4 ms·

> copyright violation I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no b

by rakoo 13y ago

> copyright violation I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here. However, there is a clear breach on privacy rights, and I'm scared no one in the article or here seems to think that this is the reason why Moore should be prosecuted. The author says than more than half of her contacts are on the site against their own will, for something that is private to their life. That alone is not OK. Copyrights have nothing to do here.

Nursie 13y ago
>> I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here. This is factually incorrect. There is copyright on any and all creations unless explicitly licensed otherwise. This is under the Berne convention. In the US you can register copyrighted works but only to access the higher punitive damages for infringement. It became the law in the US that all works were auto-copyrighted when the Berne convention was signed into law. >> Copyrights have nothing to do here. They do, it's stolen* works that are not licensed to the site, and as the escalation of penalties under copyright law has been so huge recently, it may be the best weapon to take these people down. *(I don't usually like the use of the word "steal" or "stolen" in conjunction with copyright, but where it involves actually breaking in to people's mail accounts and taking things I don't necessarily think it's inaccurate)
- rakoo 13y ago
  Yeah, I was more stating what I think should be the norm (copyright is opt-in, not opt-out). Under the current system, this is clearly copyright violation... but why is it the first thing that comes to mind to build a defense ? How come there is a process for rapidly defending your copyrights, and not something similar for your private life ? Of course I know the answers. I'm just sad about that.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    I agree with most of your comment, except for the opt-in part. If I send you a picture of my vacation, I'm not giving you unlimited license to profit from it as you please. In the case in question the picture wasn't even published or sent to another individual, so various computer breaking-and-entering laws would also apply to the perp that did that, but for people that get stuff from them and re-publish... I guess we could have a digital equivalent of a handling stolen goods charge, but copyright seems as good a law as any - there is no permission to copy.

by rakoo 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

>> I tend to be on the opinion that all forms of art are in the public domain by default, unless explicitely stated. So, there would be no breach of copyright here. This is factually incorrect. There is copyright on any and all creations unless explicitly licensed otherwise. This is under the Berne convention. In the US you can register copyrighted works but only to access the higher punitive damages for infringement. It became the law in the US that all works were auto-copyrighted when the Berne convention was signed into law. >> Copyrights have nothing to do here. They do, it's stolen* works that are not licensed to the site, and as the escalation of penalties under copyright law has been so huge recently, it may be the best weapon to take these people down. *(I don't usually like the use of the word "steal" or "stolen" in conjunction with copyright, but where it involves actually breaking in to people's mail accounts and taking things I don't necessarily think it's inaccurate)

rakoo 13y ago
Yeah, I was more stating what I think should be the norm (copyright is opt-in, not opt-out). Under the current system, this is clearly copyright violation... but why is it the first thing that comes to mind to build a defense ? How come there is a process for rapidly defending your copyrights, and not something similar for your private life ? Of course I know the answers. I'm just sad about that.
- Nursie 13y ago
  I agree with most of your comment, except for the opt-in part. If I send you a picture of my vacation, I'm not giving you unlimited license to profit from it as you please. In the case in question the picture wasn't even published or sent to another individual, so various computer breaking-and-entering laws would also apply to the perp that did that, but for people that get stuff from them and re-publish... I guess we could have a digital equivalent of a handling stolen goods charge, but copyright seems as good a law as any - there is no permission to copy.