The real cost of being sued by Getty

sobriquet wrote:
On 29 okt, 04:30, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 28 okt, 05:09, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 28 okt, 03:23, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 27 okt, 18:57, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 27 okt, 04:20, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Have you ever been able to get bitstrings from the ATM?

Yep.

Liar.

Shrug. *It's called a "reciept".

A receipt is not a bitstring. Humans denote numbers in the decimal
rather than the binary system.

An idiot's quibble. *A decimal string is wholly equivalent to a binary
string.

Well, either way, this is leading nowhere, as the receipt is not
intended
to represent the actual money

I didn't say that it was, crook.

Then what is your point?

Far beyond your immoral "intellect".

We don't use bitstrings to represent money,

Yes we do, crook. *Most of the world's money exists only as computer
data.

Not consumers, well, when they are internet banking. But apparently,
using bitstrings to represent money (as opposed to using bitstrings to

Spare us the whiny, self-serving crap.

You're a thief and, what's worse, you're a dishonest thief who doesn't
even have the courage to be honest about your crimes.

--
Ray Fischer

sobriquet wrote:
On 30 okt, 04:32, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
[.. drivel ..]

More drivel from the nazi cockroach.

The truth must have stung you since you chose to delete it all
and spew your sleazy lies.
--
Ray Fischer

On 2009-10-29 14:33:01 -0700, sobriquet said:

On 29 okt, 04:31, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 28 okt, 18:39, Walter Banks wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
But I guess the concept of a tax on information is beyond the
comprehension skills of a nazi cockroach like you.

If you want respect for you ideas then you will need to be
respectable.

If people refrain from calling people thieves in case they infringe
copyrights,

If you don't want to be called a thief then don't steal, crook.

If you don't want to be called a nazi cockroach, don't accuse people
of theft when they copy bitstrings.


Calling people thieves when they share information is demonization.

YOU ARE STEALING!

Nonsense. You can't steal if you don't take something away.
Steal this bitstring 1111010101011010000010101011100.
Go ahead. Make my day, you nazi cockroach.

Godwin having been trampled into the ...bitstream here, consider there
are others who are not happy about your philosophy.

You gave Pirate Bay as a source of "bitstrings" to steal, however you
should keep pace with the news.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10221666-93.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/...ut-netherlands
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ing-pirate-bay
http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-b...rities-090824/
http://www.macworld.com/article/1435...ebay_fine.html

It

seems there are some in Sweden and the Netherlands who do not agree with you.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2009-10-30 17:05:14 -0700, sobriquet said:

On 30 okt, 20:55, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-29 14:33:01 -0700, sobriquet said:





On 29 okt, 04:31, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 28 okt, 18:39, Walter Banks wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
But I guess the concept of a tax on information is beyond the
comprehension skills of a nazi cockroach like you.

If you want respect for you ideas then you will need to be
respectable.

If people refrain from calling people thieves in case they infringe
copyrights,

If you don't want to be called a thief then don't steal, crook.

If you don't want to be called a nazi cockroach, don't accuse people
of theft when they copy bitstrings.

Calling people thieves when they share information is demonization.

YOU ARE STEALING!

Nonsense. You can't steal if you don't take something away.
Steal this bitstring 1111010101011010000010101011100.
Go ahead. Make my day, you nazi cockroach.

Godwin having been trampled into the ...bitstream here, consider there
are others who are not happy about your philosophy.

You gave Pirate Bay as a source of "bitstrings" to steal, however you
should keep pace with the news.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-102....guardian.co.u
k/media/pda/2009/jul/31/pirate-bay-ordered-ou...http://www.guardian.co.uk/t
echnology/2009/sep/10/global-gaming-pirate...http://torrentfreak.com/the-pi
rate-bay-taken-offline-by-swedish-autho...http://www.macworld.com/article/1
43592/2009/10/piratebay_fine.html

It

seems there are some in Sweden and the Netherlands who do not agree with
you.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Sure. They try to take the piratebay offline. So far they have been
unsuccessful and the piratebay is just one of an unlimited number of
alternate sources for bitstrings.
Just because countries are opposed to a website (e.g. youtube being
blocked
in China or Iran), that doesn't imply that such a site is immoral.
It's just deemed unsuitable by the government, potentially under
influence of moral pressure groups or lobby groups (like Brein, the
organization that tries to stamp out copyright infringement by legally
harassing people who infringe copyrights too flagrantly).

It's a very common pattern that websites get harassed so much that
they have to move to another country. E.g. demonoid is a famous
private bittorrent site that was initially located in holland, then it
was harassed and they moved to canada and when they were harassed
there as well, they went to the Ukraine
and they are still there as far as I know (though they are temporarily
offline).

But all this doesn't detract from the fact that it's legal to download
most things (e.g. music, movies, books, etc..) for personal use, even
from an illegal source.

Actually it is not legal to do that, hence the law suits.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Mason Barge" snip

: : A good reason to avoid Getty like the plague.
: :
: : A good reason not to steal images.
: :
: : When a company uses that as an excuse to extort ridiculous fines from
: : people to employ lawyers then it's a good reason not to do business
: : with them.
: :
: : The fines only seem ridiculous to the thief.
: :
: : Demanding 10 times the usual fee for a low-res version of the
licensable
: : photo isn't ridiculous?
:
: Paying $1 to $3 per hour parking fee in a major city is not unreasonable
: provided you pay the fee in advance. Park without paying or with the
: expatiation of scuffing and you get hit with a much higher free (some
call
: it a boot fee) that can and often does run upward of $150.
:
: The principle is simple and legal, pay me now a fair and agreed upon fee
or
: pay me later a fee determined by the court. Your choice, pick one.
:
:
: The principle of law is actual damages. This wasn't a fine. There might
be a cause for punitive damages -- the
: information is insufficient to tell, but I'm betting they wouldn't apply
here.
:
: In the US at least, we have a pleading called an "offer of judgment". The
defendant can offer to pay damages of a
: certain amount. If the plaintiff insists on trial and does not get more
than the offer, he gets to pay all the
: attorneys' fees that accrue after the offer is made. It's just made to
prevent this kind of abuse.
:

I think you're confusing tort law with the more specialized copyright law.

As I've said we're very careful with our copyrights to the extent that we
file copyright registration on all work including work in progress and
concepts.

The few times we've needed to file with the court we've won on summery and
for what the court termed statuary damages plus cost regardless of any offer
to settle prior to court action. I might note that what you or I would
think of as a value locally or even regionally the court can award damages
based on a global determination of value.

Perhaps I should mention those that settled had legal representation who
practices IPR as a specialty those that went to court had your typical wills
and probate variety legal representation.

Of the little I've read of the filings by Getty by the time the case got to
court Getty itself has made what most, including the court, considered a
fair, for the time, settlement offer.

Like I said, pay me now or pay me later, your choice.

On 2009-10-30 17:45:39 -0700, sobriquet said:

On 31 okt, 01:07, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-30 17:05:14 -0700, sobriquet said:





On 30 okt, 20:55, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-29 14:33:01 -0700, sobriquet said:

On 29 okt, 04:31, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On 28 okt, 18:39, Walter Banks wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
But I guess the concept of a tax on information is beyond the
comprehension skills of a nazi cockroach like you.

If you want respect for you ideas then you will need to be
respectable.

If people refrain from calling people thieves in case they infringe
copyrights,

If you don't want to be called a thief then don't steal, crook.

If you don't want to be called a nazi cockroach, don't accuse people
of theft when they copy bitstrings.

Calling people thieves when they share information is demonization.

YOU ARE STEALING!

Nonsense. You can't steal if you don't take something away.
Steal this bitstring 1111010101011010000010101011100.
Go ahead. Make my day, you nazi cockroach.

Godwin having been trampled into the ...bitstream here, consider there
are others who are not happy about your philosophy.

You gave Pirate Bay as a source of "bitstrings" to steal, however you
should keep pace with the news.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10221666-93.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/...ut-netherlands
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ing-pirate-bay
http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-b...rities-090824/
http://www.macworld.com/article/1435...ebay_fine.html


it

seems there are some in Sweden and the Netherlands who do not agree with you.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Sure. They try to take the piratebay offline. So far they have been
unsuccessful and the piratebay is just one of an unlimited number of
alternate sources for bitstrings.
Just because countries are opposed to a website (e.g. youtube being
blocked
in China or Iran), that doesn't imply that such a site is immoral.
It's just deemed unsuitable by the government, potentially under
influence of moral pressure groups or lobby groups (like Brein, the
organization that tries to stamp out copyright infringement by legally
harassing people who infringe copyrights too flagrantly).

It's a very common pattern that websites get harassed so much that
they have to move to another country. E.g. demonoid is a famous
private bittorrent site that was initially located in holland, then it
was harassed and they moved to canada and when they were harassed
there as well, they went to the Ukraine
and they are still there as far as I know (though they are temporarily
offline).

But all this doesn't detract from the fact that it's legal to download
most things (e.g. music, movies, books, etc..) for personal use, even
from an illegal source.

Actually it is not legal to do that, hence the law suits.

That concerns the supply side. There have been no law suits against
individual downloaders for downloading from an illegal source.

Maybe not in European Courts yet, but it has happened in the US, and it
seems it will happen in Europe if the trend continues. There are
European Musicians, artists, photographers and software developers who
are trying to make a living, and their Courts are listening to them.

Certainly downloading is legal. What is illegal is not paying for
digital music, image, artwork, or software the developer or creator has
placed a value on. That is theft as you are depriving the
creator/developer of the value he/she has placed on the unapproved
download.

Just because you have a method of stealing does not make it morally
right. Your are still a thief.


--
Regards,

Savageduck