
If he wanted to write about a product, if he wanted to discuss the product, if he even wanted to use a thumbnail of the product, I don't think there would be an issue.
he used the full sized image, and had the balls to hotlink it and make istockphoto pay the bandwidth to provide it.
Without using the images, it would be a discussion, and nobody would care. Adding the images generally would require permission, and hotlinking them only make it worse, causing the owners to incur costs for this "promotion" that they didn't ask for.
The DMCA allows copyright holders to shoot first and not care later. And that's a problem, because it can put a serious crimp on public discussion
Yet the copyright holder bears great expense to do this, as they have to issue individual DMCAs to each and every website that uses the video or hosts it. The burden on the rights holder is high as well, they cannot just wave a single piece of paper in the air and have things disappear.
Is this a misuse of DMCA? Somewhat. But again, fair use is a defense, not a right, and before you get there, you have to admit to having violated copyright. Fair use is "I violated copyright but...". The distinction is very important, as fair use is a judgement call, not an absolute.
You missed the point. I am trying to find the law that says you can use others images without permission on a website.
I am not debating the concept of promoting others (he could have written nice text with a link), but the use of the images (particularly hotlinking them, which essentially makes istockphoto pay for the "promotion") seems to be way past the line.
I wonder what her opinion would be when it's her own company's bottom line that is eroding due to piracy. I think she is probably just a little to insulated from reality. Having large sums of money around does that to people :)
Imagine how far they could have gotten spending 1.x billion on developing a non-infringing product, rather than just infringing and hiring lawyers to protect them.
You might think that the lack of progress is because Boston Scientific chose duplication over innovation.
Advertising should be the choice of the people who own the content, not a random choice made by a third party. It proves the difference between just a link and the actual use of content inline on a website.
Mike, I think you keep making the same mistake. It might be nice that he was "helping" them, but it is up to them if they want the help or not.
Sorry, but I cannot find the link on techdirt to the story (as one of the links goes to a dead or removed story on another site). The swedish numbers do clearly show what I mean, the area from 2000 to 2008 has no increase in total income, just shifting of that income.
The UK single year study shows a net 3% gain in that single year, but the total net consumer dollars spent was the same as it was about 4 or 5 years earlier. If I get a chance I will see if I can find those numbers on another site, but as I mentioned to the AC in another thread, I am not your research intern, and I don't intend to spend the day searching for old reports. I am hoping that Mike might remember where they are and pipe up, as I can't seem to find them on Techdirt (even though they were discussed at length, which makes me wonder if some content has been retired off the site or something).
Then you said: The Canadian numbers also vary greatly depending on the questions asked.
And I asked where in the Canadian goverments numbers vary greatly?
See, there is your problem. I said Canadian numbers, and you added the word government. I wasn't talking about Canadian government numbers, I was talking about surveys done in Canada or on Canadian users.
The most common one (that Mike often refers to) shows about 20% of users as downloaders, by defining downloaders as "people who have downloaded in the last 30 days". That is what I mean about when you adjust the question, you get different answers. By moving the parameters, you get different answer. Previous surveys from one the major ISPs (BELL) had them claiming 40% of people running P2P, and other studies had that number as low as 10%.
The UK numbers are the same. One study showed as low as 10%, others much higher. It comes down to the question, the methodology, who was asked, etc.
These are all studies that have been on techdirt in the last couple of years.
So I am sorry, I cannot answer your question because you are asking something I didn't say. I have no comment on Canadian GOVERNMENT numbers, because I have never talked about them to start with.
I trust this settles the issue for you, and NO, I am not going to go back through techdirt for the last couple of years to find you links for each survey. I am not your research intern, sorry.
I can only think of a bodega owner that allows people to sell drugs out of his store. At some point, the police will come and not only arrest the drug dealers, but they will arrest the store owners as well.
The ISPs, when unaware, are in the clear. Once they are aware, are they truly innocent anymore?
Like I said, I think that there is plenty to appeal in the decision, because it is clear that illegal activities are going on, and the ISP does have the power to stop them.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re:
As a result, I have no comment on this thread (which should encourage the troll to keep doing this preemptive posting of out of context materials).
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for "full sized image", since I could not see the site because it was already taken down, I refer to the original quote on your story:
"claiming that by showing the stock photos from iStockPhoto.com (and linking back, with watermark in place)"
Notice he didn't say "showing reduced sized thumbnails".
So yes, I was wrong about one thing, and not so wrong about another, as I made an assumption based on your original post, which wasn't very clear. Thumbnails would have made a difference (depending on their size, as always).
I hope this clears things up, and apologies to the site owner. However, I am not comfortable with the idea of taking content off of a site and uploading it to another for your use. The thumbnails are part of the original site's content and design, so it isn't entirely clear that you had rights to them.
Again Mike, I hope this clears it up. I hope that you can admit that the original post wasn't entirely clear on the subject(s) either.
On the post: Survey Claims Some Depressed People Use The Internet A Lot
On the post: Pharma Patent Nuclear War In Action
Re: Re:
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re:
If he wanted to write about a product, if he wanted to discuss the product, if he even wanted to use a thumbnail of the product, I don't think there would be an issue.
he used the full sized image, and had the balls to hotlink it and make istockphoto pay the bandwidth to provide it.
Without using the images, it would be a discussion, and nobody would care. Adding the images generally would require permission, and hotlinking them only make it worse, causing the owners to incur costs for this "promotion" that they didn't ask for.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Stealing or sharing?
It is neither, it is parody.
I already answered this for you once. Do I have to keep repeating myself?
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TV Station Issuing DMCA Takedowns To Try To Hide Weatherman Making A Bad Joke
Re: Re:
Actually, I think it was a single court, a single judge, in a single judgment, no?
On the post: TV Station Issuing DMCA Takedowns To Try To Hide Weatherman Making A Bad Joke
Yet the copyright holder bears great expense to do this, as they have to issue individual DMCAs to each and every website that uses the video or hosts it. The burden on the rights holder is high as well, they cannot just wave a single piece of paper in the air and have things disappear.
Is this a misuse of DMCA? Somewhat. But again, fair use is a defense, not a right, and before you get there, you have to admit to having violated copyright. Fair use is "I violated copyright but...". The distinction is very important, as fair use is a judgement call, not an absolute.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not debating the concept of promoting others (he could have written nice text with a link), but the use of the images (particularly hotlinking them, which essentially makes istockphoto pay for the "promotion") seems to be way past the line.
On the post: Murdoch's Daughter Recognizes That 'Piracy' Can Be Good
On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users
Re: Re:
But gee, without the internet connection.... ;)
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Re: Re:
Oh, and exactly which law do you refer to?
On the post: ICanHasLawsuit? Pet Holdings Sues Other Site For Framing Failbooking With Better Domain Name
Why would this domain have a $50,000 price? What defines it's value?
After all, if you remove the iframed content, it is just another "reg fee" domain.
Mike, why do you think the domain would be worth more than a registration fee?
On the post: Pharma Patent Nuclear War In Action
You might think that the lack of progress is because Boston Scientific chose duplication over innovation.
On the post: Awkward Stock Photo Blog Hit With DMCA Claim
Mike, I think you keep making the same mistake. It might be nice that he was "helping" them, but it is up to them if they want the help or not.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where...
The UK single year study shows a net 3% gain in that single year, but the total net consumer dollars spent was the same as it was about 4 or 5 years earlier. If I get a chance I will see if I can find those numbers on another site, but as I mentioned to the AC in another thread, I am not your research intern, and I don't intend to spend the day searching for old reports. I am hoping that Mike might remember where they are and pipe up, as I can't seem to find them on Techdirt (even though they were discussed at length, which makes me wonder if some content has been retired off the site or something).
On the post: Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flamebait
And I asked where in the Canadian goverments numbers vary greatly?
See, there is your problem. I said Canadian numbers, and you added the word government. I wasn't talking about Canadian government numbers, I was talking about surveys done in Canada or on Canadian users.
The most common one (that Mike often refers to) shows about 20% of users as downloaders, by defining downloaders as "people who have downloaded in the last 30 days". That is what I mean about when you adjust the question, you get different answers. By moving the parameters, you get different answer. Previous surveys from one the major ISPs (BELL) had them claiming 40% of people running P2P, and other studies had that number as low as 10%.
The UK numbers are the same. One study showed as low as 10%, others much higher. It comes down to the question, the methodology, who was asked, etc.
These are all studies that have been on techdirt in the last couple of years.
So I am sorry, I cannot answer your question because you are asking something I didn't say. I have no comment on Canadian GOVERNMENT numbers, because I have never talked about them to start with.
I trust this settles the issue for you, and NO, I am not going to go back through techdirt for the last couple of years to find you links for each survey. I am not your research intern, sorry.
On the post: iiNet Wins! AFACT Has To Pay. Australian Court Says ISPs Not Responsible For Infringing Users
Re: Re:
I can only think of a bodega owner that allows people to sell drugs out of his store. At some point, the police will come and not only arrest the drug dealers, but they will arrest the store owners as well.
The ISPs, when unaware, are in the clear. Once they are aware, are they truly innocent anymore?
Like I said, I think that there is plenty to appeal in the decision, because it is clear that illegal activities are going on, and the ISP does have the power to stop them.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Miss The Opportunity To 'Monetize' Online Music?
Re: Re: Re: Where...
Next >>