4 ms·

They have some bots crawling around the web and sending out automated letters then to people who they think need to license their photos. I fucked around with t

They have some bots crawling around the web and sending out automated letters then to people who they think need to license their photos. I fucked around with the bit and wasted its energy since it came to my territory, at least 4 years ago it wasn't very smart. I just told them point blank to fuck off, probably they go only after American customers since they are in the legislation area to threaten.

iudqnolq 7y ago
So you stole someone else's property and told them to fuck off? And you expect praise for this? Even if you hate Getty, they're a platform that resells images individual photographers take.
- sudhehhrhd 7y ago
  What's it like being a voluntary shill? Nothing that person said implied theft, they talked about a bots and then mentioned fucking with the bot.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    Edit: Reply showed me I was wrong. Leaving the comment up so the chain makes sense. They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft. Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Please stop spreading this lie. Copyright "infringement" is a breaking of a contract. This is the black and white law. Copyright infringment is absolutely not theft. That is just evil propaganda spread by a cartel of super rich and powerful media moguls and corps. And the abuse of this lie affects the poorest and lowest in society most.
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        Thank you. I looked the issue up and learned that legally copyright infringement is distinct from theft. I still think the term is a good inexact colloquial approximation. However, I couldn't find anything to support your assertion that copyright violation is a breach of contract. It doesn't make sense: breach of contract requires an agreed upon contract to be breached. Also, cite for the idea that copyright law hurts the poorest the most? Haven't seen that before.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        The contract part is probably poor wording on my part. The contract is between the government at the public in that there is no such thing as a natural protections against copying. So the government enforces an artificial period of time of sole ownership of something that otherwise cannot be owned. Single mom was sued for millions of dollars years ago because she put 40 songs (or some low number) on the Mule/Donkey file sharing network. She lost in court. If a multinational corporation got nailed for the same, they would have either made a deal, settled for a portion or just paid the loss. She could have stolen (theft) 40 cds from a store and the fines/punishment would have been miniscule. The percentage of income to punishment ratio is a travesty of justice. The imbalance is in the sheer overwhelming destruction of the law's punishments on those that infringe that are not rich and powerful. Consider the photographers that had their photos "copied" by Getty and used internationally. Or Facebook using a photographers photo without any compensation. What happened to Facebook and Getty? Nothing, (maybe some bad press?) because individuals can't afford to defend their copyrights. Edit: I am glad you looked into this, it's worth a deeper study at least once in a person's life.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not convinced by the natural law argument because everything, including property law, falls apart if you look at it that way. I hadn't learned about either story, though, and your point that multinationals just negotiate it away is something I hadn't thought through.

iudqnolq 7y ago

So you stole someone else's property and told them to fuck off? And you expect praise for this? Even if you hate Getty, they're a platform that resells images individual photographers take.

sudhehhrhd 7y ago
What's it like being a voluntary shill? Nothing that person said implied theft, they talked about a bots and then mentioned fucking with the bot.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  Edit: Reply showed me I was wrong. Leaving the comment up so the chain makes sense. They talked about fucking with a bot that caught them infringing copyright because they knew they'd be hard to hunt down. Copyright theft is (currently) theft. Did you create this account just to leave that comment? Why? What did you think would happen as a result?
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Please stop spreading this lie. Copyright "infringement" is a breaking of a contract. This is the black and white law. Copyright infringment is absolutely not theft. That is just evil propaganda spread by a cartel of super rich and powerful media moguls and corps. And the abuse of this lie affects the poorest and lowest in society most.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      Thank you. I looked the issue up and learned that legally copyright infringement is distinct from theft. I still think the term is a good inexact colloquial approximation. However, I couldn't find anything to support your assertion that copyright violation is a breach of contract. It doesn't make sense: breach of contract requires an agreed upon contract to be breached. Also, cite for the idea that copyright law hurts the poorest the most? Haven't seen that before.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        The contract part is probably poor wording on my part. The contract is between the government at the public in that there is no such thing as a natural protections against copying. So the government enforces an artificial period of time of sole ownership of something that otherwise cannot be owned. Single mom was sued for millions of dollars years ago because she put 40 songs (or some low number) on the Mule/Donkey file sharing network. She lost in court. If a multinational corporation got nailed for the same, they would have either made a deal, settled for a portion or just paid the loss. She could have stolen (theft) 40 cds from a store and the fines/punishment would have been miniscule. The percentage of income to punishment ratio is a travesty of justice. The imbalance is in the sheer overwhelming destruction of the law's punishments on those that infringe that are not rich and powerful. Consider the photographers that had their photos "copied" by Getty and used internationally. Or Facebook using a photographers photo without any compensation. What happened to Facebook and Getty? Nothing, (maybe some bad press?) because individuals can't afford to defend their copyrights. Edit: I am glad you looked into this, it's worth a deeper study at least once in a person's life.
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not convinced by the natural law argument because everything, including property law, falls apart if you look at it that way. I hadn't learned about either story, though, and your point that multinationals just negotiate it away is something I hadn't thought through.