Someone is selling my work...

[shox1989]

I feel I explained why I want this out in the open in my message to him, but please allow me reiterate some points here.

* What he did was not only an offense against me, but against this community. So what he has to say should be address to everyone.

* I wanted to give him a chance to explain himself to everyone, not just me. When I found out about this, I did not know it was DaShox that was involved. That is why I posted here instead of going directly to him. Since he has been "called out," it is only fair that he gets a chance to reply.

* I feel things like this are best resolved in an open forum. This way everyone is clear on what has and hasn't been said, etc. It also helps keep things more civil.

I can understand the initial period when this did go public, but it seems once you posted his response of, it should have been settled off forum.

Staff edit: PM text removed.

What more could you ask for? He apologized and then asked for what he could do to make it right.

Know I am finding this kind of melodramatic, I personally don't feel offended and It looks like from my perspective your trying to drag this out for your own ego.

Before you continue to drag this through the streets of Shockernet, you may want to consider whether you are without sin. Have you violated somebody copyright lately? Have you been pirating some software or music in the past. If not, please post your picture of yourself walking on water and fire away.

I am not sure that I would call that a real apology. (He didn't say he was sorry for trying to sell Rosewood's work, only that it took him awhile to respond).

But you make good points.

[ABC]

I think this is a big deal. This isn't even comparable to selling copies of someone's VHS tapes of a recorded game.

This is original work that has been stolen and sold.

It is really hard for me to believe someone would do this.

[CharlieHog]

Before you continue to drag this through the streets of Shockernet, you may want to consider whether you are without sin. Have you violated somebody copyright lately? Have you been pirating some software or music in the past. If not, please post your picture of yourself walking on water and fire away.

Not comparable, really (IMO). Unless I copied the Kool Moe Dee album I just downloaded onto a CD and sold it on ebay as my own work.

[SpanglerFan316]

I think this is a big deal. This isn't even comparable to selling copies of someone's VHS tapes of a recorded game.

This is original work that has been stolen and sold.

It is really hard for me to believe someone would do this.

I'm not sure I agree. In addition, I also think this should be handled off-forum.

Why do I disagree? Before the copyright laws were changed in the 1980s (?), a person usually had to make a claim of copyright; I believe this is one reason ATT "lost" the UNIX/BSD case to the regents of the University of California (i.e. they did not provide notice of a copyright claim in the early 1970s (?)). When a person (or company) makes an explicit copyright claim, everyone is put on notice. Under the current law, a letter you write to your sister or to the newspaper might be copyrighted by you; I don't know if this is correct but no notice of copyright is required and many more writings are copyrighted now than were in the 1970s. So, the "bar is lowered" (a great deal) with respect to copyright while the level of notice (e.g. copyright Fred Phelps) is greatly reduced. In this "Brave New World", I think it is much easier to make a mistake. I also think things can be made right in private rather than on ShockerNet.

[WuDrWu]

Most of the time, after you've had a chance to think about something for a bit, you come to a conclusion that makes more sense than your first reaction.

I could care less about "black letter law". Why you ask? I answer that with What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

This seems to be an easy right versus wrong thing. The culprit shouldn't have to ask how to rectify the situation, imho. If it were me (and it certainly would not be) I would apologize and offer to pay more than I made, ask for forgiveness and promise to never to do again.

Bottom line for me....If Rose and Royal are content with the offer of remuniration then that is more than good enough for me.

I am interested in our esteemed leader's take on the issue however I guess that his silence on this topic actually speaks volumes.

[DUShock]

Doc you may be correct about Royal's statment of silence however I know he is neck deep in work and had already commented that he would be noticably absent for the next week or two.

[SB Shock]

Before you continue to drag this through the streets of Shockernet, you may want to consider whether you are without sin. Have you violated somebody copyright lately? Have you been pirating some software or music in the past. If not, please post your picture of yourself walking on water and fire away.

Not comparable, really (IMO). Unless I copied the Kool Moe Dee album I just downloaded onto a CD and sold it on ebay as my own work.

I wasn't really trying to make a moral equivalence. Just pointing out that if you want to live by the "law", there are alot a traps that we somehow think apply to the other guy. It's better to show "Grace" then caught up in the "Law".

[DoubleJayAlum]

Why do I disagree? Before the copyright laws were changed in the 1980s (?), a person usually had to make a claim of copyright; I believe this is one reason ATT "lost" the UNIX/BSD case to the regents of the University of California (i.e. they did not provide notice of a copyright claim in the early 1970s (?)). When a person (or company) makes an explicit copyright claim, everyone is put on notice. Under the current law, a letter you write to your sister or to the newspaper might be copyrighted by you; I don't know if this is correct but no notice of copyright is required and many more writings are copyrighted now than were in the 1970s. So, the "bar is lowered" (a great deal) with respect to copyright while the level of notice (e.g. copyright Fred Phelps) is greatly reduced. In this "Brave New World", I think it is much easier to make a mistake.

I disagree with the bolded language I marked above because of the following language in the sale notice caught by BOBB on page one of this thread:

Interesting that "For security purposes, a watermark appears on both photos. The watermarks WILL NOT appear on your print." What a douche.

To me, this eliminates any possibility that this was an innocent mistake. Instead it makes it a calculated, planned and deliberate act.

[SubGod22]

The fact that Rose shared these photos with us and asked us not to use them for anything other than out own personal use and to not try to take his work and profit from it emliminates in my mind any possible misunderstandings. This was a thought out act that was simply wrong. I know I've saved a couple of his photos that I've used as a desktop, but that's about as far as it would ever go.

[RoyalShock]

My take on this is:

1) There has been an obvious attempt to pirate someone else's work for profit.

2) While one could argue that the SN community has been wronged, this is largely an issue between Rosewood and the culprit.

3) Communicae between those two, unless posted directly to the board, should be kept private. (ie. PMs, e-mails, phone calls) If you notice, I edited out the PMs that Rosewood posted.


DU mentioned this, but due to starting a new job, my weekday, daytime (8-5) participation here will be limited some lunch-time browsing.

[SpanglerFan316]

Why do I disagree? Before the copyright laws were changed in the 1980s (?), a person usually had to make a claim of copyright; I believe this is one reason ATT "lost" the UNIX/BSD case to the regents of the University of California (i.e. they did not provide notice of a copyright claim in the early 1970s (?)). When a person (or company) makes an explicit copyright claim, everyone is put on notice. Under the current law, a letter you write to your sister or to the newspaper might be copyrighted by you; I don't know if this is correct but no notice of copyright is required and many more writings are copyrighted now than were in the 1970s. So, the "bar is lowered" (a great deal) with respect to copyright while the level of notice (e.g. copyright Fred Phelps) is greatly reduced. In this "Brave New World", I think it is much easier to make a mistake.

I disagree with the bolded language I marked above because of the following language in the sale notice caught by BOBB on page one of this thread:

Interesting that "For security purposes, a watermark appears on both photos. The watermarks WILL NOT appear on your print." What a douche.

To me, this eliminates any possibility that this was an innocent mistake. Instead it makes it a calculated, planned and deliberate act.

I was really addressing the general topic of copyright under the revision of copyright law which does not require a posted notice and an explicit claim of copyright. In this case, I already noted that I support Rosewood's claim. I also support Royal's decision to remove PMs and think this should be resolved off-forum.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I learned long ago watching Rosewood dismantle a bandwidth-leeching target of mine on Valleytalk, that it would be wise not to mess with him on these issues. lol

Rosewood = h4xor = pwnzor


T


...8)

[Denny Crane]

Hey, Cold, you better call the cyber police.....I just saw a picture of Casey Crawford in a wife beater shooting baskets at Koch Arena for sale.

[t7017s]

OH SNAP....