Eric L. Strobel wrote:
>"Obviously you didn't bother to REALLY read my message>"
Actually, I read and reread your message and Still stand by my reply. Your
message I was replying to is as follows:
>And there's the gamble, isn't it? Copyright violation only exists when the
>copyright holder takes you to court about it. So if one feels the odds are
>that the holder no longer exists, or is in the business, then this becomes a
>reasonable gamble. But the stakes are potentially high if one misjudges and
>loses the 'bet'. So, I think we're all just trying to hedge our 'bet' here.
>(Besides all of us wanting to do the right thing.)
That is the entire message, you may have elsewhere written more, but this is
the massage I DID in fact "bother" to read. So what part of THIS message did
I miss?
>What's truly hysterical (in the literal sense of the word) is using
> something so emotionally charged as murder, as if copyright violation and
> murder are anywhere near equivalent. Not to mention that you totally miss
> the point.
I believe it is YOU that is missing the point. YOU stated "Copyright
violation only exists when the copyright holder takes you to court about
it."
So as not to go into hysterics, lets pick another more benign infraction
Say, oh...jaywalking. Or better yet speeding. Does speeding only occur when
the cop is writing you the ticket?
I'm just trying to clarify YOUR point.
Eric wrote:
>If you, as a photographer, choose to get out of the photography
>business completely -- say you take off and start being a wilderness tour
>Guide in New Zealand or something -- what happens when someone wants to
>print one of your photos??
No matter what I'm doing, if they use my image WITHOUT my permission, it is
a violation the instant in time, that fraction of a nanosecond that the ink
hits the paper to print the image. No matter if I know it or not.
>The framers of the US Constitution (I don't know about elsewhere) were
>pretty clear that copyright protection existed solely to enable the
>originator of a work to get a jump on others and have a chance to profit
>from their originality. This was NEVER meant to be a permanent situation
>(where permanent = lifetime + X years).
I'm not arguing the lifespan of a copyright here, I was just replying to
your statement
> Copyright violation only exists when the
>> copyright holder takes you to court about it.
It is late or early depending on how you look at it.
Enough Enough let's just get the D*MN dragon software to everyone!!!:-)
Don
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:27 EDT