If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
On 24-May-18 10:25 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 18:40:04 UTC+1, David B. wrote: On 23-May-18 12:48 AM, Savageduck wrote: Dropbox is on a server. However, with macOS at least, one also has a local Dropbox folder, and that folder, along with all the sub-folders, and files are visible in the Finder. Are you sure that is supposed to happen? Who puts that local Dropbox folder onto your Mac? I have, I didn't want to, but just tried it out. Thanks for letting me know. Did you grant permission for that? Most people do have permissions to do things on their own computer. Of course! :-D -- D. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
On 2018-05-24 11:05:33 +0000, David B. said:
On 24-May-18 10:25 AM, Whisky-dave wrote: On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 18:40:04 UTC+1, David B. wrote: On 23-May-18 12:48 AM, Savageduck wrote: Dropbox is on a server. However, with macOS at least, one also has a local Dropbox folder, and that folder, along with all the sub-folders, and files are visible in the Finder. Are you sure that is supposed to happen? Who puts that local Dropbox folder onto your Mac? I have, I didn't want to, but just tried it out. Thanks for letting me know. Did you grant permission for that? Most people do have permissions to do things on their own computer. Of course! :-D And you're a superuser admin, right? -- teleportation kills |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Nicely done image. The green reflections in the grill add a mysterious and abstract look. I hope you are still doing that kind of work. But according to nospam (not that you should always listen to hine ;-) ) savageduck is guilty of theft because he has uploaded an image to a server that he doesn't own. Although I doubt savageduck cares much he he is more likely to understand the law more than most on here especially nospam appears to. he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants with it. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Nicely done image. The green reflections in the grill add a mysterious and abstract look. I hope you are still doing that kind of work. But according to nospam (not that you should always listen to hine ;-) ) savageduck is guilty of theft because he has uploaded an image to a server that he doesn't own. Although I doubt savageduck cares much he he is more likely to understand the law more than most on here especially nospam appears to. he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants with it. He can do whatever he wants with it but you're claim is that adobe can't have backup software that copies this file to their servers because copying is theft and illegal. I don't know if SD uses any other backup service that bakc up to an online system that he doesn't own. his agreeing to adobe's terms of service grants them a non-exclusive license to make copies because that is going to happen between their own servers. it's not so that adobe can repost photos elsewhere without permission. The other instresting thing about nicknames is does savageduck own it, I assume the copyright info is in his own name. it is. As I was explaing to DB savageducks copyright on that image is for fair use, just because he copies it, that in itself is NOT an illegal act, what SD could do is claim copyright infringment in that DB has uploaded it to a public server FB without SD's permission, but I don't think SD could use the charge of theft and that is the point. it's his image and he gets to decide how it can be distributed and what remedies he wants to pursue should anyone infringe upon it. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
On 2018-05-24 15:32:00 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal. As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a differnce. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. In local terminology but not in practice... -- teleportation kills |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants with it. He can do whatever he wants with it but you're claim is that adobe can't have backup software that copies this file to their servers because copying is theft and illegal. I don't know if SD uses any other backup service that bakc up to an online system that he doesn't own. his agreeing to adobe's terms of service grants them a non-exclusive license to make copies because that is going to happen between their own servers. it's not so that adobe can repost photos elsewhere without permission. Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal. As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a differnce. not one that matters. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. theft of physical property and theft of intellectual property are different, but again, it isn't anything that matters in this context. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
On Thu, 24 May 2018 08:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote: On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:18:04 UTC+1, nospam wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: Nicely done image. The green reflections in the grill add a mysterious and abstract look. I hope you are still doing that kind of work. But according to nospam (not that you should always listen to hine ;-) ) savageduck is guilty of theft because he has uploaded an image to a server that he doesn't own. Although I doubt savageduck cares much he he is more likely to understand the law more than most on here especially nospam appears to. he took the photo, so he *does* own it and can do whatever he wants with it. He can do whatever he wants with it but you're claim is that adobe can't have backup software that copies this file to their servers because copying is theft and illegal. I don't know if SD uses any other backup service that bakc up to an online system that he doesn't own. his agreeing to adobe's terms of service grants them a non-exclusive license to make copies because that is going to happen between their own servers. it's not so that adobe can repost photos elsewhere without permission. Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal. As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a differnce. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. "His overall argument, however, is that there's nothing wrong with calling copyright infringement theft, because beyond the legal definition, it accurately shows how people feel about having works infringed, and that's useful to the debate on these issues:" The other instresting thing about nicknames is does savageduck own it, I assume the copyright info is in his own name. it is. As I was explaing to DB savageducks copyright on that image is for fair use, just because he copies it, that in itself is NOT an illegal act, what SD could do is claim copyright infringment in that DB has uploaded it to a public server FB without SD's permission, but I don't think SD could use the charge of theft and that is the point. it's his image and he gets to decide how it can be distributed and what remedies he wants to pursue should anyone infringe upon it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
On 2018-05-25 09:51:11 +0000, Dense Dave AKA Whisky-dave said:
On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:37:31 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-05-24 15:32:00 +0000, Whisky-dave said: Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal. As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a differnce. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. In local terminology but not in practice... and in practice, otherwise they;d be no need for a copyright law just charge anyone that copies with theft. Punitive damages sees no difference between theft and "infringement". You're wrong yet again... -- teleportation kills |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. theft of physical property and theft of intellectual property are different, but again, it isn't anything that matters in this context. The reason you don't think it matter because you don't understand it. oh yes i do, *far* more than you do. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Super Bokeh with Yongnuo!
On 2018-05-25 13:34:29 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Friday, 25 May 2018 12:13:08 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-05-25 09:51:11 +0000, Dense Dave AKA Whisky-dave said: On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:37:31 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-05-24 15:32:00 +0000, Whisky-dave said: Yes I know that what I was saying, it;s notn the copying that is illegal. As you say it's the reposting of something without permission that would break the law, and if adobe should do that without permission they would NOT be charged with theft but something to do with copyright. There's a differnce. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...13210998.shtml In Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. In local terminology but not in practice... and in practice, otherwise they;d be no need for a copyright law just charge anyone that copies with theft. Punitive damages sees no difference between theft and "infringement". You're wrong yet again... Irrelivant we had Punitive Damages in the uk about 100 years before the USA. Long before copyright existed. You don't undrestand the meaning of punitive obviously... -- teleportation kills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon Mount Yongnuo 100/2.0 for Christmas? | android | Digital Photography | 0 | June 7th 17 04:58 PM |
Yongnuo 100/2.0 for Christmas? | android | Digital Photography | 0 | June 7th 17 04:56 PM |
Good bokeh? Bad bokeh? | Pablo | Digital Photography | 84 | July 15th 12 08:07 AM |