at the temporal coordinates: 9/7/01 12:42 AM, the entity known as DON at
don_at_dcphotos.com conveyed the following:
>
> 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?
>
You can't have it both ways! You've obviously been following the thread,
since the two quotes above were from two completely different messages.
Why, then, do you continue to rant about the older message after I've
recanted it??
>
>> 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.
Sorry, but the point was already well clarified -- the statement DOES apply
IF you substitute "trademark" for "copyright". But since you've obviously
been reading the whole thread, I expect that you've seen that same basic
statement before. Why you've chosen to ignore it is beyond me.
>
> 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.
>
Again with the out of context quotes! Geez! The REST of that was an
attempt to put forward a situation you might more easily relate to and which
would illustrate the abandonware problem. Yes, the law says that even if
you've utterly rejected ever having anything further to do with the photos
you've produced, you still hold a monopoly over them and no one else can use
them. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.
>> 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.
>
Actually, the fact that you've quoted material from a number of different
messages indicates that you are, in fact, replying to more than just that
statement.
Now, I fully understand how sensitive people in the photographic and music
industries are to copyright issues and I respect that. I, however,
massively disagree with the concept that anyone should have the ability to
squash the use of an idea for what is effectively an infinite amount of
time.
- Eric.
-- 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 - 12:01:31 EDT