FOX Group Legal claims DCMA for showing a "The Simpsons mug"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by takao21203, Feb 8, 2014.

  1. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    Today I found a notice FOX Legal Group has claimed a DCMA infringement.

    Here is the URL where this is supposed to happen:

    http://aranna.altervista.org/dragonsnest/tag/the-simpsons/

    They claim about 1000 URLs

    Seriously, The Simpsons are on Television for quite a long while.
    By showing a mug, which actually is a household item for drinking, I infringe copyright?

    Or I cause damage to FOX- because they could make money by showing a mug with The Simpsons?

    Here the claim filed by FOX Legal Group
    http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=1471135
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  2. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,866
    990
    No the fact is they are making money off of something that the did not create and did not pay a license.


    I don't see anything wrong with someone protecting their intellectual property,
     
    nsaspook likes this.
  3. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    ? Who is "they"?

    Maybe the mug is counterfeit?

    These discount shops are around for years, selling a lot of Disney stuff. Can they really do this for years successfully? Sell counterfeit goods?
     
  4. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,866
    990
    Of course it is counterfeit. That is the whole point of the lawsuit by Fox. :rolleyes:
     
    nsaspook likes this.
  5. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    ? Lawsuit

    It is a DCMA notice to remove the URLs from search.

    So here is how to make it illegal for people to take photos from you: Wear a counterfeit tshirt!

    Seriously. If you show some photo where a nike logo can be seen, do you infringe copyright under the DCMA?

    (by the way most of these DPRK goods are counterfeit- Louis Vutton handbags and stuff).
     
  6. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    Maybe I will become handcuffed soon for scraping a Visual C++ 6.0 (Year 2000 technology) ebook from a website?

    My argumentation is I bought many books, and I always want the topics available online. I paid 2000 euro for computer books, and that's my share for the time being.
     
  7. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    834
    417
    It's still stealing though.

    Just because you've bought 2000 euros worth of food doesn't mean you can swipe some food from the supermarket.
     
    Robin Mitchell and nsaspook like this.
  8. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    It is not the same.

    Most of these older books are no longer sold.

    Even newer one's can be quite hard to find in shops- out of print. With some luck, you can find them on Amazon.
     
  9. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    834
    417
    It is stealing.

    Out of print does not mean public domain. The publishers reserve the right to re-print editions later on. So although they are not printing the book now, they could reprint next week, next year, next decade. With technical books, it wouldn't make much sense, but that is how it is.
     
    Robin Mitchell likes this.
  10. Georacer

    Moderator

    Nov 25, 2009
    5,142
    1,266
    As a side note, the definition and legal standing of abandonware is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

    The internet often evolves faster than real life. However, remember that we live very real lives and are bound to its quirks.
     
    Sparky49 likes this.
  11. Sparky49

    Active Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    834
    417
    Who hasn't been tempted to just download an old piece of software? :D
     
  12. THE_RB

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 11, 2008
    5,435
    1,305
    Stealing requires that the rightful owner loses something, and the thief gains it.

    Technology has raised a few grey areas.

    If you bought a Ferrari, and I happened to own the right technology, and i walked past your Ferrari where you parked it and pressed a button and a perfect copy of your Ferrari appeared in my garage... Did I steal your Ferrari?

    And the answer is NO, I didn't steal it, I COPIED it. You did not lose your Ferrari, nobody did. My Ferrari appeared out of thin air. ;)
     
  13. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,907
    2,165
    What you 'stole' was the value of 'Ferrari' R&D and engineering. The actual cost of making that car might be high but the 'IP' that created the first Ferrari and all models up to the one that was copied is much more valuable and should be protected so people will continue to invest long term money for future income derived from possible products. There is a huge amount of sham software and design patents that should be scrapped but real products need solid protection.
     
  14. Metalmann

    Active Member

    Dec 8, 2012
    700
    223
    I always wondered why there are so many Torrent sites on the Web?

    If you download anything, is that stealing?:D
     
  15. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,866
    990
    You did not steal from me you stole from Ferrari.

    If I went to your site and purchased your talking robot. Copied it and started selling it as my own, did I steal? Np I paid for it and just sold copies. :) Of course that is about absurd as the Ferrari analogy.

    And you really do live in an alternate universe don't you? It would probably take several life times before I would afford a Ferrari. Of course you did say "if". And I guess purchasing has nothing to do with being able to afford something. Sadly too many people today have no understanding of that concept.
     
  16. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,866
    990
    Yes it is.
     
  17. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    that is all interesting but does not help me to understand how FOX can claim infringement just for a photo of a Simpsons mug.

    It is like if you show a photo where you wear Nike, they claim copyright.

    Isn't having a mug at home (it's not offered for sale) domestic use as intended for these kinds of items?
     
  18. t06afre

    AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    It is not the picture they dislike. It is the text you put under it.
    It my look as you are sellings these mugs for 1.5 Euro from your site. Just remove this text and you will be fine I guess
     
  19. spinnaker

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 29, 2009
    4,866
    990
    It is their image, They have the right to dictate how it will be used.

    And you are selling a knockoff mug. You will be sued and charged with copyright infringement if Fox decides to go after you.

    You are breaking the law. Don't whine if you have to face the consequences.
     
  20. takao21203

    Thread Starter Distinguished Member

    Apr 28, 2012
    3,577
    463
    I have a right to use it domestically as intended in an unvettered way including to take a picture for non-commercial purpose.

    There is no direct sales offer or any sales option, like a link to ebay, ot a suggestion to contact.

    It is not proven that it is knock-off. I bought it in a regular chain shop, not from car booth sales.
     
Loading...