Subject:
|
Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:24:46 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1650 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:41:53 GMT, "Mike Poindexter"
<lego@poindexter.cc> wrote:
[... many snips...]
> You have a copyright for that picture
> posted where they can't see it (i.e. it isn't in the auction listing) and if
> this was a "public domain" set picture, it wouldn't be a big deal. Given
> that the person "could have not known" that this was not a public domain
> lego picture like many of the ones on ebay, then it is hard to just jump on
> the guy.
Wrong.
There was ample evidence that this picture was not a "public domain"
set picture. That evidence is that there was no statement saying
"feel free to copy this picture" or "public domain copying allowed" or
anything else that implied the picture was available to be "lifted" as
you so succinctly put it.
Pictures on the Web are not for free. Many people copy them, but that
does not de facto make it right. Many people copy .mp3 files and
steal music, don't agree it's wrong, argue that "my friend bought the
CD and made the copy so it's ok because he paid for it", and it's
STILL not right.
Is this so hard: ASK PERMISSION!
Now, as for jumping on the guy. I agree that the first step is to
send an email saying "that's my picture, you have no rights to it,
please stop using it" and give them a chance to be educated. This,
like asking permission, is mere courtesy.
> Copyrights, like all laws, serve a purpose. Sometimes, they protect people
> a lot, like musicians. Sometimes, they protect people only a little, if at
> all, like in your instance. What were the damages? How much did this cost
> you? If somebody stole $5,000, it is grand theft. If they stole 2 cents,
> it is still against the law. But who gets up in arms over that, unless it
> is being multiplied millions of times over with the same entity or group of
> entities benefitting at the expense of another constant group?
Ah! I see your point now. Copyright protection is only for those
things *you* consider to be worth something. If I write a story and
don't plan to sell it, then you can take it because it didn't cost me
anything.
It's only wrong if it causes real harm. So the 14yo boy across the
street who wants to copy his CD songs to make a birthday present for
his friend is ok, since he wouldn't go out and buy six or ten CDs so
his friend could have the one cool song from each, and anyway what's
the few cents royalty on one song to a band or record company?
Nice philosophy. An especially charming touch is the twisting so that
those who oppose copyright infringement are the overwrought bad guys.
> I agree and that his taking of the picture was misrepresentative of the
> condition of his used set. That misrepresentation is a seperate issue from
> him taking your picture.
I put this in so we'd have something to agree on.
> I also
> understand copyright, to a degree (IANAL) and believe that when another
> person takes a picture from the web and uses it, it is not necessarily
> right. I agree with you to a degree, but I can't sympathize with you much.
> People know that many people have a feeling on the internet that you can
> just take content. It is common knowledge that there are people with that
> sentiment. (I am not in that group, although you might think I am).
Did you just say: "I know it's wrong to take a picture from the Web
that doesn't belong to you. But I don't much sympathize with your
objecting to it. Some people don't care at all about your objections,
but unlike them I do, a little, but not much." ???
> Knowing that people are out there like that, you might be wise to protect
> your pictures from theft by putting a little icon in them.
Icons can be removed. Locks don't protect from theft. Theft of an
unlocked item is theft. If you take my bike, and my name isn't on it,
it's still mine.
> To me, they are not worth that much. If they get copied, I don't care. I
> still have them. It didn't cost me anything substantial, so it doesn't
> bother me. If it did, I would put more effort into protecting them. What I
> sell on ebay is not the pictures of the items listed, but the items
> themselves.
Here is the crux of the problem: Copyright infringement doesn't
matter to many folks because it's not "stealing"! If you take my
bike, that's wrong because then I don't have a bike. If you take my
picture, then that's ok because, hey, I still have it!
And because you don't care about your pictures, you can't possibly see
why I'd care about mine. And if "I really cared" I'd put effort
(additional effort beyond creating the picture) into "protecting them"
somehow.
Since I still have my copy, and I didn't bother to protect it, then it
can't be worth much, and therefore isn't really stealable.
> Just becuase I don't think this is major doesn't mean I don't value
> copyright protection. It is just a matter of how far it should go. I never
> saw Lego make the club car public domain. They allow the instructions on
> Kevin's site so that people who lost the instructions can still build their
> set. By a strict interpretation of copyright law, every person who builds a
> clubcar that doesn't own the set is violating the copyright. Ditto for the
> hopper cars, space sets and anything else Lego made and coprighted. Many
> people would think that gets to the point of being ridiculous. If you
> carried it further, you could say that anything inspired from another
> person's original creation (i.e. not a copy of a real life item) violates
> the copyright as it steal the "look and feel" of their creation. Most
> people I know would consider that ridiculous. At some point, we will all
> draw a line of where it is ridiculous, or at least counterproductive. Just
> because I draw that line sooner does not mean that I don't think it should
> be drawn at all.
I accept that you believe the line should only be drawn when there's a
documentable substantial cost caused by the copyright infringement.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've read enough on this to know that's
not the law.
The case of the club car is one where The LEGO Group could, at any
time, request that copy of the instructions removed from the web and
all copies destroyed. They'd probably be well within their rights to
do so, and could bring legal action if that request weren't complied
with.
It can indeed get ridiculous, but "look and feel" aren't the same as
out-and-out copying, so don't muddy the waters talking about grey
areas where there's no grey to be found.
> Well, I have seen a lot of knock-off TLC designs floating around. I have
> seen a lot of Star Wars creations that are renditions of copyrighted
> material. Clearly, most people consider that to be OK.
No, YOU think most people think it ok. A rendition of a copyrighted
work isn't the same as the work. There are some very fine lines to
respect when one makes "LEGO-compatible" bricks; how close is a copy?
If I see a cool Star Wars spaceship and build one of my own, that's
not generally copyright infringement; I believe it falls under "fair
use" as does my photocopying news articles for a school project or
taking a picture of a public display.
But NONE of this has anything to do with taking pictures off someone's
web site. Making a copy of someone's work is intellectual property
theft. You don't have to accept that, but it's not a matter of
opinion.
So, you rationalize, since the guy didn't "protect" his picture,
didn't put an icon in it, didn't emblazon "COPYRIGHT, STAY AWAY"
across it in big red letters, then it can't be worth much and so is
fair game? Well, it's worth enough that the other eBay seller stole
it because it was easier than making their own. It has worth because
the picture owner paid money for the camera, spent time building the
kit, displaying it, photographing it, manipulating the image to get it
Web-ready, and expended some of his Web storage space to make it
available to HIS potential customers to buy HIS kit to put money in
HIS pocket.
And along comes someone, for whom you make a very good case of being
much like yourself, and takes it. The defense is: Maybe the guy
didn't or couldn't afford a camera, or maybe he preferred to buy LEGO
rather than buying a camera. Maybe the guy has a camera, but didn't
want to waste his time building his castle, since someone else did it
already. And why take your own photo and scan or download it when
someone else has done all the work already?
Yes, that worthless picture sure saved someone a whole bunch of work.
And if not, then why would they steal it?
I fully accept you don't grasp the idea that this is theft, even
though "everybody does it". But that changes nothing.
My first comment on this was to go after the eBay seller. He was
profiting from the unrewarded efforts of another. If it was my
picture, he would've received a polite letter requesting he
immediately remove the picture. If he'd not complied quickly,
certainly BEFORE the auction ended, I'd have emailed all bidders about
the facts: The picture they saw when they bid was mine, the seller
does not have *that* kit to sell, and I'll be taking action with eBay.
Then I'd take action with eBay.
Most surely there are many, maybe even most, who'd feel that's an
outrageous overreaction to an insignificant action. And if they were
right, then the buyers wouldn't cancel their bids and eBay wouldn't
take action, and I'd be left looking frustrated and confused.
The Internet is the world's biggest civics lesson, and we all have
much to learn (some far more than others). And learn we shall.
-gus
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| Gus Altobello Jr <altobello@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:g638esgabu57n7u...4ax.com... (...) if (...) on (...) Agreed. (...) people (...) at (...) cost (...) cents, (...) it (...) of (...) NO! That is something that has actual artistic or (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| lawrence wilkes <lawrence_wilkes@msn.com> wrote in message news:Fs8zDC.8o4@lugnet.com... (...) that (...) No, I am not basically saying that. You have a copyright for that picture posted where they can't see it (i.e. it isn't in the auction listing) (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
