Rear Window 500/8 Mirror

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


You're publicising something

Uploading to a server is NOT publicising.

it is when the server is public, but more importantly, it's a copy,
whether it's uploaded or a das.

Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged with
theft.

backing up is exempt in specific cases, such as for software.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

You're publicising something

Uploading to a server is NOT publicising.

it is when the server is public, but more importantly, it's a copy,
whether it's uploaded or a das.

Just because it's a copy does not make it illegal. If that were true then
backups and archives(machine readable) would be illegal.

software backups are exempt.

Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged with
theft.

backing up is exempt in specific cases, such as for software.

Why is it ?, if you don;t understand that is why you are getting it worng.
Basically theft requires that the perosn that owns the item stole no longer
has the use of it. This is easy to work out when it;s a camera, but when
it;'s an image how does someone else copying it stop the owner from having or
using it.

theft of intellectual property.

That is why you can't appy thesft to software or music either.

the riaa and mpaa will disagree with that.

On 2018-05-24 12:23:45 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 10:34:01 UTC+1, android wrote:
On 2018-05-24 09:16:59 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 17:01:34 UTC+1, android wrote:
On 2018-05-23 12:51:19 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

Uploading isn't stealing .

In extenso then It sure is.

what is extenso ?

In extenso... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20extenso

Unless you have secured the rights to the
material.

Not true

Believe me, it is...

I woundn;t believe that any mmore than yuor infra red image or the
'faulty' T2 adaptor.


You're publicising something

Uploading to a server is NOT publicising.

It sure is if you're making it available to the public...

Not all servers are open to the public.
If yuo;re uploading to a public server with the aim to share a file or
image without teh ownsers consent then that is illegal it;s still not
actual theft, but that is why copyright came into being because theft
wasnlt a sutable charge.
That's why those that do get charged with copyright infringment and NOT theft.

Just because you donlt understand the differnce the law does.




Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged
with theft.

Depending what it sthat they are backing up...

exactly, so here we see it's the intention rarher than just the act.


that you don't own for your own
purposes. Quotations are different

You are allowed to backup what ever is on you computer or tablet.

As long as you have the right to have it on it...

That is meaningless.
When peolpe take backups those backups backup evertything from the
applications or programs you use to images you've seen on-line even if
yuo don't own them they will get backup up.
I don;t own the BBC website or the images on it but when backing up
those files are backed up and I don't won them that doesn't make me
guilty of theft.

Whoshh, or something...
--
teleportation kills

On May 24, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it on a
server for others to download that is exempt ?

NO. If you read, and understand the EULA for the software, and understand the
copyright for the music, you will discover that you do not have the right, or
license to freely distribute anything you have stored on any server. If you
do, you are stealing from the copyright holders. You would be potentially
subject litigation by the developers of the software, copyright holders,
and/or the owners of the distribution rights of the music.

There is a big difference between a personal backup copy for fair use, and
distributing copies, even if you give them away. If you do that you are
denying the copyright holders income they are intitled to. The result is
effectively theft.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

You're publicising something

Uploading to a server is NOT publicising.

it is when the server is public, but more importantly, it's a copy,
whether it's uploaded or a das.

Just because it's a copy does not make it illegal. If that were true then
backups and archives(machine readable) would be illegal.

software backups are exempt.

So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it on a
server for others to download that is exempt ?

It's not you know. Backups are copying.

exactly why there's an exemption for backups.

Otherwise everyone that backed up to a cloud service would be charged
with
theft.

backing up is exempt in specific cases, such as for software.

Why is it ?, if you don;t understand that is why you are getting it worng.
Basically theft requires that the perosn that owns the item stole no
longer
has the use of it. This is easy to work out when it;s a camera, but when
it;'s an image how does someone else copying it stop the owner from
having or
using it.

theft of intellectual property.

No copyright infringement.

yes copyright infringement.

if you copy something for which you do not have the copyright and do
not have permission from the person or entity who does, you are guilty
of copyright infringement. fair use is a *defense* against infringement
and is not a given.

That is why you can't appy thesft to software or music either.

the riaa and mpaa will disagree with that.

They aren't the law.

they follow it, although some might disagree with their overly
aggressive tactics.

On 25-May-18 10:49 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
davidB took SD's image that SD voluntarily shared knowing full well that is could be copied under the standard T&Cs that are creative commons license which DOES allow copying.

Morning Dave! :-)

I need a reminder! Are you referring to the image of Savageduck's Cheetah?

If so, I did not 'take' the image, I simple shared a link provided by
Savageduck which enabled folk to view the image in Savageduck's Dropbox
folder. He's since chosen to withdraw that privilege, as is his right.

--
David B.

On May 25, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Thursday, 24 May 2018 16:48:23 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On May 24, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it
on a server for others to download that is exempt ?

NO. If you read, and understand the EULA for the software, and understand
the copyright for the music, you will discover that you do not have the right,
or license to freely distribute anything you have stored on any server.

True but that is irrespective of whether or not it is on a server.
Duplicating a CD or vinyl record, a perfume, a handbag, a pair of trainers or
any object and selling it on or even giving it away is illegal.

If you do, you are stealing from the copyright holders. You would be potentially
subject litigation by the developers of the software, copyright holders,
and/or the owners of the distribution rights of the music.

Yes I know, but it doesn't rely on 'servers' servers have nothing to do with
whether it is legal or not.


There is a big difference between a personal backup copy for fair use,

See you said fair use which is why I said, backing up is a fair use so not
illegal if I then hand my backup to those that want to give me money for my
backup or I just share that backup with other whether I allow them to copy my
backup or I put it on the a server then it becomes illegal.
It is what I do not what I have.

distributing copies,

yes so you do agree with me it's what you do or the intention sucg as sharing
on a p2p system.

even if you give them away. If you do that you are
denying the copyright holders income they are intitled to. The result is
effectively theft.

Yes effectively theft but not theft otherwise we wouldn't need copyright.

I believe you use an old version of Photoshop, read the EULA, and try to
understand what is being said.

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services
without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the
lawful owner of it.

For theft you have to deprive someone, if yuo still someone data which is
what were talking about you are NOT depriving them of it.

If you sell or give away copies of software you are licensed to use, or music
you have bought, you are copyright holders, or music license holders of the
income that intellectual property would, or should have generated for them.
You are only licensed for personal use, not to redistribute, if you do, you
are violating the EULA, and depriving the copyright owners of a sale. That is
no different from shoplifting, ergo theft. They are then entitled to legal
recourse.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 25, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 25 May 2018 11:06:23 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 25-May-18 10:49 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
davidB took SD's image that SD voluntarily shared knowing full well that
is could be copied under the standard T&Cs that are creative commons
license which DOES allow copying.

Morning Dave! :-)

Afternoon :-)


I need a reminder! Are you referring to the image of Savageduck's Cheetah?

Yes, as I assume that is an appropriate description of the image.

If so, I did not 'take' the image, I simple shared a link provided by
Savageduck which enabled folk to view the image in Savageduck's Dropbox
folder.

Yes, so I don't know how that is classed as a theft by some on here.
Perhaps they could explain, but don't hold your breathe.

If you viewed it then it would be in some cache file and if you backed up
your computer theres a chance that image would be backed up too and perhaps
stored on a server, owned by a company. That isnlt theft either.

He's since chosen to withdraw that privilege, as is his right.

Yes and I understand why, it's not you he doesn't trust as such but he
doesn't know what someone outside this NG might use this image for, especaily
when placed on facebook or similar site(s) which neither you or SD has any
control over.

We would all like to be in control of our image(s).

Aah! You seem to get it.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Duplicating a CD or vinyl record,

copying a cd or vinyl record to another type of media, such as a
cassette to be used in a vehicle by the same person, is generally *not*
illegal (although it can be).

a perfume, a handbag, a pair of trainers or
any object and selling it on or even giving it away is illegal.

those aren't data.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Just because it's a copy does not make it illegal. If that were true
then backups and archives(machine readable) would be illegal.

software backups are exempt.

So if I keep my music backups or perhaps old software backups and put it
on a server for others to download that is exempt ?

It's not you know. Backups are copying.

exactly why there's an exemption for backups.

Depending how yuo define backups.

normal definition.

A sI know someone that has in the past before netflix, that used to backup
all his films on to HD, then erase that HD, and then sell them on ebay for
4-5 the price of a brand new HD. They were adversied as HD that had films on
them mostly recent films and delete.

Are you claiming that this was OK because they were backups ?

that is very clearly not a backup.

Now what if yuo store that same data on a server as this happened here and
vivaldi contacted the college telling us that a someone they gave us the IP
had been sharing a new film via bittorrent. Thestudent ssaid he was not
sharing it but just keeping it here as a bacup, of course what this studetn
didnlt understand was that while downloading it was also sharing/uploading
and that is how it was detected.

also very clearly not a backup.




fair use is a *defense* against infringement
and is not a given.

And fair use allows copying.

you don't understand fair use, among many other things.

if you copy something and the owner claims you have infringed on his
copyright, you can cite fair use as a defense and hope the judge
agrees. if not, you're liable for the infringement as well as the legal
fees.