Subject:
|
Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:09:54 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1477 times
|
| |
|
|
Gus Altobello Jr <altobello@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:g638esgabu57n7u6ao20tvl6jqrpr5til8@4ax.com...
> 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!
Agreed.
>
> 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.
NO! That is something that has actual artistic or original input. That is
easily "intellectual property." I just don't put a non-artistic snapshot of
something to be intellectual property. This is not a painting or a
professional photo we are talking about here.
>
> 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?
Your example of the 14yo boy across the street has damages in it - small but
measureable. And I don't think that people who oppose copyright
infringement are overwrought bad guys. I mentioned earlier that copying
music is a violation of intellectual property. I gave that example
specifically, so please don't throw what I said isn't right into a "it's OK
by me philosophy" when I already stated outright that it is not alright.
> Nice philosophy. An especially charming touch is the twisting so that
> those who oppose copyright infringement are the overwrought bad guys.
A really nice philosophy that I don't have, but you think I do because of
your misinterpretation of what I believe. Perhaps I didn't explain myself
clearly or perhaps you didn't read what I said correctly. Either way, it is
not my philosophy.
>
> > 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.
We have other things we would agree on if you would not mistakenly put me on
the opposite side of where I stand. :-)
>
> > 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." ???
Yes, sort of like people who get bent out of shape when somebody cuts them
off in traffic. People looking say, "Man, that guy just cut that other
person off. What a bad driver." Meanwhile, the person who was cut off is
screaming bloody murder in a fit of road rage. The person who feels he/she
has been wronged will likely have people sympathize with them, but it is
unlikely that the sypathizers have as strong an emotion over it as the
victim.
>
> > 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.
Locks don't prevent theft - they make it harder. If people take these
pictures to save time, making it harder just means that they won't save
time, and therefore will be much more unlikely to take them. Just makes
sense to me, sort of like the "ounce of prevention" cliche.
>
> > 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.
Yes, it is stealable, but just not very prosecutable. I can't see something
like this drawing the maximum penalty for copyright infringement. In fact,
if the guy signed a confession, I doubt a prosecutor would even be able to
get a conviction. I don't think it would ever even get looked into. in
that regards, I am not the only person who thinks it is not really a big
deal.
>
> > 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.
How far does copyright extend should get into look and feel, as that is a
copyright that goes beyond identical copies of intellectual property. Of
course.
>
> > 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.
Taking a picture of a public display is OK? Not to say that this opens the
door to lifting pictures from the web, but would that allow a person to do a
screen dump of a picture that is on display on the web and call it a picture
they took of something on display on the internet? This isn't to poke a
hole in your arguement, but this is something that I would be very curious
to hear a legal answer of.
> 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?
No, but locking your car can make it a little harder to steal. If your car
is stolen and you left it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, would you
expect there to be an uproar, or would you expect people to ask you why you
didn't lock your car?
> 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.
I agree with you completely that the first step is to just email the ebay
seller.
>
> 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.
I would say it is an overreaction because nobody did step #1. If he was
contacted and replied to the person to get bent/deal with it - ha ha, then I
could see this type of reaction. Until that point, I don't even see why we
are having this conversation.
Mike
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
| On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:41:53 GMT, "Mike Poindexter" <lego@poindexter.cc> wrote: [... many snips...] (...) Wrong. There was ample evidence that this picture was not a "public domain" set picture. That evidence is that there was no statement saying (...) (25 years ago, 31-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
|
|
|
|
